Pentagon: 2 U.S. Navy Boats Held by Iran Military

originally posted by: charlyv
The drifting thing still bothers me, as any Navy skipper understands how currents affect a DIW boat, and they certainly had a GPS that would show the drift rate and position. I had wondered why they did not throw anchor, as it seems the water depth was between 65 and 150ft. (judging purely by sea depth in Google Earth, and using the approximate position showed by CNN). Of course, the reasons they did not throw anchor must be a good one, because it would be textbook not to allow yourself to drift towards shore.

Yes.
The more I think about it, the more I see to think something is screwy here.
They were too close to Iranian waters to begin with, in light of their intended destination.
They drifted DIW into Iranian waters, maybe their GPS was nonfunctional, but they were tended by a boat that did not have any mechanical difficulties.... so why wasn't that boat aware of where their position? Everyone's GPS failed?
They couldn't use the good boat to tow the other boat because it puts up a 'roostertail' and would swamp the towed boat.... riverine patrol boats are small and could have easily been lashed together side-to-side. Oh wait, let me guess... there were no boatswains mates aboard... so no one could tie a knot?
Weird how we had other ships(other than boats) in the area, yet nothing could be done to assist and keep them form drifting into Iranian waters.

The Iranians didn't have any trouble taking control of the two boats and taking custody of the sailors.

The Navy Way

a reply to: Zaphod58

I think we might be doing some semantic tail-chasing, perhaps based on different definitions of what constitutes competence at sea or our individual experiences. What guides me is what I was taught the hard way by the finest navy humanity has ever seen, and what it taught me (among a LOT of other things, and for all of which I will forever be grateful) is that excuses are meaningless at best and deadly at worst.

I don't have all the details of this case, and because of that, I'm trying not to point fingers at any particular persons. However, there are indeed particular persons who are responsible for making sure incidents like these don't happen, and for whatever reasons, they failed, because allowing incidents like these to happen is not how the Navy defines success.

A failure of this magnitude cannot happen in a vacuum nor as a consequence of a single error. I'm confident the Navy is well aware of that, is diligently investigating what went wrong and will take appropriate steps to remediate the deficiencies exposed by the investigation.

This is the same Navy that operates nuclear reactors hundreds of feet underwater, launches and retrieves fixed-wing aircraft at sea on a daily basis, routinely deploys more firepower aboard single ships than has been used in all the wars of humankind combined (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and is only capable of accomplishing these things because it considers anything less than excellence to be unacceptable.

It is also the same Navy that unfailingly relieves captains of command for allowing their ships to run aground, regardless of circumstances, does not tolerate incompetence, and measures competence on the basis of uncompromising standards of performance. The consequences of not doing so are too expensive to accept.

That doesn't mean there's no incompetence in the U.S. Navy. Far from it, which is why standards must be high and tolerance of failure must be low. It's an ongoing and endless process of education, improvement and refinement. Times change, and the Navy changes too, but I doubt that has.

The only thing less forgiving than the Navy is the sea itself.

Or I could be totally wrong about that.

Hope I'm not.

a reply to: charlyv

It's like Maritime 101 in a breakdown situation...get your bow into the wind, and hold your position. If too deep for anchorage then use a sea-anchor to slow your drift and come about. However, in 65-150 foot depth any vessel should have adequate equipment to anchor (with multiple anchors even).

Nope, I'm not buyin' it. And I'm certainly not buying the notion of an innocent mechanical failure / mistake. Not even!

edit...even further, the correct protocol is, to assess the problem first. If the problem cannot be corrected immediately then the first order of business is to direct all resources at stabilizing the vessel. Then, and only then, should the problem be addressed. If for no other reason (which there are many) than so as not to become a hazard to other mariners.

a reply to: Majic

Accidents never happen as a result of one event. There's always s chain of events that lead to the final result.

The Navy and the other services are excellent at what they do. But no matter how good they are, in the end they're human and make human mistakes. They don't make as many as others do, but they still do. They still run aground, no matter how good they are, as we just saw with the Georgia.

Yes they're relieved of command immediately, but AFTER whatever happened. The commander in this case will almost certainly be relieved as well. That doesn't eliminate the fact that it doesn't mean incompetence, or that this was anything but a stupid screw up.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Because the Navy never breaks down. It had to have been some nefarious plot.

Pilots are taught in an emergency to fly the plane first and deal with that as their priority, and they still screw up and plant the aircraft in the ground.

Don't worry, Obama will apologize for America. Heck, he will probably reimburse the Iranians for the gas they had to use to capture US Citizens.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Because the Navy never breaks down. It had to have been some nefarious plot.

Pilots are taught in an emergency to fly the plane first and deal with that as their priority, and they still screw up and plant the aircraft in the ground.

First off, this is not my point (i.e. nefarious plot). Secondly, I suspect you are aware of the fact I am acutely aware of aviation protocols and the pilot's litmus test. And yes, I do understand accidents do happen.

However, my point here is not that this is some nefarious plot, but rather this supposed "accident" could have easily caused an international incident...regardless of cause. AND, regardless of cause, someone should be held accountable. My issue is the people are once again being duped into believing 'oh it was just an unfortunate accident...and everything turned out okay...NEXT' when this is far from the case. Unless we're willing to "accidentally" get into WWIII with Iran then people should be asking questions. This, is my point.

originally posted by: thinline
Don't worry, Obama will apologize for America. Heck, he will probably reimburse the Iranians for the gas they had to use to capture US Citizens.

Wouldn't you expect an apology from the Iranian president if a dozen of his troops had strayed into US territorial waters?

whoops wrong thread

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Except that it probably was, and it did. The only way to prevent things like this is to stop sending ships anywhere but our waters. It could happen at any time, anywhere.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Not sending them into Iranian waters would have prevented this.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Except that it probably was, and it did.

I don't understand; what 'was', and what 'did'? Are you saying, it likely was an accident and it did cause an international incident?

a reply to: Majic

They weren't sent into Iranian waters, they were sent into international waters.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It probably was an accident, and it did turn out OK.

CNN is Iran bashing over the incident.

originally posted by: Majic
a reply to: Zaphod58

Not sending them into Iranian waters would have prevented this.

...or not allowing even the remotest of possibilities for them to enter Iranian waters, regardless of how, up to and including specific orders that they should not enter Iranian waters at any cost.

That said, I suspect there are standing orders all the way up and down the chain of command expressly stating exactly this. And, that it could be allowed to happen, regardless of cause, is a direct contravention of those orders for which someone needs to be held accountable in a very serious way.

If I was Secretary of State I'd be standing on the Joint Chief of the Navy's desk over something like this and demanding heads.

Wars start over stupid stuff like this. Some folks are just brushing this off as if it was simple mistake, but what if this simple 'mistake' had instead been Iranian gun boats sinking both vessels and killing all onboard (which is not too far out of the realm of possibilities here)? Then what? Then we'd have a much more serious provocation on our hands. And this would beg the question...who was the provocateur? A difficult question which, in context, should have never been allowed to get anywhere near the table for answering, but it did.

Incidentally, I agree with you; the Navy is far too disciplined to allow something like this to happen.

a reply to: Majic

agreed.

2nd

a reply to: Zaphod58

What were they doing anywhere near Farsi Island when they were supposedly only transiting the vessels from Kuwait to Bahrain?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Finally a reasonable statement! If I could give you more stars I would.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

People act like military training means that stupid mistakes don't ever happen. I used to see it all the time. Yes, training and discipline lessen the mistakes that happen, but they still happen. Yes, this easily could have been worse, and it was lucky that it wasn't, but as disciplined as the Navy is, they're still human.