The US Navy has confirmed that Iran just seized two additional Saildrone small, unmanned surface vessels, held them for a period of time, and then dumped them back into the sea.[1] As we noted just recently, it is open season on unmanned craft (see, “Open Season”) thanks to the US policy of non-interference with the acts of piracy.
One supposes the Iranians removed electronics and/or incapacitated the drones prior to dumping them back into the sea.
Open season continues! No limits. No license needed. Bag your drones now, courtesy of the US Navy. Happy hunting.
This is embarrassing and humiliating.
_____________________________________
[1]Breaking Defense website, “Iranian navy nabs 2 American sailing drones, dumps them overboard: Iranian media”, Justin Katz, 2-Sep-2022,
Maybe the Navy should put an American flag on them to make them official. But then anyone could just run them over at sea, which may already occur several times a year anyway.
ReplyDeleteBooby trap them. Let the perps get a big bang out of it.
ReplyDeleteI think the Iranians (who knows who will be follow them) are going to keep pressing the U.S. because all they are getting is barking and not getting bit. This is problematic on so many levels. The biggest one that comes immediately to mind is that we are empowering other adversaries that they can freely appropriate U.S. property (temporarily or not) without any consequences.
ReplyDeleteThis also hurts recruiting. The kind of aggressive, fighting personalities that we want aren't going to be inspired to join a Navy that meekly and passively accepts abuse and humiliation.
DeleteYes!
DeleteLutefisk
We need to figure out a way of counting coup back.
ReplyDeleteAt this rate maybe I can steal an LCS!!! Not that itd be good for anything, but I heard aluminum scrap is worth somthing...
ReplyDeleteThinking about it, why not simply let some LCS without crew float in Iranian waters?
DeleteCheap way to get rid of useless ships, and if you placed hidden cameras on them it would be fun to watch the Iranians desperately try to make their newest "prize" do anything worthwhile.
Sorry about the wisecrack... But in all seriousness, we should have put a half dozen Harpoons into the offending Iranian boat (yes, overkill, thats the point), ensuring destruction and no survivors. Too many people keep saying "going to war over ______"... What is Iran going to do?? If we'd ever commit to putting them in their place, we could do it in a few hours and be done with it. Again...what are they going to do???
ReplyDeleteCrush the offender, prove a point, and call it a day.
I wonder if you read https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/september/stop-sending-carriers-centcom
ReplyDeleteThe author concludes, "The United States has already begun adjusting its force posture for strategic competition, yet it continues to squander carrier strike groups in CentCom because and in support of ineffective messaging. It is time for leaders to break the cycle and acknowledge that carrier presence is not required in CentCom, even during times of rhetorical escalation. If such a large apportionment of assets is needed to deter a country relatively low on the nation’s priority list, the United States cannot possibly field the capabilities necessary to prevent war with China. In this case, strategic competition is already decided—and not in the United States’ favor."
I agree with the conclusion. Carrierborne planes have no advantage over land-based planes in the Persian Gulf's confined waters, wasting resources better used in the Pacific's expanse.
I agree. In somewhat confined areas like the Med and Persian Gulf region carriers more vulnerable to surprise attack. We have several excellent airbases in those regions to host air power. If you recall, I suggested a land-based "Naval Air Wing" in the Med/Persian Gulf mostly employing excess Marine Corps air power. Free the carriers for action in vast areas where we have few airbases, like Africa, South America, the South Pacific.
DeleteWe have hundreds of aircraft based throughout the Middle East. We don't need carriers there ... assuming, of course, that the various countries where we've based our aircraft will allow us to operate those aircraft when the time comes to use them.
Delete"... assuming, of course, that the various countries where we've based our aircraft will allow us to operate those aircraft when the time comes to use them."
DeleteIf they don't let us, then they obviously don't want us there- in which case, why bother continuing to "protect" them? Withdraw our forces from their territory, and let them deal with the Iranians themselves. Oh, you want the US to AGAIN station Patriot missiles on your territory, because Iran is AGAIN launching ballistic missile attacks against you? Too bad- you shouldn't have driven us away in the first place!
Seriously, our State Department is a mess. If they're not firm allies who'll back us to the very end, then they're neutral at best, and we shouldn't waste any blood and treasure backing them!
I'm excited this month. It's showtime for the USS Ford that is suppose to begin its three-month mini-deployment in the Atlantic. I wonder if the cats will breakdown (again) and it will try to slip back to Norfolk or Newport News for repairs. Yet no news at all about a deployment date yet. If this doesn't happen it will be impossible to excuse. The most current info seems to be on its Facebook page for those wanting to follow this saga.
Deletehttps://www.facebook.com/USSGeraldRFord
"Withdraw our forces from their territory, and let them deal with the Iranians themselves. "
DeleteExactly. I feel that way about most of our overseas adventures and postings. Bring most of the troops home, recall the fleet- and lets focus on catching up on maintenance and training. Ive said it before- let our forces be the big hammer that will appear if TRULY needed. Let Iran and the other clownshow nations realize theyve overstepped their bounds only when a Norfolk (or Bremerton) news channel reports the simultaneous departure of four carriers and their escorts....
"If they're not firm allies who'll back us to the very end..."
DeleteNailed it!!!
" If they're not firm allies who'll back us to the very end"
DeleteI don't think that's a realistic expectation from an ally. Every country has different geopolitical goals and they'll never line up exactly with ours. Rather than demanding unquestioning alignment with us, a better approach is to alter our force structure planning so that we depend only on ourselves and if an ally joins us for a given action, all the better.
Hand in hand with that, we should expect and demand that allies provide for their own defense instead of expecting us to do it. We should be in Europe only to the extent that it suits our needs.
Think it destroys the whole credability of USVs that may operate in area that may see enemy ships operate due the their vulnerabilities to being taken and until solution found pure waste of money.
ReplyDeleteComNavOps has assumed a USV has the legal status of a "warship". As the law of the sea convention of a this is "A warship and naval auxiliary (collectively called “warship”) are special classes of vessels exempt from many the Law of the Sea Convention requirements (LOSC art. 32, 236). The Law of the Sea Convention defines a “warship” as a “ship belonging to the armed forces of a State bearing the external marks distinguishing such ships of its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government of the State and whose name appears in the appropriate service list or its equivalent, and manned by a crew which is under armed forces discipline", and a USV may well NOT meet these criteria, it my well NOT be covered by sovereign protections afforded "warships". They may be legally similar to "drones" in which they would be covered by the drone laws of the countries that they are operating in. Someone should research this.
ReplyDelete"ComNavOps has assumed a USV has the legal status of a "warship"
DeleteAs you noted from your careful reading of the post and the linked post, I had this to say concerning the legal status of a drone:
" that is a question I leave to legal experts on international law"
As you also know, legal definitions lag technological advances. Drones did not exist to any appreciable extent when the current laws/treaties/regulations/norms were established. The law will, eventually, catch up with technology. I assume that a drone will, eventually, be considered a warship with the same legal standing and rights since it does meet the definition AS IT WOULD BE UPDATED FOR MODERN TECHNOLOGY. Drones do carry the electronic markings (IFF and similar) of its State or origin, it is under the command of a duly commissioned officer (just not physically present), and is manned by an operating crew under armed forces discipline (again, just not physically present).
Thank you for careful and considered reading.