jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) (08/28/90)
From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) So, how do you stop a Very Large Crude Carrier from running a naval blockade without setting it on fire or, worse, breaching the hull, which could make the Exxon Valdez accident look like a Coppertone spill in a hot tub? I could think of: * Land Marines on the deck and see if the (presumed) military personnel on board run out of shoulder rockets before we run out of Chinooks. * Approach the stern by motorboat and attach a limpet mine to something associated with steering. Disadvantages: potential for breaching the hull; could use up SEALs at a pretty good clip. * Shoot off the steering apparatus from further away. Disadvantage: penalty for a bad shot could be considerable. * Soften up the deckhouse with miniguns firing depleted-uranium projectiles before landing a boarding party. Disadvantages: potential for fire; resemblance to murder would not help our image in the Arab world. Obviously the Iraquis have been thinking about it as well. :) Does anybody have any ideas on how we might accomplish this? --Joe "Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) (08/29/90)
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) > > From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) > So, how do you stop a Very Large Crude Carrier from running a naval > blockade without setting it on fire or, worse, breaching the hull, > which could make the Exxon Valdez accident look like a Coppertone spill > in a hot tub? In Viet Nam, Market Time units had several run-ins with 110-foot steel trawlers, which they attempted to stop and board. These all managed to make it to the beach, although under fire from several PCFs and 82' WPBs (.50 cal plus 81mm mortars). The lesson was that you needed more firepower to STOP a vessel that made a determined dash for it. 3" guns (from DERs) were not enough, either. Lately, in the Gulf of Mexico, a CG cutter attempted to stop a freighter suspected of carrying drugs (don't recall the tonnage, but I am sure it is less than a tanker). They fired a considerable number of 76mm rounds into the stern area in an attempt to disable the steering. The freighter just kept right on going and made it into Mexican waters, at which point the chase was halted. I think the chase was in excess of 20 miles. So I would say this is not a particularly straight-forward job, depending on (a) the willingness of the tanker master to take damage, and (b) the willingness of the "allied" commander to do potentially lethal damage. Simply shooting out the steering seems to be a low probability move. Putting a boarding party on the ship from a small boat is possible, but not enjoyable; maybe impossible if the boardees resist. I like the helo idea. For this you would need at least two helos capable of carrying 6-8 Marines. It would help if the helos had MGs to clear the floating LZ if necessary. Yes, there is plenty of room on the tanker deck (watch out for antennae!). I don't think the LAMPS I or II will fill this bill. I think this is the only way to stop a tanker in a reasonably short time and distance. As for sinking a tanker - not particularly easy to do. Recall that one hit a mine and barely lost a beat. Iranians regularly pumped RPG7's into tankers, with no particular damage other than cosmetic and an occasional fire. None were sunk, that I know of.
raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) (08/30/90)
From: raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) How about having a fast boat trailing a wire rope or net along side the tanker. Once the propellar caught the wire, probably it needs a dry dock to untangle the mass. Just call me `Man'. "And why take ye thought for " -- Matt. 6:28 raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu
lewis@saint (Keith Lewis) (08/30/90)
From: lewis@saint (Keith Lewis) In article <1990Aug28.042834.29477@cbnews.att.com> jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) writes: >So, how do you stop a Very Large Crude Carrier from running a naval >blockade without setting it on fire or, worse, breaching the hull, >which could make the Exxon Valdez accident look like a Coppertone spill >in a hot tub? * Land Marines on the deck and see if the (presumed) military personnel * Approach the stern by motorboat and attach a limpet mine to something * Shoot off the steering apparatus from further away. Disadvantage: * Soften up the deckhouse with miniguns firing depleted-uranium projectiles * Tear gas the helm/bridge. If they can't see, they can't navigate. Then put 'em in tow.
hkbirke@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (ENS Hal BirkelandUSN) (08/30/90)
From: hkbirke@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (ENS Hal BirkelandUSN) Rather than trying to land a helo on the tanker deck, why not fly a C-130 over at 30k feet and drop a SEAL team or two. They should have no problems overcoming any typical crew, especially since a HALO drop would provide no advance warning till they came over the gunwhales. I seem to recall that 2 teams held a key govt. building during the Grenada medal-fest a few years back for a couple of days fending off the Grenadian armor -- well its 2 or 3 APCs. Who knows, maybe even one of them could pilot the tanker. This in no way even attempts to represent any opinion of the USN or DOD, it is just more mindless drivel from the keyboard of --hal hal@media-lab.media.mit.edu hal@movies.mit.edu No one would be foolish enough to claim any of my opinions, and they certainly are not expressive of my employers... -- hal@media-lab.media.mit.edu hal@movies.mit.edu No one would be foolish enough to claim any of my opinions, and they certainly are not expressive of my employers...
terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) (08/30/90)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <1990Aug28.042834.29477@cbnews.att.com> jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) writes: > > >From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) >So, how do you stop a Very Large Crude Carrier from running a naval >blockade without setting it on fire or, worse, breaching the hull, >which could make the Exxon Valdez accident look like a Coppertone spill >in a hot tub? > The standard technique regularly used with success by the Coast Guard is to use MG fire at the stern of the vessel to disable the steering gear. The hull of a ship is not thick, so heavy ordnance is not required. This type of mission, disabling a larger ship, is also one of the reasons the deck-mounted 81mm mortar was developed. It gave the patrol boats a large caliber weapon, and that had a recoil the deck could handle. Generally, the cargo is well removed from the stern of the ship so the danger of breaching storage tanks is small. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
wyvern@agora.hf.intel.com (Scott Sanford) (08/30/90)
From: wyvern@agora.hf.intel.com (Scott Sanford) In article <foobar> jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) writes: >From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) >So, how do you stop a Very Large Crude Carrier from running a naval >blockade without setting it on fire or, worse, breaching the hull, >which could make the Exxon Valdez accident look like a Coppertone spill >in a hot tub? > [Various suggestions deleted, to save space.] > >Obviously the Iraquis have been thinking about it as well. :) Does anybody >have any ideas on how we might accomplish this? This came up in a Fredrick Forsythe novel (The Devil's Alternative?); I've since forgotten how it was resolved, though I recall that a number of alternatives were discussed. I think it necessary that any assault of a tanker will have severe limits on the weaponry used, for obvious reasons. Penetration is a main worry of police, in an urban theatre, and they don't have to worry about a stray round launching everyone into orbit... API is out! No doubt the team would use weapons and ammo would be selected for safety, as much as is possible; low-velocity hollowpoint rounds and shotguns both suggest themselves. Does anyone know what the current SWAT favorites might be? This can be viewed as a 'barricaded with hostages' situation, and SWAT teams get more real-world practice than the Special Ops folks. I am personally inclined to think that the best approach is underwater, given that a tanker won't have the detection systems to prevent frogmen or microsubs from surprising the crew. Ideally, one would like the Special Ops team to take the ship with as little fuss and bother as possible, to minimize the likelyhood of the opposition preparing a surprise (bombs, dumping cargo, etc.). "Never precede any maneuver with a wyvern@agora.hf.intel.com comment more predictive than 'Watch this!'" (Anonymous)
terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) (08/31/90)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <1990Aug29.014734.8196@cbnews.att.com> cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) writes: > > >From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) > >So I would say this is not a particularly straight-forward job, depending >on (a) the willingness of the tanker master to take damage, and (b) the >willingness of the "allied" commander to do potentially lethal damage. >Simply shooting out the steering seems to be a low probability move. >Putting a boarding party on the ship from a small boat is possible, but >not enjoyable; maybe impossible if the boardees resist. > >I like the helo idea. For this you would need at least two helos capable >of carrying 6-8 Marines. It would help if the helos had MGs to clear >the floating LZ if necessary. Yes, there is plenty of room on the tanker >deck (watch out for antennae!). I don't think the LAMPS I or II will >fill this bill. I think this is the only way to stop a tanker in a >reasonably short time and distance. > Actually, the Marines are not trained for this mission. The problem with a helicopter approach is that it is very noisy. If the tanker is determined to fight the boarding, the crew can turn the tanker towards shore, or even into other shipping, jam the throttles and helm, and then the crew can fight or even leave the ship. The boarding force Marines, SEALS, or whomever will then be left with an empty ship standing into a collision or grounding. If the crew puts up a fight, the boarders will probably not have enough time to disable the ship to prevent it from grounding or going bump in the night. The way the Malaysian/Indonesian pirates do this same task off Singapore is to approach the ship from behind at night. A boarding ladder is put over the rail (using a pole), the pirates can then board quietly. Against an alert crew, it would be possible to distract/eliminate any stern sentry before the boarding is attempted. Off course when the first shot is fired, personnel below decks could still jam throttles and steering, but they would have less time. Another problem with either approach are simple countermeasures. Light cable can strung across the open areas of the deck, which could ensnare the choppers. Nets and cables can be rigged to impede the boarders of they try to insert by reppeling from the chopper. Similarly lines and other objects can be towed astern that would cause havoc with any light craft attempting to sneak up astern. These problems and more are why the preferred method is to shoot at the steering gear, and/or the bridge (granted nether are always successful). -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
budden@trout.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) (08/31/90)
From: budden@trout.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg)
First a couple of technical corrections. The freighter that got away
into Mexican waters from Cuba was fired into by a Coast Guard 110
foot patrol boat. Those guys carry .50 cal, not 76mm. However,
the 50 would have done a satisfactory job had the intent been to
stop the ship with no legal/political strings attached. For
this class of vessel (~200 feet), a 50 will make more than enough
of a mess in the engine room to stop a vessel (and usually turn it
into a sinker).
On the other hand, a tanker is a somewhat different target. The
analogy doesn't hold. The .50 routine will do a convincing
job to the pilothouse and any people up there. But the engineroom
is far enough below the waterline (assume we are loaded here, not
in ballast) that disabling fire from any size ballistic weapon is
touchy. (also assuming we don't want to breach oil tanks).
I think my weapon of choice would be an acoustic torpedo,
probably an ASW rather than heavy one. Acoustic because it goes
for screw noise. And ASW-sized for limited damage.
Problem is that the tanker is now your problem. So you sieze
a DIW oil tank. Now whaddya do with it? Could be a loooong tow.
Rex Buddenbergchamber@ee.udel.edu (Sam Chamberlain) (09/13/90)
From: Sam Chamberlain <chamber@ee.udel.edu> >From: eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) ... >are you seriously suggesting dropping a SEAL team on a moving tanker??? > >for a stationary target this might (ha-ha) be feasible... but a moving >tanker? this is ludicrous. > >critical assumptions: > > 1] how many jumpers land on the target? enough to secure it? > 2] weather conditions... must be *PERFECT* > 3] target acquisition must be *PERFECT* > >i don't think it is feasible... Actually, the question of how to assault a tanker is an old one. In 1978 I had a discussion with a friend in the special forces who was a member of the precursor to the Delta Team. They were trying to land on RB-15 rubber boats, at night, after a 7,000+ ft HALO jump. Apparently, they were successful. Modern, high-performance chutes have quite remarkable capabilities. Sam Chamberlain
gwh%tornado.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (09/14/90)
From: gwh%tornado.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) In article <1990Sep6.154605.25887@cbnews.att.com> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >>Rather than trying to land a helo on the tanker deck, why not fly a >>C-130 over at 30k feet and drop a SEAL team or two. They should have >>no problems overcoming any typical crew, especially since a HALO drop >>would provide no advance warning till they came over the gunwhales. > >Such faith in our armed forces! I saw "Navy SEALS" too and they didn't do >that in the movie ;-) Pardon injection of some reality into this discussion, but the deck of a tanker is among the most cluttered surfaces on the face of this planet. There are pipes, walkways, machinery...you name it, it's not flat. This makes it a hard enough place to land a helicopter, nonetheless a parachutist at night. == George William Herbert == ******************************************* == JOAT for Hire: Anything, == * Warning: This Person Contains Chemicals * =======Anywhere, My Price======= * Which are Known to Cause Cancer, Birth * == gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu == ******** Defects, and Brain Damage! ******* == ucbvax!ocf!gwh == The OCF Gang: Making Tomorrow's Mistakes Today
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (09/14/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> The easiest way to get SEALs, Marine Force Recon, or any other special force onto a moving target with little or no chance of detection would be by submarine. A HAHO (High Altitude, High Opening) drop would probably be the only parachute option that would be feasible because HAHO allows the jumpers to parafly accurately (they carry navigation computers that could have a satellite link) for distances of over thirty miles. I recall reading that one option for a hostage rescue in a building in a hostile area would be to parafly the team to the roof. The roof of a building is a lot smaller than a tanker. Granted, it's not moving, but how far can a tanker move from the time from drop to landing? At best when loaded tankers make 12-14kts. MIDN 3/C Allan Bourdius Carnegie Mellon NROTC
woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) (09/18/90)
From: eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood)
In article <1990Sep13.012827.17691@cbnews.att.com% chamber@ee.udel.edu (Sam Chamberlain) writes:
%
%Actually, the question of how to assault a tanker is an old one. In 1978 I
%had a discussion with a friend in the special forces who was a member of the
%precursor to the Delta Team. They were trying to land on RB-15 rubber boats,
%at night, after a 7,000+ ft HALO jump. Apparently, they were successful.
%Modern, high-performance chutes have quite remarkable capabilities.
%
%Sam Chamberlain
may we assume that the rb-15's were co-operating???
/*** woody ****************************************************************
*** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I... ***
*** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd ***
****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/u714092@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (prichard devon ) (09/18/90)
From: u714092@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (prichard devon ) From: gwh%tornado.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) Pardon injection of some reality into this discussion, but the deck of a tanker is among the most cluttered surfaces on the face of this planet. There are pipes, walkways, machinery...you name it, it's not flat. This makes it a hard enough place to land a helicopter, nonetheless a parachutist at night. who said anything about _landing_ a helicopter?? even out in the field, classic doctrine is to hover at about 3' skid height. this way, the rotor stays loaded and controllable, skids don't get hung up on foliage (or deck hardware). alternatively, one can rappel, or faster yet, fast-rope. fast-roping is an insane maneuver where a big (maybe 3" diameter) fuzzy rope is hung from the helicopter, and troops slide down it, gripping it with gloved hands. speed of descent controlled with grip pressure. takes a lot of practice, nerve, and trust in the guy above you. it is do-able, however, and I'm sure our SOF does it routinely by now. the difficulty with helicopter ops are with wind eddies behind structures (probably not a problem with a steaming tanker, with deckhouse far aft), and various cable stays & antennas well above deck level. however, this is lots easier than trying to land a sufficient number of parachutists on the same tanker at nearly the same time... -- |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| | Devon Prichard making the world safe for helicopters ... | | u714092@eagle.larc.nasa.gov | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
worden@decwrl.dec.com (Dennis Worden) (09/24/90)
From: voder!nsc!dtg.nsc.com!worden@decwrl.dec.com (Dennis Worden) With regard to landing "a parachutist" on the deck of a ship: >Pardon injection of some reality into this discussion, but the deck of a >tanker is among the most cluttered surfaces on the face of this planet. There >are pipes, walkways, machinery...you name it, it's not flat. This makes it a >hard enough place to land a helicopter, nonetheless a parachutist at night. After 1800 skydives using modern "square" parachutes I do know that the difficulty lies totally in the darkness, not the accuracy of the landing, provided that the effective ground speed at landing (ship's speed relative to any headwind) is less than about 20 mph (a significant assumption!!) 1989 US National Accuracy Champion deadcenter (less than 1 cm error) a target 6 times in a row. The problems here are in the wind speed and direction with regard to the ship and the ambient lighting. Its a little late to arrive at the ship and realize the the ship is doing 20 knots into a 20 knot headwind!!! By the way, my experience with night landings is that if there is any light, it is almost easier than day landings because there is really only one place to land, and you had better not screw-up!!! (<:>(