American Warship threatens to open fire on unarmed civilian ship....in SCOTLAND!



MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
1
38
Incredible but true...this is a small 70 year old civilian passenger ferry during a river crossing that it makes every half an hour for years.

with Americas track record on opening fire on unarmed clearly civilian vehicles, the captain was quite alarmed.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=us-navy-declare-war-on-clyde-ferry&method=full&objectid=17980625&siteid=66633-name_page.html

24 October 2006
US NAVY DECLARE WAR ON CLYDE FERRY
Exclusive By Cara Page
THE skipper of a tiny Clyde ferry feared his boat was going to be blown out of the water by a US warship yesterday.​

The Kenilworth was sailing from Kilcreggan to Gourock when the American threatened to open fire.​

The US ship had just set out from the nearby Faslane Navy base when it radioed the warning.​

A source said: "The ferry skipper was just toddling across to Gourock when he got a call on the radio.​

"A departing US naval ship warned, 'Unidentified vessel approaching on my starboard side, please identify yourself. If you fail to do so, we will open fire on you with live ammunition.'"

The source added: "The skipper got a real fright and radioed him back, saying he was just a wee ferry.​

"If you've got a big battleship loaded with guns bearing down on you and threatening to shoot, it's quite scary."​



The incident happened at 9.40am on the first day of a massive international training exercise - Operation Neptune Warrior - off the west coast of Scotland.​



The first phase involved ships and submarines fighting off simulated terrorist attacks by small boats and jetskis manned by Royal Marines.​



But unknown to the US crew, the Kenilworth, owned by Clyde Marine Services, was also in the vicinity.​



In addition to threatening to blow it out of the water, the US ship also ordered the Kenilworth, built 70 years ago, to give it a wide berth of 1000 yards.



The shaken skipper put as much space between him and the warship as he could in a 10-minute crossing.​



The messages were broadcast on VHF channel 16, which is the international calling and distress frequency.​



Naval operations normally take place on secure channels which other maritime traffic cannot listen in to.​



The source said: "A warning like that should not be broadcast on Channel 16 unless it is a real situation."​



The ferry, carrying around a dozen passengers, arrived safely in Gourock before continuing its timetable.​



A spokeswoman at Faslane confirmed the incident but said it was unclear who had been threatened.​



She said six ships left the Clyde, including a US destroyer and frigate.​



She said: "One of the US ships challenged a vessel to identify itself and its intentions and used channel 16 correctly for navigational safety reasons.​



The ferry identified itself and was requested to keep a 1000-yard clearance which it complied with.​



"The warship then issued a warning, threatening to take action. But it's unclear who they were trying to identify, as there were a number of ships nearby.​



"The ferry heard this and identified itself. But channel 16 was wrongly used.​



It should have been on an excercise frequency."​



But she insisted: "There was absolutely no danger to the ferry or its passengers."​



She said Commander Don Chalmers, the deputy director of the Joint Maritime Operational Training Staff, who organised the excercise, had apologised to the skipper.​



She added: "All participants have been briefed on the correct procedures, to make sure it doesn't happen again."​



A spokesman for the Clyde Coastguard said: "We are reviewing the incident and looking at radio logs."​
 

slovakguy

Active Member
Mar 17, 2006
1,898
33
0
...i wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this as a practical joke. scotland has always been something of a breeding ground for troublemakers. remember william wallace, mary, queen of scots, presbyterians, & sean connery? i'll be rummy and dicky have some "slamdunk" intelligence that the ferry contained some suspicious characters, eh, bluetrain. ;)
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
1
38
Eldrack said:
Probably just a very lame practical joke..............
it was real alright. There is a large military excersice going on outside my office window right now...figher jets, warships, subs, helicopters....

so they are gathered here in the Loch...

the commander is just a stupid oaf is a more plausible explanation. cant identify civilain shipping flags from 1000 feet away.

obviously shows you that size isnt everything.
 

Scotty_Dog

New Member
Jul 30, 2004
1,107
3
38
51
It all seems practical procedure. If any unidentified ship gets too close, warn the ship to identify itself. Simple really. See, sometimes bad **** happens when small ships get too close: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing, so it's better to be safe than sorry.

MountainPro said:
obviously shows you that size isnt everything.
I disagree, it seems as if the little ferry wisely followed the directions of the large warship.
 

Wurm

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
2,202
0
0
Yeah, that's it...maybe the poor passenger ferry that crosses every half hour for years was going to ram these big tough warships, and blow them up a la the Cole. :rolleyes: Seems to me that the ferry was there first, no?

Maybe too the fucking idyuts running the warships are ready to shoot at anything that moves. Can't have all of those weapons for long and not use 'em. Kinda doesn't help your testosterone level to use restraint and good judgment.
 

Scotty_Dog

New Member
Jul 30, 2004
1,107
3
38
51
Wurm said:
Maybe too the fucking idyuts running the warships are ready to shoot at anything that moves. Can't have all of those weapons for long and not use 'em. Kinda doesn't help your testosterone level to use restraint and good judgment.
The warship did use restraint and good judgement by requesting the ferry to identify itself, so what exactly is the problem?
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
1
38
Scotty_Dog said:
The warship did use restraint and good judgement by requesting the ferry to identify itself, so what exactly is the problem?
no restrain was used...threats were used instead.

Why did the ferry need to identify itself? Its been doing that every day for the past....wait for it...90 years!

Its the warship who is in foreign waters, not the ferry. Can you imagine a British warship anchored in New York harbour issuing the same threat of using live ammunition to the ferry that takes tourists to Liberty Island?

The British ferry in question is a famous one.
 

BottleCage

New Member
Dec 22, 2004
82
1
0
MountainPro said:
no restrain was used...threats were used instead.

Why did the ferry need to identify itself? Its been doing that every day for the past....wait for it...90 years!

Its the warship who is in foreign waters, not the ferry. Can you imagine a British warship anchored in New York harbour issuing the same threat of using live ammunition to the ferry that takes tourists to Liberty Island?

The British ferry in question is a famous one.

Actually it said they were doing a training exercise. And the article said
"The first phase involved ships and submarines fighting off simulated terrorist attacks by small boats and jetskis manned by Royal Marines."

So they were expecting to have small "enemy" boats in the area. Since these wargames are suppose to be as real as possible the commaders have to react like they were in a real situation. Also since I am sure the commader did not know the exact detail of when and where he had to assume that the boat was part of the wargame and sent a warning message first.

What I find strange is that the local captains were not informed to stay away from the area.

Using a public channel is a bit weird but I do not think the "Enemy" in real situations would have access to the private, encrypted military channels.
 

Wurm

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
2,202
0
0
Scotty_Dog said:
The warship did use restraint and good judgement by requesting the ferry to identify itself, so what exactly is the problem?
Why'd you delete the original, "Hey ********" part before the rest of your asinine statement?

Here's a thought: you got big balls and wanna fight? Go to Iraq. Don't forget to bring a few right-wingers with ya.
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
1
38
BottleCage said:
Actually it said they were doing a training exercise. And the article said
"The first phase involved ships and submarines fighting off simulated terrorist attacks by small boats and jetskis manned by Royal Marines."

So they were expecting to have small "enemy" boats in the area. Since these wargames are suppose to be as real as possible the commaders have to react like they were in a real situation. Also since I am sure the commader did not know the exact detail of when and where he had to assume that the boat was part of the wargame and sent a warning message first.

What I find strange is that the local captains were not informed to stay away from the area.

Using a public channel is a bit weird but I do not think the "Enemy" in real situations would have access to the private, encrypted military channels.
Hi bottle cage...yes, i can see why you came to that conclusion but these ships are gathered on the River Clyde which flows from the city of Glasgow into the Altantic ocean. My office overlooks it and it is a busy commercial/industrial shipping lane.

The actual exercise will take place 300 miles away in a restricted designated military training ground off the Scottish Hebrides. The ships were gathered in the Clyde becuase there is a naval base there.

Having the exercie in the Clyde is analagous to training army troops in a busy down-town shopping mall using the general public and live ammo.
 

Scotty_Dog

New Member
Jul 30, 2004
1,107
3
38
51
Wurm said:
Why'd you delete the original, "Hey ********" part before the rest of your asinine statement?

Here's a thought: you got big balls and wanna fight? Go to Iraq. Don't forget to bring a few right-wingers with ya.
I deleted it because I decided to use some restraint, much like the warship.

And now here's a thought for you: if you're so morally high and mighty, why not pay for the stolen bike fork?
 

Scotty_Dog

New Member
Jul 30, 2004
1,107
3
38
51
MountainPro said:
Having the exercie in the Clyde is analagous to training army troops in a busy down-town shopping mall using the general public and live ammo.
So any real blame should be directed at the RN/Faslane and Commander Don Chalmers, not the US warship.
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
2
0
Scotty_Dog said:
It all seems practical procedure. If any unidentified ship gets too close, warn the ship to identify itself. Simple really. See, sometimes bad **** happens when small ships get too close: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing, so it's better to be safe than sorry.

I disagree, it seems as if the little ferry wisely followed the directions of the large warship.
Unless the harbour has restricted space and the ferry has strayed into that space,then the warship is under an obligation to avoid a collision if its master believes one to be imminent.The obligation rests on the warship to change course.If the warship fails to change course,then the ferry master was correct to change his course.
If the warship's commander was not informed of the presence of a civilian ferry making regular scheduled crossings then something has gone wrong.
Given the relative speed capabilities of the two vessels it would appear that the ferry was unlikely to be in an overtaking situation.If the warship was overtaking the ferry then it is obliged to give way to it.
Transmitting on VHF16 is clearly not intended for a naval vessel."Enemy" vessels would definitely not be using VHF16,which would be available to be overheard by every civilian vessel within range.They would be using restricted naval channels available to the "friendlies".
If there was no risk of collision and the ferry was not in restricted waters then the warship has no right to tell the ferry to do anything and in British waters,no right to threaten to fire live ammunition at it.
Actually,on the face of it the warship commander may be technically liable for criminal charges.
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
1
38
Scotty_Dog said:
So any real blame should be directed at the RN/Faslane and Commander Don Chalmers, not the US warship.
absolutely, no arguement here...

however, common sense should have told you that when moored in a busy shipping lane you may come across the occasional....err, ship.
 

Scotty_Dog

New Member
Jul 30, 2004
1,107
3
38
51
stevebaby said:
Unless the harbour has restricted space and the ferry has strayed into that space,then the warship is under an obligation to avoid a collision if its master believes one to be imminent.The obligation rests on the warship to change course.If the warship fails to change course,then the ferry master was correct to change his course.
If the warship's commander was not informed of the presence of a civilian ferry making regular scheduled crossings then something has gone wrong.
Given the relative speed capabilities of the two vessels it would appear that the ferry was unlikely to be in an overtaking situation.If the warship was overtaking the ferry then it is obliged to give way to it.
Transmitting on VHF16 is clearly not intended for a naval vessel."Enemy" vessels would definitely not be using VHF16,which would be available to be overheard by every civilian vessel within range.They would be using restricted naval channels available to the "friendlies".
If there was no risk of collision and the ferry was not in restricted waters then the warship has no right to tell the ferry to do anything and in British waters,no right to threaten to fire live ammunition at it.
Actually,on the face of it the warship commander may be technically liable for criminal charges.
That's quite a few "If" qualifiers factored into your statements.
 

Scotty_Dog

New Member
Jul 30, 2004
1,107
3
38
51
MountainPro said:
absolutely, no arguement here...

however, common sense should have told you that when moored in a busy shipping lane you may come across the occasional....err, ship.
According to the article you posted, the warship was not moored when it made the request for identity of the ferry.
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
1
38
Scotty_Dog said:
According to the article you posted, the warship was not moored when it made the request for identity of the ferry.
okay swap the word 'moored' for 'situated'.
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
1
38
stevebaby said:
If there was no risk of collision and the ferry was not in restricted waters then the warship has no right to tell the ferry to do anything and in British waters,no right to threaten to fire live ammunition at it.
Actually,on the face of it the warship commander may be technically liable for criminal charges.
there is absolutely no risk of collision...

the ferry travels across the river from the north shore to the south and back again...two ferries simultaneously serve the route.

the warship wanted to pass through the ferries path and told it to stop or it will fire a rocket (or whatever they fire on civilain craft these days) at them...

if the warship wanted past, its just a case of travelling at medium speed across the path, the ferries will adjust thier course to aviod any chance off collision.

now, hundreds of ship pass in the path these ferries...none have ever hit one. These ship include an entire naval fleet including nuclear subs, other ferry companies and ships coming to and from the ship yards dotted along the Clyde which build and refit ships from small vessels to the QE2 (twice the size of the warship in question)...

there was simply no excuse...they were being overly aggressive. The captain of the warship has apologised publically...which means he has accepted responsibility.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
54
YOu can only conclude one thing. It's those Bushites at work again - Bush and his minions and cohorts! :D :) :rolleyes:

Eldrack said:
Probably just a very lame practical joke..............