"USS Squall Fires Warning Shots at Iranians" Topic

Yesterday, the USS Squall, which was sailing with another US vessel, and a Kuwaiti one, in the Northern "Arabian Gulf", was confronted by an Iranian Fast Attack Craft of unspecified type and size.

Apparently, similar to the day before, the vessel acted erratically, and failed to respond to radio hails, and the firing of flares, etc..

Supposedly, it closed within 200 yds. of the US vessel, at which time, it's captain, feeling threatened, had his crew fire off three warning shots at the Iranian vessel.

That is the last action to warn and ward off vessels, before they are engaged in combat.

This info is based upon a newsflash from Barbara Starr, reporting for CNN. You can see her report here, and the link on this other TMP article, since I was unable to find it on-line, yet:

TMP link

Appears that the Iranians, flush with new cash, want to play a dangerous game in the local waters of the region there.

Well it is their backyard and I'm going to get they can act the fool like this without leaving their waters….or what they regard as their waters.

Not sure I'd have left it until 200m though….

That is interesting. I did not realize that the cyclone class patrol vessels were even operational at this date. Their lifespan was only 15 years. And they had been suffering from structural cracks due to age.

Good for them! It's about time someone put them in their place. Should fired the warning shots through their bow instead of acrossed it!

Like I posted on the other thread, the Iranians are ranging US vessels. They now know wewpons free engagement range is at 200 yds.

The Cyclone class of PBs were refitted somehow and all transferred to the Gulf. At 331tons, they are the most capable US craft available to engage Iranian fast attack swarms.

From Wiki:

Armament:
2 × MK 38 25 mm autocannon
5 × .50 caliber machine guns
2 × MK 19 40 mm automatic grenade launchers
2 × M240B machine guns
6 × FIM-92 Stinger SAMs
2 × MK-60 quadruple BGM-176B Griffin B missile launchers[1]

That may be an interesting "war game" ? USN Cyclones vs. IRGC speed boats.

Been researching them for months now. Waiting for final shipment of 1/700 Boghammars from ptdockyard while I paint my Cyclones!

Let us know how it works out … My $$$$ is on the USN … of course …

Apparently, there were three incidents on Wednesday, in addition to the one the previous day, though I don't have more details on the others.

Saw a text posting at the bottom of the TV screen mentioning that.

That's scary.

Maybe they were trying to get the US ship to fire on them, so they'd be justified doing something else that was all primed and ready to go.

200M is plenty close enough to do a lot of things, giving the US ship little time to react.

The US has transferred a *lot* of money to Iran in the past few weeks. What the heck? Is this a rogue unit trying to throw a money wrench in the works?

Let's hope this is all there is to the story.

"The US has transferred a *lot* of money to Iran in the past few weeks. What the heck?"

Maybe they were just trying to deliver a receipt for the $1.5 USD Billion payment. LOL!

$1.7 USD billion.

Those extra billions do add up, dontcha' know…

Back of the envelope…

A patrol boat can do 30mph or 1/2 mile per minute. a mile is 1760 yards, so a patrol boat could be going 830 yards/minute. That means 200 yards is less than 15 seconds.

Now the PB could have been going 20 mph or approaching at an angle or swerving back and forth, and the US ship could be moving as well. The point is the Iranian ship was no longer "over there", it was "right here". They could have been ten seconds from setting off a boat full of explosives and destroying the USS Squall.

I think we should pause to be impressed by the courage of the captain and crew to keep their heads and neither run nor cause an unnecessary incident. Great work!

Problem is that when you get within 1000 yards, CIWS can't really engage effectively against anything they
launch, -and the Iranians know that they can launch their missiles at 200-300 yards.

Suicide boats? No. Those fast boats looked to be armed with copycat TOWs. Other versions have torpedos, 122mm rockets plus a medly of Russian & Chinese SSMs.

Not sure I'd have left it until 200m though….

ROEs may not have given much latitude. I know my ROEs didn't give me any wiggle-room for small-boats trying to get close (and no, I'm not going to say what they were, even 15 years ago now).

Right.

USN should issue new ROEs in Gulf for watercraft to maintain at least 1,000m distance.

And to those naysayers claiming that this would be impossible and would impede maritime transit: the narrowest point of the Strait of Hormuz is 54km (29miles) wide.

Well I know some will blame the US for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. But regardless the IRGC are being very provocative and certainly looking for trouble. One way or another.

I think we should pause to be impressed by the courage of the captain and crew to keep their heads and neither run nor cause an unnecessary incident. Great work!

I agree totally. Especially after the poor showing of those 2 USN Boats that just surrendered. Violating an number of standing orders etc. This incident may have only emboldened the IRGC. According to the News, this type of IRGC "attacks" is up by 50% from last year. If I heard the report correctly.

Along with the "sweetheart" nuc deal the US leadership gave to the Iranians. They know they can play hardball with the US. And at worst they may suffer is harshly worded comments from the US …

They received a 15th payment of $10.4 USD Million for unspecified reasons, too.

I think any vessels within 2 NMs should be warned, and if they don't veer off within 1 NM, engaged enthusiastically with kinetic ordnance. 5 NM and 2 NM, respectively, would be even better, in order to give our vessels a little room to maneuver, and more time for their crews to react.

In the age of suicide boats, not to mention various other weapons, letting them get closer is tantamount to suicide.

The attack on the USS Cole should have demonstrated that.

No doubt, the commander's/captain's hands are tied though, with overly restrictive rules of engagement.

The Iranians have lots of little torpedo/missile/rocket boats too, and all can be very dangerous.

This is the thanks we get for rescuing their sailors in the region, in the recent past. With suicide bombings and other tricks going on, perhaps it's time to reassess those mercy missions as well, since they put USN crews in far too much danger of attack.

Time to let the Iranians fund their own coast guard rescue vessels, and keep our personnel from risking their lives to help our enemies.

I think we should pause to be impressed by the courage of the captain and crew to keep their heads and neither run nor cause an unnecessary incident. Great work!

Not to belittle the servicemembers of the USN, but I would say that this is just how professionals handle crisis. Having the discipline to not shoot at everything is a mark of their professionalism and what separates them from other navies of that region.

That cowardly Lt. Nartker that surrendered his command without even a gesture of resistance is the aberration, not the norm. The actions of the USN should not be based off-of this one incidence of cowardice, failure to command and dereliction of duty.

This is the thanks we get for rescuing their sailors in the region, in the recent past. With suicide bombings and other tricks going on, perhaps it's time to reassess those mercy missions as well, since they put USN crews in far too much danger of attack.

Time to let the Iranians fund their own coast guard rescue vessels, and keep our personnel from risking their lives to help our enemies.

I have to disagree. The "laws of the seas" state that you always have to go help another mariner when they are in trouble. Doesn't matter what country or flag they may fly. This favor may be returned one day to you and your ship/boat.

That horrible people wish to ignore or abuse this "code" should not separate us from our humanity. The fact that the USN goes out of the way to help sailors in trouble, no matter what nationality, is what separates us from barbarity.

Sorry, but I don't think it's wise to give suicidal people, or suicide bombers a "hug", or aid, just to maintain our humanity so they can embrace and demonstrate their barbarity.

Not to belittle the servicemembers of the USN, but I would say that this is just how professionals handle crisis. Having the discipline to not shoot at everything is a mark of their professionalism and what separates them from other navies of that region

I agree … that is how it is done at this point. And yes, Nartker is an aberration … Something like that won't happen again, not anytime soon. I'd think …

The "laws of the seas" state that you always have to go help another mariner when they are in trouble.

That's not "laws of the sea" in air quotes, that's Law of the Sea as a formal international treaty.

And you *always* respond to a request for aid, regardless of the Law, because the next time it might be your ass in trouble. Even if you're in a submarine, you respond to a distress call.

Is there anything necessarily hostile in this action?

I mean how does it differ from a US sub making dummy attack runs on a ship for training purposes?

It could simply be the Iranians are practising drills.

If I had to guess it would be that their real target is an al-Riyadh class frigate….

It is the same as the Russians or Chinese buzzing USN vessels and/or aircraft. It is not only considered unsafe, but threatening. Not to mention unprofessional, etc. … But in this case we don't want to have another USS Cole incident. Which not only damaged her hull but killed and wounded many Sailors. It is well known they are not "practicing". And again with fanatics like the IRGC, they are more than happy "to go down with their boat". And kill some infidels like their arch enemy "the Great Satan", the USA.

Bottom line the US does not want to risk losing any Sailors … Would anyone here want to take that risk if one of your sons or daughters were aboard those USN vessels ?

The USS Cole wasn't bombed by the Iranians but by their enemies….

I can understand nervousness, and it would be better for the Iranians to behave themselves.

But unfortunately the nation with a tragic reputation for being tirgger-happy in that region isn't the Iranians.

They're annoying and they're worrying but they do seem to be professional.

Much more so than their Saudi adversaries.

But unfortunately the nation with a tragic reputation for being tirgger-happy in that region isn't the Iranians.

Stu,
That nation would be Britain.

Just since WWII, your country had been involved in military ventures in Isreal/Palestine, Egypt, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, Persia/Iran, Saudia Arabia and all in the interest of colonialism, profiteering, regime change and supporting tyranny. It was this military adventurism and subsequent collapse of the Brittish Empire that drew in the USA to try and stabilize the mess that failed colonialism left in its wake.

Same with Africa and Asia.

Look inwards rather than point fingers.

The USS Cole wasn't bombed by the Iranians but by their enemies….

WE all know that … but one thing many in both islamic sects have is their distain for the infidel. I.e. the USA and Israel along with many other non-islamic states. The fact is regardless which islamic sect rammed the Cole, the point is we don't want that to happen again. No matter who is behind the wheel or rudder. Which ever it is or was is the immediate "enemy"/threat.

But unfortunately the nation with a tragic reputation for being tirgger-happy in that region isn't the Iranians.

Again if the US was trigger happy, many islamists in the region would Not be a threat. Once again your POV is greatly skewed and anti-US centric. Again …

They're annoying and they're worrying but they do seem to be professional.

Professional compared to who ? Daesh ? AQ ?

And reread cw's post a few times … so you may "get it". "People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones", as the saying goes … Look in the mirror first … again …

cwlinsj,

While we in TMP could debate Pre and Post WWII British policy in the Middle East, the American war aim in WWII of breaking up the British Empire, or even American colonialism itself, I think the question is, who does your average middle eastern person think is gung ho and trigger happy?

These days, I suspect it wouldn't be the UK…45 years ago, perhaps, but for most people these days in the region, it's the US, the British Army isn't big enough to be noticed…

Damn warmongering bloodthirsty Yankee Cowboys !!!!

the American war aim in WWII of breaking up the British Empire

I thought it was to defeat the Axis Powers ? Who knew !?!?

Hi Legion,

perhaps I phrased it badly. 'policy aim' may be better than 'war aim' which implies force.

Yankee cowboys? I thought that was two different areas of the US? Much like a Scouse Geordie? :)

Well I can't speak for the overall US war aims. I was not there. But my Dad was … but he was just a "Grunt". Like I became decades later. Regardless of his advice to do otherwise !

And if you are in the North … like me … you are a Yankee Cowboy. If in the South you are a Rebel Cowboy … But I think you Brits/Redcoats just call us all in the USA – "Yanks" ?

I mean how does it differ from a US sub making dummy attack runs on a ship for training purposes?

By being several thousand yards closer, and by not responding to radio calls asking What The Hell the boat thought it was doing.

With a sufficiently large ship like a VLCC, deep-draft container ship, or aircraft carrier, a submarine's practice approach would start some 30,000 yards out and END about 2000 yards out. If a sub ever got an interrogative Whiskey Tango Foxtrot in a practice approach, that's a pretty good sign that you've been detected and are therefore "dead".

It is still however a potentially hostile act, no?

NO … It is not provocative … It's clearly training …

Hey Bindon Blood,

I'm not debating British policy. I was laying out the facts of British involvement in the Middle East. My postings are typically based on facts. Something a person here ignores.

Direct results of failed European colonialism is why we have such a mess in the Middle East today. The collapse of British imperialism is why the UK no longer can afford a sizable military.

Whether or not Middle Easterners hate Americans more or less than the Brits has absolutely nothing to do with members here with personal agendas against the USA and who take every opportunity to attack my country.

If we want to go all the way back to the end of WWI. The US President wanted to stop colonialism … But many of the Western Europe Powers who won the war. Saw it differently. That was the first step to what is going on in the Mid East currently. And it seemed it just went down hill after that it appears …

Well, it's also assumed that every submarine will be doing this kind of thing, and that as soon as you catch them at it they stop.

For that matter, any good surface captain will be practicing attacks, too. And also stopping them once called on it.

The Iranians failed to respond to radio calls, loudspeakers, and even firing *aircraft* flares to get their attention. The deliberate non-response is what makes their behavior a hostile act.

"American Colonialism"……….

Haven't read that quaint term in some time.

Too funny. Thanks for the belly laugh.

Perhaps the USN should practice some self-defense, and/or attack measures too, while those little boats are in close proximity, just for grins, while everyone's "exercising". That might put the Shiite in Shiite…….

Hi cwlinsj,

The problem with the middle east wasn't failed colonialism, but with the power vacuum left by the retreating empires.

If the US had stepped into the breach after forcing the UK and France to back down over Suez, maybe things would be better. It was only in the '90s that it started to be the policeman of the region. Until then it was known for supporting Israel come what may and for two forays into Iran.

I think you are right to defend your country and admire you for it. I feel the same way about mine and I am sure you approve of my right to defend mine.

Mako11, unfortunately calling it a quaint term doesn't make it any the less correct. Just because you don't want it to be right, doesn't mean it is wrong

Let us look at how appropriate it might be…

13 colonies displace the native population of a land and take control, leaving the original population politically marginalised.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks…seems like a duck to me.

I think you are right to defend your country and admire you for it. I feel the same way about mine and I am sure you approve of my right to defend mine.

Sounds pretty fair and equitable … for a Redcoat … Who burned down the WH in 1812 as well !

Thanks!

Lol!

not that I know enough about the War of 1812 (I wish I did), but didn't it become the WH after the war, to cover up the marks of the fire? :)

Or is that a myth?

LOL ! Painting it white may have been to cover up the burn marks. link

It was during the War of 1812 … but it was torched in 1814.

It was in pretty bad shape. It would have been even worse if it was not for a heavy rain & wind storm that started as it burned ! And much of the it was made of stone …