AP reporting US ship attacked

[Borderland]

Nevermind that the Hellfires are already bought and paid for - and the choices are to use them operationally and sink a few boats full of assholes who had it coming (which is an excellent use of Hellfires, by the way), or they fire it off in training at whatever, or it ages out past its service life and ends up getting refurbished (Which costs a lot more money to keep it functional) or it's disposed of through DRMO; which means the $150k each was spent just to throw it away, basically.

I'm really tired of folks who look at Defense spending or the cost per flight hour or cost per munition as transactional, like some fleet commander is swiping a Taxpayer Money Black Card every time they authorize it. Military ships that aren't full of expensive fancy weapon systems aren't much of a threat or deterrent, are they? Makes the whole exercise of being a military ship doing patrol work like this kind of pointless.

150K doesn't seem like a lot to pay for a missile these days no matter what you do with it. Some that are launched from an aircraft hardpoint cost 1 M.

[Bucky]

Nevermind that the Hellfires are already bought and paid for - and the choices are to use them operationally and sink a few boats full of assholes who had it coming (which is an excellent use of Hellfires, by the way), or they fire it off in training at whatever, or it ages out past its service life and ends up getting refurbished (Which costs a lot more money to keep it functional) or it's disposed of through DRMO; which means the $150k each was spent just to throw it away, basically.

I'm really tired of folks who look at Defense spending or the cost per flight hour or cost per munition as transactional, like some fleet commander is swiping a Taxpayer Money Black Card every time they authorize it. Military ships that aren't full of expensive fancy weapon systems aren't much of a threat or deterrent, are they? Makes the whole exercise of being a military ship doing patrol work like this kind of pointless.

Right on all points.

We have weapons that could destroy small boats more economically, but,

1) their use exposes the warship to more damage. I'd say it's a pretty fucking retarded set of priorities to maneuver a destroyer to use .50 M2s to save money ('cause you sure as shit ain't saving much money with a CIWS or 5" gun) just to get your own destroyer shot up within the engagement distance of the boghammers, losing valuable manpower that is already in short supply, and risking damage to key systems that could require putting the ship into dock for repairs which will cost exponentially more than a hellfire....

2) Was it in position to use the .50 guns? How long would it have taken to get into position? After maneuvering into range to use the guns, would we still have been able to influence the situation for the better, or would it have already been over? Would the maneuvering off-course at flank speed have resulted in no actual cost savings due to the fuel expenditure? Pretty sure an Arleigh-Burke doesn't get the mileage of a Prius, after all.

Idk. It's almost like the people doing the job or who have done the job in the past might actually know what they're doing, as opposed to the ones who never actually served.

Let’s not forget the psychological impact. Unleashing sophisticated missles for which they have no defense / no chance to survive strikes harder on the soul of their comrades than a big machine gun.

[kwb377]

Let’s not forget the psychological impact. Unleashing sophisticated missles for which they have no defense / no chance to survive strikes harder on the soul of their comrades than a big machine gun.

To be honest, I think I'd be more at peace with being vaporized by a missile than perforated into hamburger meat by a mini-gun.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My comment was not really complaining about the expense. It was whether the action was a 'game changer' or deterrent. First, what do I know beyond reading supposed SMEs on the area and culture. So, for what it is worth, I think the action will have little effect.

Nondemocratic, ideological driven states regard their folks as cannon fodder. The loss of ten and some small boats is trivial. It probably plays into their PR plans. It brings the USA in on the side of the Israelis more that just a missile shoot down. They probably want that. The material losses are easily replaced. Right after the action, our spokesdude was already saying that we don't want a wider conflict - OMG. That is probably an encouragement for more actions if the goal is to suck us into being the 'ally' of Israel. Without real deterrence, which would take massive effort, the harassment of shipping will influence Israeli and world economies to pressure Israel to just give it up. Biden certainly is in that mode.

The other member of our 'coalition' are according to some, the usual posturing with little real contribution. Don't expect others to fight except maybe the one UK ship that might do just a little. Al Jazeera - I know - says most members are clear in that they are not getting into the thick of things. They will hold our coats, go get 'em!

There is a thought that enough cheap missiles from Iran will exhaust destroyer inventories for significant expense and complicated reloading problems. But we will again say we don't want the conflict to expand, so there is no reason not to shoot missiles and drones for the Houtis and Iranians.

Now, when I declare my candidacy for President on the Geezer with Glocks Party ticket and win - I will fix this, asking you folks for advice.

[TGS]

When a police officer enters a school to dirtnap an active shooter, he isn't doing it as a deterrent against future psychos. He's doing it to prevent the further loss of life in the immediate situation.

This wasn't a deterrent activity. It was to defend the vessel, its cargo, and the lives onboard from an imminent threat.

So, no shit.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The loan wolf active shooter is not part of a planned state actor interaction with political plus military goals. Thus, the action is laudable but it is not a solution to the continued actions in the area in terms of stopping more. It's wack-a-mole. Not that we shouldn't protect ships (side bar - just us and the UK as the main players?). How long can the world play that game? If the game is to exert more pressure on Israel by economy disruption, it will work to some extent.

The pressure for Israel to stop its Gaza actions is significant. A stoppage without some change in Gaza, just sets up the replay. The shipping attacks will be again part of the next replay.

There is a longer game here than just saving a ship or two. Not that it shouldn't be done but is there a solution to stopping it. Putting 40 mm on merchants ships like the old Liberty ships? That takes care of little boats. Missile strikes - container pods withs antimissile loads. Contain pods with missiles are being advertised. Who crews such? Lots of employment for mercenaries.

[0ddl0t]

What enemies did we have in the middle east before the US supported Israel unequivocally?

[MK11]

What enemies did we have in the middle east before the US supporter Israel unequivocally?

Barbary pirates

[0ddl0t]

Barbary pirates

Until the mid 1800s, sure. But what about prior to the 1950s?

[Tapatio]

Meanwhile the Houthis, in classic fashion, blame the US for provocations and commiting crimes.

"In a statement Sunday, the Houthis said they lost 10 group members after U.S. forces fired on their vessels, referring to the engagement as "dangerous behavior" that will have "negative repercussions."

The group also said it will continue operating in the Red Sea. "The American enemy bears the consequences of this crime and its repercussions," the group said, in part.

https://abcnews.go.com/International...y?id=106016731

Yeah, right.