In standoff with Iran, U.S. sailors say the threat level was unlike anything they had seen in years

[Sina-1]

American nationalistic perspective so take it for what it is...



ABOARD THE USS NORMANDY IN THE NORTH ARABIAN SEA — The captain of this warship loaded with Tomahawk missiles delivered the news to his crew: Hours earlier, the United States had killed Iran's most powerful military commander in a drone strike.

Navy Capt. Christopher D. Stone said it wasn’t clear how Iran might respond to the death of Qasem Soleimani. But the Normandy, escorting the USS Harry S. Truman near the Persian Gulf, had to be ready for anything, he said.

“We must be prepared for direct military action,” Stone recalled telling the crew.

With the warning and an elevated threat level, the sailors prepared for potential combat. Additional precautions put in place on the Normandy required them to carry flame-resistant balaclavas and gloves to complement their flame-resistant uniforms, and the Internet service they used to speak to family members was temporarily cut.

Across the region, U.S. military officials made other changes as vessels were dispatched to sea, where they would be better positioned. The Navy’s schedule for ships going into port also was altered.

The previously unreported details and interviews with more than 20 sailors on three Navy warships paint a picture of a military that was bracing for war in the wake of Soleimani’s Jan. 3 death in Baghdad. Days later, Iran launched [URL='https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iran-launches-ballistic-missiles-at-bases-housing-us-military-personnel-in-iraq/2020/01/07/12853cae-3197-11ea-9313-6cba89b1b9fb_story.html?tid=lk_inline_manual_9&itid=lk_inline_manual_9']ballistic missiles at two sites in Iraq housing U.S. troops, briefly deepening the crisis until it became clear that no Americans were killed.

The U.S. military said on Jan. 16 that 11 Americans had been injured during the Iranian missile strikes on U.S. targets in Iraq. (Video: Joyce Lee/Photo: Emilienne Malfatto/For The Washington Post/The Washington Post)

The events point to a new reality: While tensions have cooled for the moment, the Pentagon is still feeling out whether Iran will retaliate again, and how.

“I have spent 26 years in this Navy not hoping for war, but preparing for war so that we can keep our nation safe,” Stone said in an interview on his warship. “I would say overwhelmingly, the response I saw was a crew that was very focused.”

After Iran’s missile attack, President Trump declared on Twitter that “all is well!” But defense officials have reported a growing number of service members who suffered mild traumatic brain injuries. As of Monday, the Pentagon said 109 had been diagnosed, with 75 treated in Iraq and returned to duty, 21 sent back to the United States and others still under evaluation in Germany.

“Our great American forces are prepared for anything,” Trump said in a televised address. “Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world.”



A 'shocking moment'


Aboard the Normandy, sailors watched Trump’s speech, said Navy Lt. David Remmers, who oversees weapons and is on his third deployment to the Middle East.

There was “almost an eerie feeling” afterward because the threat against U.S. forces at sea seemed to dissipate so quickly, he said. Days earlier, Remmers had told his sailors they needed to make sure the Normandy’s weapons were ready to use.

“I’ve never really spoken to anyone who has deployed to any [area of operations] that has experienced a threat warning level that we were at,” Remmers said. “My experience, speaking to other people who have been in high-tension situations, is it was the highest I had ever heard.”

Chief Warrant Officer Jordan Buck said Stone’s announcement about Soleimani was a “shocking moment.”

With 17 years in the Navy and several deployments to the Middle East, Buck said he arrived on the Normandy on Dec. 28 and “just thought it was my luck” that a crisis erupted days later. He soon began refreshing sailors on how to use life rafts.

“The threat level being elevated like it was, I had never seen that,” Buck said. “It was like a splash of cold water in the face.”

Ensign Katie Speciale watches the surrounding waters from the USS Normandy at sunset on Jan. 29 in the North Arabian Sea. (Dan Lamothe/The Washington Post)
Nearby on the Truman, a 1,092-foot vessel where 5,000 Americans and dozens of fighter jets are deployed, the situation felt similar for some sailors.

Seaman Desiree Allen, who operates aviation support equipment on the carrier, said “of course I was scared” when she heard about the rising tension with Iran. One of the most challenging parts was not being able to share specifics with worried family members about what was happening, she said.

Still, she added, she knew she had a job to do and put her faith in the ship’s defenses and her fellow sailors.

“At the end of the day, the carrier is one of the most protected ships, so I felt protected,” she said. “I know what we’ve got on board, and I know they don’t have nothing on us.”

Other sailors said they managed conversations with family members when they were allowed without sharing sensitive information.

“You’ve got to compartmentalize,” said Lt. j.g. Asa Calloway, the assistant security officer on the Truman. “I talk to my wife and my father once a week, and I usually talk to them about books that we’re reading. And that’s about it.”

Navy officials declined to specify what prompted the elevated threat level or how high exactly it was, citing security concerns. They also asked The Post to withhold other specific information about the steps the Navy took in response.



Operation Sentinel


The USS Tempest, a 170-foot patrol craft, was at sea shortly after the strike on Soleimani. But Lt. Cmdr. Andre Cleveland, the commanding officer, said it has been quiet throughout his crew’s deployment.

Navy Lt. Cmdr. Andre Cleveland, commanding officer of the USS Tempest, watches sailors carry out small-boat training off the side of his ship on Jan. 31 in the Persian Gulf. (Dan Lamothe/The Washington Post)
The ship, sailing out of Bahrain, is part of a rotating fleet involved in Operation Sentinel, a mission the United States established with several partner countries last year to protect commercial vessels from Iranian attacks. The Tempest spends some time on “sentry” duty, offering security to commercial mariners while larger warships like destroyers carry out “sentinel” duty by using powerful sensors to watch for potential attacks.

On one 12-hour day at sea, the Tempest sailed dozens of miles into the Persian Gulf. Sailors briefly deployed a battery-operated Puma drone from the ship’s deck to test its abilities, practiced facing harassment from a speedboat and sailed in formation with smaller American vessels, including two Mark 6 patrol boats and two Coast Guard cutters.

Cleveland, who has been in command of the Tempest since June, said all nations have a right to sail in international waters and that the Navy is looking to de-escalate tensions. But his crew is “ready for anything,” he said.

Rear Adm. Andrew J. Loiselle, who oversees the Truman, Normandy and other ships as commander of a carrier strike group, said even at the height of the threat from Iran, the Sentinel mission continued. But he vaguely acknowledged that it changed, saying the Navy returned to the mission “almost immediately after the cessation of hostilities.”

Standing on the bridge of the Normandy, Stone watched as a succession of fighter jets landed nearby on the Truman. A single fighter jet streaked by the Normandy’s port side with a roar, its afterburners glowing in the twilight as it pulled into a climb.

“He’s just showing off for you,” Stone said with a grin.

For the moment, the seas were quiet.

[/URL]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/after-bracing-for-war-the-navy-feels-out-whether-iran-will-retaliate-again-and-how/2020/02/12/c9ffda26-4789-11ea-8949-a9ca94a90b4c_story.html

 

[Philosopher]

and I know they don’t have nothing on us.”

It's a good thing they have not told her that a single Khalije Fars anti ship ballistic missile could turn that fancy ship into a bath tub for the fishes.

 

[Sina-1]

It's a good thing they have not told her that a single Khalije Fars anti ship ballistic missile could turn that fancy ship into a bath tub for the fishes.

Ignorance is bliss

 

[Philosopher]

Ignorance is bliss

Sad they're using soldiers like this as cannon fodders.

 

[Blue In Green]

American nationalistic perspective so take it for what it is...



ABOARD THE USS NORMANDY IN THE NORTH ARABIAN SEA — The captain of this warship loaded with Tomahawk missiles delivered the news to his crew: Hours earlier, the United States had killed Iran's most powerful military commander in a drone strike.

Navy Capt. Christopher D. Stone said it wasn’t clear how Iran might respond to the death of Qasem Soleimani. But the Normandy, escorting the USS Harry S. Truman near the Persian Gulf, had to be ready for anything, he said.

“We must be prepared for direct military action,” Stone recalled telling the crew.

With the warning and an elevated threat level, the sailors prepared for potential combat. Additional precautions put in place on the Normandy required them to carry flame-resistant balaclavas and gloves to complement their flame-resistant uniforms, and the Internet service they used to speak to family members was temporarily cut.

Across the region, U.S. military officials made other changes as vessels were dispatched to sea, where they would be better positioned. The Navy’s schedule for ships going into port also was altered.

The previously unreported details and interviews with more than 20 sailors on three Navy warships paint a picture of a military that was bracing for war in the wake of Soleimani’s Jan. 3 death in Baghdad. Days later, Iran launched ballistic missiles at two sites in Iraq housing U.S. troops, briefly deepening the crisis until it became clear that no Americans were killed.

The U.S. military said on Jan. 16 that 11 Americans had been injured during the Iranian missile strikes on U.S. targets in Iraq. (Video: Joyce Lee/Photo: Emilienne Malfatto/For The Washington Post/The Washington Post)

The events point to a new reality: While tensions have cooled for the moment, the Pentagon is still feeling out whether Iran will retaliate again, and how.

“I have spent 26 years in this Navy not hoping for war, but preparing for war so that we can keep our nation safe,” Stone said in an interview on his warship. “I would say overwhelmingly, the response I saw was a crew that was very focused.”

After Iran’s missile attack, President Trump declared on Twitter that “all is well!” But defense officials have reported a growing number of service members who suffered mild traumatic brain injuries. As of Monday, the Pentagon said 109 had been diagnosed, with 75 treated in Iraq and returned to duty, 21 sent back to the United States and others still under evaluation in Germany.

“Our great American forces are prepared for anything,” Trump said in a televised address. “Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world.”



A 'shocking moment'


Aboard the Normandy, sailors watched Trump’s speech, said Navy Lt. David Remmers, who oversees weapons and is on his third deployment to the Middle East.

There was “almost an eerie feeling” afterward because the threat against U.S. forces at sea seemed to dissipate so quickly, he said. Days earlier, Remmers had told his sailors they needed to make sure the Normandy’s weapons were ready to use.

“I’ve never really spoken to anyone who has deployed to any [area of operations] that has experienced a threat warning level that we were at,” Remmers said. “My experience, speaking to other people who have been in high-tension situations, is it was the highest I had ever heard.”

Chief Warrant Officer Jordan Buck said Stone’s announcement about Soleimani was a “shocking moment.”

With 17 years in the Navy and several deployments to the Middle East, Buck said he arrived on the Normandy on Dec. 28 and “just thought it was my luck” that a crisis erupted days later. He soon began refreshing sailors on how to use life rafts.

“The threat level being elevated like it was, I had never seen that,” Buck said. “It was like a splash of cold water in the face.”


Ensign Katie Speciale watches the surrounding waters from the USS Normandy at sunset on Jan. 29 in the North Arabian Sea. (Dan Lamothe/The Washington Post)
Nearby on the Truman, a 1,092-foot vessel where 5,000 Americans and dozens of fighter jets are deployed, the situation felt similar for some sailors.

Seaman Desiree Allen, who operates aviation support equipment on the carrier, said “of course I was scared” when she heard about the rising tension with Iran. One of the most challenging parts was not being able to share specifics with worried family members about what was happening, she said.

Still, she added, she knew she had a job to do and put her faith in the ship’s defenses and her fellow sailors.

“At the end of the day, the carrier is one of the most protected ships, so I felt protected,” she said. “I know what we’ve got on board, and I know they don’t have nothing on us.”

Other sailors said they managed conversations with family members when they were allowed without sharing sensitive information.

“You’ve got to compartmentalize,” said Lt. j.g. Asa Calloway, the assistant security officer on the Truman. “I talk to my wife and my father once a week, and I usually talk to them about books that we’re reading. And that’s about it.”

Navy officials declined to specify what prompted the elevated threat level or how high exactly it was, citing security concerns. They also asked The Post to withhold other specific information about the steps the Navy took in response.



Operation Sentinel


The USS Tempest, a 170-foot patrol craft, was at sea shortly after the strike on Soleimani. But Lt. Cmdr. Andre Cleveland, the commanding officer, said it has been quiet throughout his crew’s deployment.


Navy Lt. Cmdr. Andre Cleveland, commanding officer of the USS Tempest, watches sailors carry out small-boat training off the side of his ship on Jan. 31 in the Persian Gulf. (Dan Lamothe/The Washington Post)
The ship, sailing out of Bahrain, is part of a rotating fleet involved in Operation Sentinel, a mission the United States established with several partner countries last year to protect commercial vessels from Iranian attacks. The Tempest spends some time on “sentry” duty, offering security to commercial mariners while larger warships like destroyers carry out “sentinel” duty by using powerful sensors to watch for potential attacks.

On one 12-hour day at sea, the Tempest sailed dozens of miles into the Persian Gulf. Sailors briefly deployed a battery-operated Puma drone from the ship’s deck to test its abilities, practiced facing harassment from a speedboat and sailed in formation with smaller American vessels, including two Mark 6 patrol boats and two Coast Guard cutters.

Cleveland, who has been in command of the Tempest since June, said all nations have a right to sail in international waters and that the Navy is looking to de-escalate tensions. But his crew is “ready for anything,” he said.

Rear Adm. Andrew J. Loiselle, who oversees the Truman, Normandy and other ships as commander of a carrier strike group, said even at the height of the threat from Iran, the Sentinel mission continued. But he vaguely acknowledged that it changed, saying the Navy returned to the mission “almost immediately after the cessation of hostilities.”

Standing on the bridge of the Normandy, Stone watched as a succession of fighter jets landed nearby on the Truman. A single fighter jet streaked by the Normandy’s port side with a roar, its afterburners glowing in the twilight as it pulled into a climb.

“He’s just showing off for you,” Stone said with a grin.

For the moment, the seas were quiet.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ffda26-4789-11ea-8949-a9ca94a90b4c_story.html

It's this sort of vapid mindset that has played a crucial part into getting this country into useless war after war after war. This deluded sense of invincibility will be the ruin of the United States as one day America will bite off far more than it can chew and then that will be that. One war too many, one conflict too much against an opponent willing to go the distance and then some. Americans, especially those who've drunken the MIC kool-aid, will never adopt a realistic stance when it comes to America's adversaries. Personally I never understood this but I know the vast majority of Americans who sign away their life and join the U.S. armed forces are already under the profound impression that any war the U.S. engages in will just be some easy win since the U.S. has all the advanced tech whist their enemies don't, or so they tell themselves.

Philosopher is exactly right, this was a topic me and Amir were talking about not too long ago. Just how much damage a single Khalijeh-Fars would do to any USN surface naval vessel. It turns out there the reality is pretty grim for surface vessels. A 450-500kg warhead with coming down on Quasi ballistic trajectory (top-down) at mach 3-3,5 will first slice right through the lightly shielded deck of the vessel going deep within the hull. Depending on the section of the ship the Warhead breaks through, this will more or less determine just how badly the damage will be, and it only takes one to finish it off potentially and if it doesn't outright destroy the ship then it will almost certainly render it useless.

If the Warhead hits near the stern (back) then the ship is dead in the water due to the propeller being useless since critical systems having do with ship propulsion have been obliterated, more importantly the aft of the ship houses a bank VLS cells. If the warhead explodes near them then there is a high likely hood of there being a domino effect essentially setting of the Cells like one big magazine (those missiles have all their solid fuel, warheads not used up so the explosion will be intense), not unlike what happened when WW2 destroyers would have a magazine explosion.

if the warhead hits the Bridge or directly in-front of it which houses yet another bank of VLS cells then the same scenario plays out. The ship is essentially destroyed in total. If the Warhead hits the middle part of the ship but doesn't outright split it in half then the ship is most likely dead in the water since one or both engines have been destroyed or rendered useless.

What needs to be noted is that AshBMs are way more dangerous than most regular anti-ship cruise missiles due to their inherent nature. An object traveling on ballistic trajectory will pick up insane amounts of speed which that in of itself acts as a impact force multiplier, more speed equal more kinetic out put (that's added kinetic power on-top of the warhead). More over, it only takes one to destroy such a crucial ship. But then the real question and reasonable doubt is just how effective are Iran's AshBMs, especially in an environment riddled with advanced CIWS, Aegis Defense and thick multi-tiered defense systems. Also we don't know how well an AshBM will do since we don't have any evidence of it being used in a real war time scenario (at least I'm almost positive we don't). The USN won't be having their expensive naval ships just sitting pretty, they'll be moving trying to avoid the incoming missiles if their defense systems fail to intercept it.

It's possible yes but I have my doubts concerning reliability and how they will fair in an actual war-time setting.

 

[Arminkh]

It's this sort of vapid mindset that has played a crucial part into getting this country into useless war after war after war. This deluded sense of invincibility will be the ruin of the United States as one day America will bite off far more than it can chew and then that will be that. One war too many, one conflict too much against an opponent willing to go the distance and then some. Americans, especially those who've drunken the MIC kool-aid, will never adopt a realistic stance when it comes to America's adversaries. Personally I never understood this but I know the vast majority of Americans who sign away their life and join the U.S. armed forces are already under the profound impression that any war the U.S. engages in will just be some easy win since the U.S. has all the advanced tech whist their enemies don't, or so they tell themselves.

Philosopher is exactly right, this was a topic me and Amir were talking about not too long ago. Just how much damage a single Khalijeh-Fars would do to any USN surface naval vessel. It turns out there the reality is pretty grim for surface vessels. A 450-500kg warhead with coming down on Quasi ballistic trajectory (top-down) at mach 3-3,5 will first slice right through the lightly shielded deck of the vessel going deep within the hull. Depending on the section of the ship the Warhead breaks through, this will more or less determine just how badly the damage will be, and it only takes one to finish it off potentially and if it doesn't outright destroy the ship then it will almost certainly render it useless.

If the Warhead hits near the stern (back) then the ship is dead in the water due to the propeller being useless since critical systems having do with ship propulsion have been obliterated, more importantly the aft of the ship houses a bank VLS cells. If the warhead explodes near them then there is a high likely hood of there being a domino effect essentially setting of the Cells like one big magazine (those missiles have all their solid fuel, warheads not used up so the explosion will be intense), not unlike what happened when WW2 destroyers would have a magazine explosion.

if the warhead hits the Bridge or directly in-front of it which houses yet another bank of VLS cells then the same scenario plays out. The ship is essentially destroyed in total. If the Warhead hits the middle part of the ship but doesn't outright split it in half then the ship is most likely dead in the water since one or both engines have been destroyed or rendered useless.

What needs to be noted is that AshBMs are way more dangerous than most regular anti-ship cruise missiles due to their inherent nature. An object traveling on ballistic trajectory will pick up insane amounts of speed which that in of itself acts as a impact force multiplier, more speed equal more kinetic out put (that's added kinetic power on-top of the warhead). More over, it only takes one to destroy such a crucial ship. But then the real question and reasonable doubt is just how effective are Iran's AshBMs, especially in an environment riddled with advanced CIWS, Aegis Defense and thick multi-tiered defense systems. Also we don't know how well an AshBM will do since we don't have any evidence of it being used in a real war time scenario (at least I'm almost positive we don't). The USN won't be having their expensive naval ships just sitting pretty, they'll be moving trying to avoid the incoming missiles if their defense systems fail to intercept it.

It's possible yes but I have my doubts concerning reliability and how they will fair in an actual war-time setting.

I think you'll have your answer by looking at how well did Iran's ballistic missile perform in Ein Alasad attack. I don't buy that US did not do anything but asking their soldiers to hide in shelters. I'm sure they tried to jam the GPS signal and I'm sure they would have intercepted them if they could. I think not having seen the Iranian missiles in action is no longer a valid point. If one of them works perfectly, rest of them do too. If 3rd Khordad can kill a high flying drone at the edge of its range when it was most definitely being jammed by drone's electronics warfare devices, then rest of Iranian systems can do the same.

 

[Sina-1]

Honestly I feel bad for the Americans! Their country has been hijacked by corporations and most specifically and dangerously, defense corporations. As @Philosopher. mentioned, these poor souls are being used as cannon fodder, to increase defense spending and add value to their stocks. US has real structural problems when the military is no longer a branch to protect the people, but to serve the contractors.

 

[Hack-Hook]

It's a good thing they have not told her that a single Khalije Fars anti ship ballistic missile could turn that fancy ship into a bath tub for the fishes.

I doubt a single one is enough

 

[Blue In Green]

I think you'll have your answer by looking at how well did Iran's ballistic missile perform in Ein Alasad attack. I don't buy that US did not do anything but asking their soldiers to hide in shelters. I'm sure they tried to jam the GPS signal and I'm sure they would have intercepted them if they could. I think not having seen the Iranian missiles in action is no longer a valid point. If one of them works perfectly, rest of them do too. If 3rd Khordad can kill a high flying drone at the edge of its range when it was most definitely being jammed by drone's electronics warfare devices, then rest of Iranian systems can do the same.

Fair enough, I'm still be a little skeptical within reason though.

 

[Philosopher]

I doubt a single one is enough

It's not just about the missile alone. You also need to think about secondary explosions on those ships. Think about all the bombs, fuels etc there. Even a small explosion on these ships can be devastating, never-mind KF missiles.

 

[zartosht]

I doubt a single one is enough

a single one would put it out of action with a 100% guarantee... the only question is if it would sink it comepletely?

that I doubt.. you would have to assume the US has spent enormous engineering resources to make sure a carrier "survives" hits...

though if anyone thinks a warship can continue the fight after taking a direct hit from a ballistic missle coming at it at mach 3+ watches too many video games... there would be devastating damage, casualties, and shock that would knock it out for months/years at a minimum

If Iran fires 10-20 at a time at a single carrier, the odds of at least a few hitting would be extremely high.

 

[Hack-Hook]

It's not just about the missile alone. You also need to think about secondary explosions on those ships. Think about all the bombs, fuels etc there. Even a small explosion on these ships can be devastating, never-mind KF missiles.

those ship designed to build like separate compartment , you need to hit several compartement to sink it

 

[El Sidd]

Maybe it was their first experience of green on blue attack.

 

[Hack-Hook]

a single one would put it out of action with a 100% guarantee... the only question is if it would sink it comepletely?

that I doubt.. you would have to assume the US has spent enormous engineering resources to make sure a carrier "survives" hits...

though if anyone thinks a warship can continue the fight after taking a direct hit from a ballistic missle coming at it at mach 3+ watches too many video games... there would be devastating damage, casualties, and shock that would knock it out for months/years at a minimum

If Iran fires 10-20 at a time at a single carrier, the odds of at least a few hitting would be extremely high.

again it depend where to hit , but yes a hit can put out of commission for several hour if its in a sensitive area , but consider thefact that its built by compartement , it use several different elevator to bring airplane on the deck , it store airplanes to different areas , store ammunition in different areas , store fuel in different area . and if you hit runway , well that's the easiest part to make some emergency repair.
so if you want to put a carrier out of the equation , its better hit it several time

 

[VEVAK]

those ship designed to build like separate compartment , you need to hit several compartement to sink it

Are you kidding????? Why would we ever sink a U.S. carrier anywhere near the Persian Gulf? You do know they are nuclear powered! We would be contaminating our own waters! Plus, it be better if we towed it back home as ghanemat!!!