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

a reply to: Indigo5

Interesting picture. Looks like he's wearing a flight suit. Why would this be?

Isn't this kind of uncommon for a patrol boat?

edit...also looks like he has a tattoo on his right middle finger (could be dirt / grease though). If a tattoo, wouldn't this be out of regulation? I thought no tattoos were allowed below the upper wrist.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

He's probably an engineer.

a reply to: MrSpad

I disagree it is a measure of their intelligence NOT to be so reactionary in what is essentually a simple accident .
I am of the very sure opinion that MOST KNOW we aren't really into slaughtering each other reflexively only m=when we are ordered.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Okay....

From the US Navy - Navy Personnel Command

6803.

FLIGHT CLOTHING

1. GENERAL. Flight clothing is organizational clothing which has been approved by the Chief of Naval Operations.

2. OCCASION FOR WEAR. Occasion for wear for all personnel wearing flight clothing are as follows:

a. Flight suits may be worn by aircrew members and individuals engaged in flight or flight-related duties that working day. This authorization does not include ground support, non-aircrew maintenance or non-aircrew support personnel. Flight suits may be worn to/from home and work to include brief and appropriate stops, on military transport aircraft, and to official business meeting away from home station when the wear of flight suits is appropriate for transportation, or for the level of meeting (i.e. working meeting). Allowances for flight clothing and flight deck clothing are established by Commander, Naval Air Systems Command and published in Naval Air Systems Command Allowance List. Flight suits wear is authorized for commuting and all normal task and associated stops (e.g. stops at child care, gas stations, off-base shopping, banking, DMV and dining) before, during and after the workday. Flight suits are not a liberty uniform. Consumption of alcohol while off-base in flight suit is not permitted. The area or regional commander may further restrict uniform policies within their geographical limits regarding wear of the flight suits.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Wouldn't be the first time someone found that wearing a flight suit was safer. And remote units can get away with more.

Or he was hitching a ride with them.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


Or he was hitching a ride with them.

Heh, yeah, but why????

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Space available transportation. They were going where he needed to be and had room.

a reply to: Zaphod58

In the absence of a better explanation, I guess this seems reasonable.

The Farsi Awakens

a reply to: tweetie

This is ATS, so naturally there will be theories, and because the unvarnished truth rarely becomes public in cases like these, theories are usually the best we have to work with.

It's intriguing to consider the possibility that the Riverine Command Boats (RCBs, aka CB90s) were deliberately sent within Iran's claimed waters around Farsi Island on some sort of mission, perhaps for surveillance, infiltration, extraction of an intelligence asset or whatnot, but that seems unlikely.

Farsi Island is very small (about 65 acres), is of immense strategic importance to Iran, and the IRGC naval base there specializes in surveillance and interception. As fresh experience shows, the idea that even relatively small boats could approach or land on the island without being detected is not well-supported.

So if that was the plan, it wasn't a very good plan. The Navy has units much better suited for infiltration and extraction, such as submarine-deployed SEAL teams, and probably doesn't equip anything on RCBs that is more capable for surveillance than what is already provided by aircraft and satellites.

Meanwhile, openly sending U.S. sailors into harm's way to "test the waters" for an Iranian response wouldn't be sensible, especially since we already know quite well what to expect. The political, prestige and morale costs such a scheme would incur are prohibitive. This is not the kind of world attention the U.S. should want. Not to mention the atrocious timing.

"Winning by losing" doesn't really fit the U.S. playbook.

Which is why I doubt the RCBs were intended to enter Iranian waters. If the Navy had, in fact, been tasked with doing something secret on or near Farsi Island, it is highly improbable that it would have deployed RCBs for it, and even more improbable that we would have ever heard about it.

originally posted by: Majic
The Farsi Awakens

a reply to: tweetie

This is ATS, so naturally there will be theories, and because the unvarnished truth rarely becomes public in cases like these, theories are usually the best we have to work with.

It's intriguing to consider the possibility that the Riverine Command Boats (RCBs, aka CB90s) were deliberately sent within Iran's claimed waters around Farsi Island on some sort of mission, perhaps for surveillance, infiltration, extraction of an intelligence asset or whatnot, but that seems unlikely.

I kindly appreciate your reply. I don't think the boats were intentionally sent into Iranian waters though I did consider that possibility as I was reading posts about this event. If I gave that impression it wasn't intended. I can believe the disabled boat drifted into Iranian waters before the companion boat could rescue it.

a reply to: tweetie

Considering possibilities is the best part of our online adventures, and if I should ever imply otherwise, shame on me.

originally posted by: tweetie

originally posted by: Majic
The Farsi Awakens

a reply to: tweetie

This is ATS, so naturally there will be theories, and because the unvarnished truth rarely becomes public in cases like these, theories are usually the best we have to work with.

It's intriguing to consider the possibility that the Riverine Command Boats (RCBs, aka CB90s) were deliberately sent within Iran's claimed waters around Farsi Island on some sort of mission, perhaps for surveillance, infiltration, extraction of an intelligence asset or whatnot, but that seems unlikely.

I kindly appreciate your reply. I don't think the boats were intentionally sent into Iranian waters though I did consider that possibility as I was reading posts about this event. If I gave that impression it wasn't intended. I can believe the disabled boat drifted into Iranian waters before the companion boat could rescue it.

I'd have to agree thr 5th fleet is there they can set outside of irainian waters and soak up every piece of intel from that island. They wouldn't need a couple of guys in a boat. What is intereting is they were heading to Bahrain which Iran claims to be there's could be just a coincidence

a reply to: haman10

Wow.

they were released.

where does that leave your rhetoric now?

No Loss Of Propulsion After All?

Reliable information is still rather hard to track down, but I found this article from the New York Times to contain some rather interesting statements:

Iran’s Swift Release of U.S. Sailors Hailed as a Sign of Warmer Relations

After first suggesting that a mechanical failure had disabled at least one of the boats, they acknowledged that there was no mechanical problem. Both boats were returned to the United States under their own power, leaving Pentagon officials to untangle the chain of events that led to the episode.

But they could not explain how the military had lost contact with not one but both of the boats. Several officials noted that the crew members were relatively young, junior enlisted sailors. They were commanded by a lieutenant, and Iranian government-controlled television was playing video on Wednesday of one of the sailors, apparently the lieutenant, apologizing for entering Iranian territorial waters.

And this...

“The Iran story is frankly embarrassing,” said one senior Defense Department official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal assessments. “We still do not know all of the facts, but these guys and gal apparently were just poor mariners.”

Ouch.

a reply to: Majic

So it looks like most of my hypothesis was right all along (i.e. that there was more than enough redundancy to preclude a mechanical failure from disabling either of the vessels, and that there is no rational explanation for the communications loss).

Embarrassing? Yeah, I'd say!! Can anyone say...'Court Martial'?

Thank you for posting this.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Embarrassing? Yeah, I'd say!! Can anyone say...'Court Martial'?

I doubt it at this point.

I am really leaning towards Indigo5's hypothesis as being on the right track.
There is way too much that is screwy with this story.
You can bet that the Iranians see the same things as being screwy too.

I am curious as to the standard operating procedures in this situation, the US sailors seemed well-armed, are they not allowed to resist arrest?

I understand that they were in Iranian waters and Iran had every right to detain them, but if the boat was without power surely the crew could not have been 100% certain that were in the wrong (because GPS was not working) or that they had received an order not to resist (because their Radio was not working)........ so it seems to me that the crew would have fallen back on standard operating procedure, which seems to have been something like "do not resist arrest".

I'm not saying that the US sailors should have starting shooting to kill, but surely some "stay away" warning shots in the direction of the Iranians, might actually have caused them to stay away long enough for the second US boat to recover it.

Is this correct? Give up yourselves and your boat and all its equipment without so much as firing a warning shot at an enemy trying to overcome you?

a reply to: butcherguy

There are better ways to go about that than two large, noticeable boats strolling into Iranian waters.

I'm starting to get the impression that the 2 boats where doing something stupid when they go caught.

Maybe they were water skiing and didn't notice where they were.

lol

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: butcherguy

There are better ways to go about that than two large, noticeable boats strolling into Iranian waters.

Well, what explanation suits the best?

The story that they started with about being dead in the water and a perfectly functioning boat unable to actually assist is no longer viable.

Maybe you will have to go with an incompetence angle now?

Do you admit that the story is a screwy one?

How about this one:
Just before the SOTU speech, two US Navy patrol boats intentionally drift into Iranian waters.
The Iranians, presented by the Republicans as evil bastards that will have nukes courtesy of Obama's deal, turn out to be really nice people that give our men and the boats back.
Maybe it is a big PR stunt orchestrated by Obama and the Iranians.