NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-rockets20aug20,0,3213939.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Thankfully, only one person was killed, and no significant damage was reported. I heard a rocket landed on a taxi in Eliat, but it didn't explode. It must've been a shitload of fun to be the taxi driver, though.
I'm surprised no one mentioned this. This is the boldest attack on the US Navy that I can ever remember. The USS Cole was a Destroyer, and even if it was destroyed, there are a million of them out there. This, however, was an amphibious landing craft. Most countries that have them would classify these as light aircraft carriers. If that was damaged, imagine what would happen. The loss of life would've been huge, and loads of military hardware may have been destroyed, including priceless Harrier jets. Now I'm no military expert, but my guess is that, from now on, some one will man the anti-aircraft systems at all times.

Terrorists have bad aim. I mean, how hard is it to hit a giant ship!?

They are just homemade rockets, you try hitting a ship with a homemade rocket.

how in hell do u miss a couple hundred foot ship with a missle but its not as bad when they used a boat full of explosivies bak in 1990 sometin i think 91

They are just homemade rockets, you try hitting a ship with a homemade rocket.
I couldn't make a rocket with a kit back when I was in 5th grade. Ultimatly, it went up, and there was no telling where it landed. But there is probably a chance that the rocket could hit its mark. Then again, I wonder why they didn't try to smuggle in more sophisticated rocket. There are lots of weapons lying around in Eurasia, and terrorists have been known before to use anti aircraft rockets. It was probably a hastily planned attack where the terrorists figured that they had nothing to loose.

I couldn't make a rocket with a kit back when I was in 5th grade. Ultimatly, it went up, and there was no telling where it landed. But there is probably a chance that the rocket could hit its mark. Then again, I wonder why they didn't try to smuggle in more sophisticated rocket. There are lots of weapons lying around in Eurasia, and terrorists have been known before to use anti aircraft rockets. It was probably a hastily planned attack where the terrorists figured that they had nothing to loose.



RPG's and Stingers go for a dime-a-dozen over there. These people couldn't hit the broadside of a Galka with a shotgun! (kudos to anyone who gets the reference)

how in hell do u miss a couple hundred foot ship with a missle but its not as bad when they used a boat full of explosivies bak in 1990 sometin i think 91

Like the other people said, it was a homemade rocket and also a homemade mortar.

It's not as bad when they used a boat full of explosives?

Wow, no really because that attacked happened in 2000 and it was the U.S.S. Cole. Also, there were 16 or 17 people dead. There was a possibly a death in this attack.

They are just homemade rockets, you try hitting a ship with a homemade rocket.

Sel Appa, you need to reduce your signature to 8 lines at the most. Right now, it's twice as large as it should be.

Like the other people said, it was a homemade rocket and also a homemade mortar.

It's not as bad when they used a boat full of explosives?

Wow, no really because that attacked happened in 2000 and it was the U.S.S. Cole. Also, there were 16 or 17 people dead. There was a possibly a death in this attack.



It was some random Jordanian soldier who just happened to be standing in a warehouse at a bad time :(

RPG's and Stingers go for a dime-a-dozen over there. These people couldn't hit the broadside of a Galka with a shotgun! (kudos to anyone who gets the reference)
I would think it'd be especially easy to smuggle weapons around the Middle East. The borders there are pourous, but it's not their fault. It's geography, as it is all a big desert. And with these weapons caches in Iraq next door, I'd think it'd be easy. Plus, we know Iran is supplying very sophisticated weapons to terrorists and militias all around the region.

It was some random Jordanian soldier who just happened to be standing in a warehouse at a bad time :(

Yeah, a warehouse that was later searched by Jordanian Police and military. :rolleyes:

Damn, I'm so mad the ships just left without striking back. :mad:

There were terrorists there and we did nothing!! :sniper: We've got to stop pussy-footing around and win this war!!!

Damn, I'm so mad the ships just left without striking back. :mad:

There were terrorists there and we did nothing!! :sniper: We've got to stop pussy-footing around and win this war!!!


You just can't fire a few missiles in an undisclosed location. If we had done that then we would of killed many Jordanians.

No, but there are Marines on those ships. And we are fighting a Global War on Terror, I guess, except in Jordan ...

Missiles would have been too weak a response ... B-1s and B-52s would have been much better ...

Damn, I'm so mad the ships just left without striking back. :mad:

There were terrorists there and we did nothing!! :sniper: We've got to stop pussy-footing around and win this war!!!



It was an urban area, it wasn't really an option.Also, the militants would have evacuated the area by the time the ships managed to target the area (they weren't at battle stations or anything), so, in all probability, we wouldn't have gotten them even if we did opt for barbarism.

No, but there are Marines on those ships. And we are fighting a Global War on Terror, I guess, except in Jordan ...

Missiles would have been too weak a response ... B-1s and B-52s would have been much better ...

You people know nothing of military tactics nor the Genvea Convention.

No, but there are Marines on those ships. And we are fighting a Global War on Terror, I guess, except in Jordan ...

Missiles would have been too weak a response ... B-1s and B-52s would have been much better ...



The B-1's/52's would take hours to deploy (if I recall correctly, most are based in Britain, unless they relocated after we secured Iraq) and would be overkill....very very very bad overkill....

You don't really want to know what I would have chosen to do. It would have been gruesome, but they need to fear our power or they will continue do what they are doing ... the war on terror will be one long drawn out war and possibly last decades unless we use the full might of American and British military power. Appeasement and weakness will NOT work.

We are not at war with Jordan! Jeez...

You don't really want to know what I would have chosen to do. It would have been gruesome, but they need to fear our power or they will continue do what they are doing ... the war on terror will be one long drawn out war and possibly last decades unless we use the full might of American and British military power. Appeasement and weakness will NOT work.



I think bombing Jordan would have more of a negative effect than a positive one, for us ;)

We are not at war with Jordan! Jeez...

I beg your pardon ....

You don't really want to know what I would have chosen to do. It would have been gruesome, but they need to fear our power or they will continue do what they are doing ... the war on terror will be one long drawn out war and possibly last decades unless we use the full might of American and British military power. Appeasement and weakness will NOT work.

We do this on Jordan?

Ok, before you think I lost my mind, hear me out.

Al-Zarquawi (not sure of the spelling is Jordanian), the terrorist leader in Iraq comes from Jordan. In Arab countries the tribe means everything. If Jordan rounded up all the members of his tribe and family, Al-Zaquawi can be pressured to stop his attacks in Iraq. As far as I know, Jordan has done nothing of this sort to help us.

In addition, Al-Qaida is present in Jordan -- the recent attacks on the US Warship bear proof of this. Any harboring of terrorists is criminal in of itself. Jordan has NOT done enough. Therefore, why should we NOT be at war with Jordan?

Now if Jordan has a sudden change of heart and start cooperating ... then maybe we should NOT be at war with Jordan ... but I see no sign of that.

(Now I must explain "cooperation." Cooperation has to be more than just letting our ships pull in and resupply. Cooperation has to be a LOT more than that. They need to be actively searching out terrorists from among their midst and root them out. Their cooperation is not active enough in this regard.

Ok, before you think I lost my mind, hear me out.

Al-Zarquawi (not sure of the spelling is Jordanian), the terrorist leader in Iraq comes from Jordan. In Arab countries the tribe means everything. If Jordan rounded up all the members of his tribe and family, Al-Zaquawi can be pressured to stop his attacks in Iraq. As far as I know, Jordan has done nothing of this sort to help us.

In addition, Al-Qaida is present in Jordan -- the recent attacks on the US Warship bear proof of this. Any harboring of terrorists is criminal in of itself. Jordan has NOT done enough. Therefore, why should we NOT be at war with Jordan?

Now if Jordan has a sudden change of heart and start cooperating ... then maybe we should NOT be at war with Jordan ... but I see no sign of that.

Sure why don't we go to war with Saudi Arabia then too. I mean hell, Osama is from there and alot of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian too. So why aren't we at war with them either? Because we have no problem with the governments.

Terrorists have bad aim. I mean, how hard is it to hit a giant ship!?

Especially one that has absolutely no defenses against ground-based small arms and missile fire. They talked about that on the news. Our vessels are more or less completely defenseless in port.

Sure why don't we go to war with Saudi Arabia then too. I mean hell, Osama is from there and alot of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian too. So why aren't we at war with them either? Because we have no problem with the governments.

Ah, you have no argument from me here. Our relationship with the Saudis is only thick as oil. We should have seized the oil fields and deposed the Saudis ourselves AFTER Afghanistan and BEFORE Iraq. I think we took out Iraq first only because Iraq has both oil and water (two rivers).

Ah, you have no argument from me here. Our relationship with the Saudis is only thick as oil. We should have seized the oil fields and deposed the Saudis ourselves AFTER Afghanistan and BEFORE Iraq. I think we took out Iraq first only because Iraq has both oil and water (two rivers).

We didn't "take out" Saudi Arabia because our government is in bed with the Saudis, and have been for decades.

Ah, you have no argument from me here. Our relationship with the Saudis is only thick as oil. We should have seized the oil fields and deposed the Saudis ourselves AFTER Afghanistan and BEFORE Iraq. I think we took out Iraq first only because Iraq has both oil and water (two rivers).

Are you kidding me? Your a joke. What are you Hitler?

RPG's and Stingers go for a dime-a-dozen over there. These people couldn't hit the broadside of a Galka with a shotgun! (kudos to anyone who gets the reference)

By 'these people' do you mean arabs who are dirty and sub human in your eyes, and must be slaughtered for the glory of the USA and The Lord?

Especially one that has absolutely no defenses against ground-based small arms and missile fire. They talked about that on the news. Our vessels are more or less completely defenseless in port.

That is a load of crap. The news analysts are full of bunk. "politically" we are defenseless in port. You want to know the truth?

Those ships carry armed Marines --- if the ships are attacked with small arms, they could physically shoot back. Their helicopters have missiles that can shoot back too. ----- what prevents that? The lawyers!!! The legal beagles would say, "Oh, no, you are a guest in this country .. sovereign territory of the Jordanians, you can't shoot back, it would be illegal."

To that argument, I say it is a load of BS.

Are you kidding me? Your a joke. What are you Hitler?

No, more like Churchill warning you Chamberlains! The terrorists are the Islamo-fascists!!!! They are the ideological heirs of Hitler. It took a Truman to end WWII --- nuke em into submission.

No, more like Churchill warning you Chamberlains! The terrorists are the Islamo-fascists!!!! They are the ideological heirs of Hitler. It took a Truman to end WWII --- nuke em into submission.

Truman didn't do shit. It was all FDR, who took up Enstein's advice and started on the Manhatten Project? FDR did. Truman was handed the Japanese surrender and the atomic bombs on a silver platter.

And terrorists won't band together and become the new Hitler. They can't stand each other.

By 'these people' do you mean arabs who are dirty and sub human in your eyes, and must be slaughtered for the glory of the USA and The Lord?




Congratulations, you're one of the few who qualifies for this: :rolleyes:

They are just homemade rockets, you try hitting a ship with a homemade rocket.

They were 2 meter long Russian Katyusha rockets. Not exactly the kind of thing you whip up in the basement.

That is a load of crap. The news analysts are full of bunk. "politically" we are defenseless in port. You want to know the truth?

Those ships carry armed Marines --- if the ships are attacked with small arms, they could physically shoot back. Their helicopters have missiles that can shoot back too. ----- what prevents that? The lawyers!!! The legal beagles would say, "Oh, no, you are a guest in this country .. sovereign territory of the Jordanians, you can't shoot back, it would be illegal."

To that argument, I say it is a load of BS.

Whatever you say, champ. I'm sure you're more of an expert on naval vessel defense systems than the US Navy officer they had on the news.

Your "truth" isn't even true. If a RPG or small arm is fired upon a ship docked at port, there is absolutely no system onboard designed to defend the ship against such an attack. The ship must simply endure the attack. Your "truth" is just simply methods of retaliation.

To your argument, I say it is a load of BS.

By 'these people' do you mean arabs who are dirty and sub human in your eyes, and must be slaughtered for the glory of the USA and The Lord?

Because that's clearly what she said....

Damnit, you've gone and forced me to defend NR. I hate you.

Truman didn't do shit. It was all FDR, who took up Enstein's advice and started on the Manhatten Project? FDR did. Truman was handed the Japanese surrender and the atomic bombs on a silver platter.

And terrorists won't band together and become the new Hitler. They can't stand each other.

Truman ordered it dropped. Ok, FDR started the project, that is fine, he was no Hitler either. The point is we have a two choices the way I see it now.

1. A long decades long war on terror where many US and UK troops will die including all the car bombs, throat cutting, beheadings, etc., and such that go with it.

or

2. We can end this thing quickly. Even Bin Laden can be made to weep over the loss of one of his prizes .... The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, his hometown, some other places ... and ultimately the threat of Mecca.

Remember when we dropped the bombs on Japan, we didn't start with Tokyo, we started with smaller yet cities able to demonstrate the full effects of the destructive power of a nuke.

I choose Option 2.

2. We can end this thing quickly. Even Bin Laden can be made to weep over the loss of one of his prizes .... The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, his hometown, some other places ... and ultimately the threat of Mecca.

Your solution includes the devastation of Jerusalem?

Your solution includes the devastation of Jerusalem?



Oy vey!

Whatever you say, champ. I'm sure you're more of an expert on naval vessel defense systems than the US Navy officer they had on the news.

Your "truth" isn't even true. If a RPG or small arm is fired upon a ship docked at port, there is absolutely no system onboard designed to defend the ship against such an attack. The ship must simply endure the attack. Your "truth" is just simply methods of retaliation.

To your argument, I say it is a load of BS.

Your argument ignores the fact there were thousands of armed Marines there.

Now the ship could have been equipped with 50mm cal arms, maybe not. I don't know in this case. But that was one of the lesson's learned from the USS Cole bombing --- it would be a shame if the ships did not have the 50mm cals manned and ready during this time. If not, the Captain should be relieved of his command.

Your solution includes the devastation of Jerusalem? Geez ... no!! The Dome of the Rock minus Jerusalem.

Your argument ignores the fact there were thousands of armed Marines there.

Now the ship could have been equipped with 50mm cal arms, maybe not. I don't know in this case. But that was one of the lesson's learned from the USS Cole bombing --- it would be a shame if the ships did not have the 50mm cals manned and ready during this time. If not, the Captain should be relieved of his command.

The fact is that there is no defense system on board any US naval vessels to deal with incoming small arms fire while docked in port. Armed Marines can't shoot bullets down, and even if they could, they would not have been in any position to even expect incoming fire while docked in port. Let me just restate the pertinent words again, for emphasis: docked in port.

Geez ... no!! The Dome of the Rock minus Jerusalem.

I'm sure the Israelis would be all for that plan.

The fact is that there is no defense system on board any US naval vessels to deal with incoming small arms fire while docked in port. Armed Marines can't shoot bullets down, and even if they could, they would not have been in any position to even expect incoming fire while docked in port. Let me just restate the pertinent words again, for emphasis: docked in port.

Docked in port --- even better, then the Marines can go running after those terrorist bastards!!

Docked in port --- even better, then the Marines can go running after those terrorist bastards!!

But they still can't shoot incoming fire, which means that our ships are still defenseless in port.

But they still can't shoot incoming fire, which means that our ships are still defenseless in port.

Ok, I see your point -- but my point is not the initial attack which could not have been avoided, but the response afterward. The Marines could have left the ship armed and swept the surrounding areas with armed patrols seeking out the terrorists. While it would have been too late to stop the initial incoming missile, the Marines could have seized the initiative and gone into the surrounding urban area to seek out terrorists and kill them.

Once the terrorists are dead --- the ship is safer than before.

2. We can end this thing quickly

I choose Option 2.

Yes. I imagine the 3rd World War would last only about 2 hours once Pakistan starts flinging their nuclear arsenal at the US for the destruction of Mecca/Islamic religious site of great importance/etc. And just for giggles, the Chinese and the Indians will play world destruction by throwing darts at a map to decide where their nukes land.

When my Vault is completed, you can have your option 2. I hope you like radiation.

And even if nuclear war doesn't break out, you'll just up the ante. You think this is the worst to happen? I don't think so.

Furthermore, what kind of brainless fool would stick around after conducting a surprise attack in a guerilla operation? You plant your bombs, fire your rockets, whatever, and get the hell out of there. You don't want to be around when the armed forces come knocking. Don't tell me that the terrorists won't have thought of that?

In addition, Al-Qaida is present in Jordan -- the recent attacks on the US Warship bear proof of this. Any harboring of terrorists is criminal in of itself. Jordan has NOT done enough. Therefore, why should we NOT be at war with Jordan?

Now if Jordan has a sudden change of heart and start cooperating ... then maybe we should NOT be at war with Jordan ... but I see no sign of that.

(Now I must explain "cooperation." Cooperation has to be more than just letting our ships pull in and resupply. Cooperation has to be a LOT more than that. They need to be actively searching out terrorists from among their midst and root them out. Their cooperation is not active enough in this regard.Why should we NOT be at war with France?

Why should we NOT be at war with France?
A guessing game! Can I play? ;)

My first guess is...

Because the 'war on terrorists', is actually the 'incredibly selective war on some terrorists'.

Did I get it right? Do I get a prize? ;)

from now on, some one will man the anti-aircraft systems at all times.



1.I don't think they need personnel. They are automated.
2. They WERE manned, also, however, they are guided with infrared and radar, and all the cars, buildings, people, and warehouses, were causing too much heat for them to lock on to anything. The radar systems also failed due to the ground clutter. The radar on those ships are meant for wide open sea, with a few ships around it pretty far away, then, it would still detect it about 100 miles or so away.

As long as there is a threat, they will be on alert.

I think it's funny how Jordan openly is against United States policy on terror and our support of Israel, and the majority of "insurgents" in Iraq come from Syria and Jordan, and Jordan was a major player in the Six Day War with israel, and yet they always slip the list of terrorist nations to worry about. If you ask me, we're looking at the wrong nations for a war on terror. What happened to the whole somalia thing? Did we pussy out on terrorism campaigns against warlords in Africa all because of 8 armed servicemen getting killed?

Anyways, I digress. As a Missile Technician with the Navy on inactive reserve, I can tell you that I've asked superiors about this, and that the only reason they couldn't react because of where they were, for two reasons.

1. they were in port, couldn't do anything without risking innocent lives and creating an international uproar (by which I mean france and germany bitching about our insensitivity)

2. They were in jordan, apparently some sort of half-neutral/ally/enemy combination, who hates america but doesnt really feel like getting nuked.

Oh well, theres always Kyrgiztan.

Oh well, theres always Kyrgiztan.

Yup, strong US naval presence there. :)

1. they were in port, couldn't do anything without risking innocent lives and creating an international uproar (by which I mean france and germany bitching about our insensitivity)

Weren't the CIWS weapons platforms, particularly the PHALANX known for just about shooting anything that moved at certain speeds? I mean, I remember one guy here stating that in a test case, it ended up shooting the ventilation fan of a closeby ship's kitchen because the blades were moving at a certain speed. I imagine if you turned it on while at port, you might get the Katyusha rocket, but a lot of bullet ridden people at the same time.

Or have they managed to solve the problem somehow?

Weren't the CIWS weapons platforms, particularly the PHALANX known for just about shooting anything that moved at certain speeds? I mean, I remember one guy here stating that in a test case, it ended up shooting the ventilation fan of a closeby ship's kitchen because the blades were moving at a certain speed. I imagine if you turned it on while at port, you might get the Katyusha rocket, but a lot of bullet ridden people at the same time.

Or have they managed to solve the problem somehow?

And everyone driving down the freeway....:D

And everyone driving down the freeway....:D

I can see the headlines already.

"US Landing ship shoots down rocket attack. And several hundred people on the nearby highway as well. Officials claim malfunction."

Truman ordered it dropped. Ok, FDR started the project, that is fine, he was no Hitler either. The point is we have a two choices the way I see it now.

1. A long decades long war on terror where many US and UK troops will die including all the car bombs, throat cutting, beheadings, etc., and such that go with it.

or

2. We can end this thing quickly. Even Bin Laden can be made to weep over the loss of one of his prizes .... The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, his hometown, some other places ... and ultimately the threat of Mecca.

Remember when we dropped the bombs on Japan, we didn't start with Tokyo, we started with smaller yet cities able to demonstrate the full effects of the destructive power of a nuke.

I choose Option 2.


Tokyo was already pretty well firebombed as well as many other cities, towns, small farming villages, etc in Japan. Can't kill many Japanese women and children and scare the Soviets by bombing a pile of ashes can you?

Tokyo was already pretty well firebombed as well as many other cities, towns, small farming villages, etc in Japan. Can't kill many Japanese women and children and scare the Soviets by bombing a pile of ashes can you?

And it would have made it incredibly difficult for the emperor to order surrender if he were dead.

:headbang: the attitiude of americans is just so annoying, woo-hoo lets attack any country which has had a terrorist in it in the last 10 years. There is an organisation set-up to police the world and its called the UN, if America continues to ignore the UN and its resolutions then it is no better then the so-called rogue states it wants to wage war against. The EU's diplomatic route for sorting out the crisis in iran will be much better than attacking the country and convincing another million or so arabic youths that Bush's war is against the religion of Islam. America doesn't rule/own the world maybe you should remember that once in a while.

And it would have made it incredibly difficult for the emperor to order surrender if he were dead.
Yes, dead people don't surrender well. Also America can't go it alone, without friends in this world. Much of America's power comes from having the exchange of ideas from all over the globe as well as seeeming to have a hand in economies all around the world. I doubt that free flow of ideas or money would continue if the states got into a willfully stupid dick waving contest with everyone just becasue it could.

:headbang: the attitiude of americans is just so annoying, woo-hoo lets attack any country which has had a terrorist in it in the last 10 years. There is an organisation set-up to police the world and its called the UN, if America continues to ignore the UN and its resolutions then it is no better then the so-called rogue states it wants to wage war against. The EU's diplomatic route for sorting out the crisis in iran will be much better than attacking the country and convincing another million or so arabic youths that Bush's war is against the religion of Islam. America doesn't rule/own the world maybe you should remember that once in a while.

Come on now, you can't generalize and say that every American is bad. I know it's easy to see a whole people as bad when you hear the thoughts or see the actions of some, I used to think all americans were lunatic assholes too until I met some good ones, and ended up marrying one of them.
The point is, americans are like people anywhere, some are very good people while others need to get a membership to the human race.

The fact is that there is no defense system on board any US naval vessels to deal with incoming small arms fire while docked in port. Armed Marines can't shoot bullets down, and even if they could, they would not have been in any position to even expect incoming fire while docked in port. Let me just restate the pertinent words again, for emphasis: docked in port.
Most ships have been vulnerable this way throughout history. I’d venture to say all, but I’m sure somebody would hit me with something. Setting fire to the enemy’s ships in port has been the dream of military strategists ever since the Greeks beat the Persians at sea.

The other pertinent fact about a USN warship being docked in a Jordanian port...it kinda seems to indicate that the Jordanians aren't hostile??? Like, duh? So, carpet-bombing the place would be a bit of a stupid thing to do? :rolleyes:

Anyway, the rockets in question were unguided ex-Soviet MLRS junk from the early cold war era. They said Katyusha on the TV news, which would date them to the mid-1940s, more likely Grad derivatives from the 1970s...even so, it's ancient junk designed to only be effective when fired by the thousand by divisional artillery.

Reminds me of the accuracy of the home-made Palestian rockets - pretty bad.

But a good way to plaster the surrounding terrain if you've got lots of them. Are these things man portable? i.e. man transportable to a launch point.

Are these things man portable? i.e. man transportable to a launch point.
Nope. You need a flat-bed truck for both transport and launch:

http://www.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/grad/grad2_s.jpg

Terrorists have bad aim. I mean, how hard is it to hit a giant ship!?
With a katusha (sp) rocket? Dude, you just kinda point it in the general direction of your target, launch, and pray that it hits something. People make them in their garage.

Damn, I'm so mad the ships just left without striking back. :mad:

There were terrorists there and we did nothing!! :sniper: We've got to stop pussy-footing around and win this war!!!
Striking back at what? After the rockets were launched the terrorists blended back into their Jordanian neighborhood. We're not about to level an entire neighborhood to kill a handfull of terrrorists who might or might not still be there.

Sure why don't we go to war with Saudi Arabia then too. I mean hell, Osama is from there and alot of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian too. So why aren't we at war with them either? Because we have no problem with the governments.
If it were up to me Saudi Arabia would glow in the dark.

But they still can't shoot incoming fire, which means that our ships are still defenseless in port.
Wouldn't the Aegis radar and Phalanx system detect and destroy a low-tech missile provided that the ship's Aegis system was active?

Wouldn't the Aegis radar and Phalanx system detect and destroy a low-tech missile provided that the ship's Aegis system was active?
Most of the shells would miss, and hit residential housing.

Most of the shells would miss, and hit residential housing.
That's why they need to bring back anti-aircraft guns. They do the same job, but just with less residual damage.

That's why they need to bring back anti-aircraft guns. They do the same job, but just with less residual damage.
IIRC Phalanx uses rapid fire 20mm cannons to destroy missiles and aircraft within close range of the ship.

IIRC Phalanx uses rapid fire 20mm cannons to destroy missiles and aircraft within close range of the ship.
Yep, multi-barreled too, so you're talking about a RoF of 100 rounds per second. So you score a couple of hits, missile pops, doesn't matter where the other couple of hundred rounds go, if this is on open seas. Maybe you hit a nearby ship if they are close enough, but I've never heard of any fatalities in modern times from CIWS friendly fire.

Point is, you do that in a port, that's a couple of hundred rounds on their way to someone's street.

The situation here probably involved a few low-level, undertrained, and expendable terrorists, perhaps having returned from the Iraq insurgency, perhaps not...firing a few wild shots in the form of katyusha rockets or some other relatively common untargeted rocket weapon, missing. Realizing that they had A. given away their general location if they had been seen. and B. inflicted no damage to the USN ships in the harbor. So they most likely promptly dropped what weapons they had and scattered before the Navy could react, or probably even realize that they'd been shot at.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-rockets20aug20,0,3213939.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Thankfully, only one person was killed, and no significant damage was reported. I heard a rocket landed on a taxi in Eliat, but it didn't explode. It must've been a shitload of fun to be the taxi driver, though.
I'm surprised no one mentioned this. This is the boldest attack on the US Navy that I can ever remember. The USS Cole was a Destroyer, and even if it was destroyed, there are a million of them out there. This, however, was an amphibious landing craft. Most countries that have them would classify these as light aircraft carriers. If that was damaged, imagine what would happen. The loss of life would've been huge, and loads of military hardware may have been destroyed, including priceless Harrier jets. Now I'm no military expert, but my guess is that, from now on, some one will man the anti-aircraft systems at all times.

Did you think that there was some kind of rule against it?

Terrorists have bad aim. I mean, how hard is it to hit a giant ship!?

I thought the USA was in a war in the region? Doesn't that make them NOT terrorists, given that military targets are fair game in war? Yeah, I thought so.

Did you think that there was some kind of rule against it?
Of course not. All is fair in love and war. But this was the boldest attack on the Navy I can ever remember. It's certainly the boldest since the North Koreans hijacked the Pueblo.

I thought the USA was in a war in the region? Doesn't that make them NOT terrorists, given that military targets are fair game in war? Yeah, I thought so.
Yeah, but don't forget that they are not fighting for any one country. The most these militants have is an ideaology. They aren't even of the same nationalities, or even region. Remember Richard Ried? He wasn't even Arab, but a Brit.

Yep, multi-barreled too, so you're talking about a RoF of 100 rounds per second.



50 rps

The situation here probably involved a few low-level, undertrained, and expendable terrorists, perhaps having returned from the Iraq insurgency, perhaps not...firing a few wild shots in the form of katyusha rockets or some other relatively common untargeted rocket weapon, missing. Realizing that they had A. given away their general location if they had been seen. and B. inflicted no damage to the USN ships in the harbor. So they most likely promptly dropped what weapons they had and scattered before the Navy could react, or probably even realize that they'd been shot at.
A couple were from Iraq. I have no idea if they were part of the insurgency at one time, though they probably will. In any case, there were several other nationals. This wasn't purely a response by the Iraqi insurgency. They even attacked Israel, for that matter. Now, is some Ba'athist fanatic more interested in regaining control in Iraq, or attacking Israel?

A couple were from Iraq. I have no idea if they were part of the insurgency at one time, though they probably will. In any case, there were several other nationals. This wasn't purely a response by the Iraqi insurgency. They even attacked Israel, for that matter. Now, is some Ba'athist fanatic more interested in regaining control in Iraq, or attacking Israel?

And you know all this because? A link might be helpful.

And you know all this because? A link might be helpful.
Don't remember where I got this from. But for our purposes, let's pretend it is a baldface lie.

Damn, I'm so mad the ships just left without striking back. :mad:

There were terrorists there and we did nothing!! :sniper: We've got to stop pussy-footing around and win this war!!!

I'm sick of that BS. that you Americans keep spiting out. How are they terrorists? They attacked a military vessel. You can just call someone a terrorist because they oppose you, that doesn't make any sence!

I thought the USA was in a war in the region? Doesn't that make them NOT terrorists, given that military targets are fair game in war? Yeah, I thought so.
SA fine example of the logical mindset that drives a nation into the toilet.

I'm sick of that BS. that you Americans keep spiting out. How are they terrorists? They attacked a military vessel. You can just call someone a terrorist because they oppose you, that doesn't make any sence!
It doesn't matter if they are called fluffy Easter bunnies. What matters is this: these people have an ideaology that is contrary to our way of life. They are like the anarchists and fascists before them: ultimately, they wish to destroy us and our way of life. They are simply doing this in a manner they deem best.

It doesn't matter if they are called fluffy Easter bunnies. What matters is this: these people have an ideaology that is contrary to our way of life. They are like the anarchists and fascists before them: ultimately, they wish to destroy us and our way of life. They are simply doing this in a manner they deem best.

And you know all this how?

You have a couple rockets fired at a US ship. They could be chinese-recruited jordanians, under orders to try and provoke the US. It would certainly benefit the chinese to stir up more trouble for america. Or maybe they are Iraqi atheists, who were simply pissed off at the US for killing some people they knew, and tens of thousands of others. The point is, you cant just say they are terrorists, extremists, etc, just because someone attacks one of our ships. Likely or not, its completely unbased with the current info.

And you know all this how?

You have a couple rockets fired at a US ship. They could be chinese-recruited jordanians, under orders to try and provoke the US. It would certainly benefit the chinese to stir up more trouble for america. Or maybe they are Iraqi atheists, who were simply pissed off at the US for killing some people they knew, and tens of thousands of others. The point is, you cant just say they are terrorists, extremists, etc, just because someone attacks one of our ships. Likely or not, its completely unbased with the current info.
You may very well be right. But you probably aren't. If it's Chinese commandos or some militant Hari Krishna sect, you have my apologies. But I doubt it is. I'm nearly certain that I am right.
Now, why did you bring it up? Are you just adding some friendly skeptisicm, or are you somehow saying that Islamic radicalism does not have the goals I describe?

Wouldn't the Aegis radar and Phalanx system detect and destroy a low-tech missile provided that the ship's Aegis system was active?

AEGIS and Phalanx are two different systems, and not dependent on each other. Phalanx has its own targeting and threat systems. Afaik, the ships that were docked did not have AEGIS (that would be Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke class ships, not amphibious assault ships).

The ship's Phalanx (the Ashland has two mounts, the Kearsarge did as well) would operate just as designed without AEGIS. Of course, the Phalanx system is notoriously prone to breakdowns, and I'm pretty sure LHD's are pretty far down on the list for replacement parts, which are already scarce. But, assume it is fully operational, and active at the time. Ok, but first, the Phalanx will have to determine there is an incoming target (generally, anything it shoots at would've already been under attack from the ships further out systems), rotate the cannon around to face the threat, and blanket the area with rounds to take out all three. This works fine on the open sea, where they will be moving to intercept with at least a fair amount of space, it doesn't work so well in port, when the targets are insanely close.

I've seen a Phalanx CIWS mount move, and it is fast, but not that fast. Further, if by chance it was pointed in the right direction, the entire point of it is not to pinpoint a target and send a few shells to stop it. Its designed to blanket the air with rounds (hence the high firing rate) in the hope that most of them will hit the incoming missile/rocket and destroy it. Needless to say, this causes a huge amount of rounds that don't hit the target, and go aimlessly flying into an urban area. Also, while I am not exact on whether or not all three rounds came from the same direction, if they didn't, LHD's only have two mounts, and I'm pretty sure they are on the port and starboard sides, so overwhelming it wouldn't be that hard. As you can see, Phalanx is a horrid defense system for a ship in port.

I'm surprised no one mentioned this. This is the boldest attack on the US Navy that I can ever remember.

I call attacking a US navy warship with a dinghy more bold than launchiing a few handheld rockets from an urban center at a vessel that is a support ship.

The USS Cole was a Destroyer, and even if it was destroyed, there are a million of them out there.

The USS Cole was a highly advanced, multi-million dollar warship. It contained some of the Navy's best equipment, including AEGIS. Thinking destroyers are expendable is thinking in a WWII mindset.

This, however, was an amphibious landing craft. Most countries that have them would classify these as light aircraft carriers.

Wrong type of ship. I think you are confusing the ship, the USS Ashland, an LSD (Classified as an Amphibious transport dock, not Amphibious assault ship), with a Wasp class LHD. An LHD is almost a light carrier, whereas the Ashland doesn't have any aircraft (but it has two helipads). The Ashland is essentially a floating dock for amphibious ships, most navys that have them (and there are others) call them support ships, same as us.

If that was damaged, imagine what would happen. The loss of life would've been huge, and loads of military hardware may have been destroyed, including priceless Harrier jets.

The Ashland, not being an LHD, has no Harrier aircraft. Though I am wondering why you say a Harrier is priceless, but an Arleigh Burke class destroyer isn't. If it was damaged, considering the rockets fired, I would imagine unless they were insanely lucky, would probably cause less damage than the Cole attack.

Now I'm no military expert, but my guess is that, from now on, some one will man the anti-aircraft systems at all times.

AA systems are pretty useless against any threat launched by small groups of men in port. The only way to prevent this is to put men from the ship in the port for security. Shipboard systems are useless against such a threat.

You may very well be right. But you probably aren't. If it's Chinese commandos or some militant Hari Krishna sect, you have my apologies. But I doubt it is. I'm nearly certain that I am right.
Now, why did you bring it up? Are you just adding some friendly skeptisicm, or are you somehow saying that Islamic radicalism does not have the goals I describe?

I just dont think its right to immediatly point to people being terrorists, because one of our ships got attacked. If it had been in america, done by an american, they could sue for libel. My point is, condemn them all you want, but until there is some real evidence, its ignorant to call them terrorists, or islamic extremists. They quite possibly might not be.

Of course not. All is fair in love and war. But this was the boldest attack on the Navy I can ever remember. It's certainly the boldest since the North Koreans hijacked the Pueblo.

Again, it doesn't seem all that bold. They were firing from a fairly hidden position, as opposed to approaching a ship in full view. Further, they targeted the Ashland rather than the Kearsarge. Personally, I think the Kearsarge would have made more of a target, since it was more of a warship than the Ashland, and would be a harder loss for the Navy, but I doubt they really thought this out.

Damn, I'm so mad the ships just left without striking back. :mad:

There were terrorists there and we did nothing!! :sniper: We've got to stop pussy-footing around and win this war!!!

You can't win a war against an "ism", by definition. And let me get this straight, you think what you've been doing over the past four years is "pussy-footing around"? I'd hate to see you really trying, then.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-rockets20aug20,0,3213939.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Thankfully, only one person was killed, and no significant damage was reported. I heard a rocket landed on a taxi in Eliat, but it didn't explode. It must've been a shitload of fun to be the taxi driver, though.
I'm surprised no one mentioned this. This is the boldest attack on the US Navy that I can ever remember. The USS Cole was a Destroyer, and even if it was destroyed, there are a million of them out there. This, however, was an amphibious landing craft. Most countries that have them would classify these as light aircraft carriers. If that was damaged, imagine what would happen. The loss of life would've been huge, and loads of military hardware may have been destroyed, including priceless Harrier jets. Now I'm no military expert, but my guess is that, from now on, some one will man the anti-aircraft systems at all times.

i think that first sentence should be rephrased to, "sadly one person was killed, but thankfully..." otherwise it sounds a little... weird

Ok, lets clear the air here. I was aboard the Kearsarge at the time of the attacks. It was early morning and the normal workday was just starting. We hear the word to clampdown and batton the hatches, and the rumor disseminates that we were attacked by rockets. The Marines were ready and raring to go kick some Jihadi butt, but the Navy needed to protect its assets, namely the ship and its aircraft. So we manned the guns and pulled out. We have not left the region scared or with our tail between our legs.

If you want to read more about it, goto my blog at
http://bignick.blogs.friendster.com/my_blog
And feel free to continue the thread there in my comments, I'll answer your questions as long as they don't breach security standards.