Indian Navy to the Rescue | Tough Week for MSC Fleet | Chinese Coast Guard & Firefighting? - YouTube
In the latest episode of "What's Going On with Shipping," host Sal Mercagliano highlights the Indian Navy's role in aiding ships facing various incidents worldwide, particularly in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden. One of the vessels, MSE Sky 2, owned by the Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), was attacked off the coast of Yemen by Houthi missiles.
The ship was reportedly sailing from Singapore to Abu Dhabi when the attack occurred, causing an explosion near the starboard side. The Indian Navy's nearby vessel, INS Kolkata, responded to the Mayday call, launching a firefighting and damage control team to assess and assist with the damage.
The MSC Sky 2 crew included 13 Indian nationals, who benefited from the Indian Navy's expertise in fighting container fires, an area where merchant crew members may lack experience and hands-on training. This incident emphasizes the need for fire and salvage vessels near high-risk areas, such as the coast of Yemen, where commercial companies might be hesitant to send their vessels due to safety concerns.
Earlier, the Ruby Mar, another vessel, experienced difficulties and lacked assistance for dewatering and towing, leading to further complications. Having naval salvage vessels close to these regions can ensure a prompt and efficient response, saving both lives and property.
Thank god for the Indian Navy. The US Navy is too busy shooting down drones and missiles to aid mariners in trouble. With no military salvage ships available the RubyMAR had to be left to sink, as no commercial salvors would brave Houthi fire. I don't know what they'll do if one of the US Navy ship is hit.
As U.S. Navy brass continues to sound the alarm about a future war with China, or at least the end of American naval dominance in the Pacific, a new government watchdog report questions whether the sea service would have the ability to repair battle-damaged ships should a conflict break out.
The Navy divested many of its wartime ship repair capabilities following the Cold War, last week’s Government Accountability Office report states.
Houthi attack on ship kills 2, Indian Navy joins rescue
DUBAI:
A suspected attack by Yemen's Houthi rebels damaged a commercial ship
in the Gulf of Aden and forced the crew to abandon the vessel on
Wednesday, authorities said, the latest in a campaign of assaults by the
group over Israel's war on Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
The attack came
as a US destroyer separately shot down drones and a missile launched by
the Houthis and as the Indian navy released images of it fighting a fire
aboard a container ship earlier targeted by the rebels.
Meanwhile,
Iran announced Wednesday that it would confiscate a $50 million cargo
of Kuwaiti crude oil for American energy firm Chevron Corp. aboard a
tanker it seized nearly a year earlier. It marks the latest twist in a
yearslong shadow war playing out in the Middle East’s waterways even
before the Houthi attacks began.
The attack Wednesday in the Gulf of
Aden targeted a Barbados-flagged bulk carrier called True Confidence,
which earlier had been hailed over radio by individuals claiming to be
the Yemeni military, officials said. The Houthis have been hailing ships
over the radio in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden since launching
their attacks, with analysts suspecting the rebels want to seize the
vessels.
The British military's United Kingdom Maritime Trade
Operations center described the True Confidence as reportedly being hit
in the attack and sustaining damage.
The extent of the damage to the
Liberian-flagged ship remained unclear, but the crew fled the ship and
deployed lifeboats — signaling a serious incident, said a US defense
official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence
matters.
A US warship and the Indian navy were on the scene, trying to assist in rescue efforts, the official said.
The UKMTO on Wednesday night acknowledged the ship had been abandoned by its crew and was no longer under command.
The Houthis didn't immediately claim the attack, though it typically takes several hours for them to acknowledge an assault.
Since
November, the rebels have repeatedly targeted ships in the Red Sea and
surrounding waters over the Israel-Hamas war. Those vessels have
included at least one with cargo bound for Iran, the Houthis’ main
benefactor, and an aid ship later bound for Houthi-controlled territory.
Despite
more than a month and a half of US-led airstrikes, Houthi rebels have
remained capable of launching significant attacks. They include the
attack last month on a cargo ship carrying fertilizer, the Rubymar,
which sank on Saturday after drifting for several days, and the downing
of an American drone worth tens of millions of dollars.
It was
unclear why the Houthis targeted the True Confidence. However, it had
previously been owned by Oaktree Capital Management, a Los Angeles-based
fund that finances vessels on installments. Oaktree declined to
comment.
Meanwhile, a separate Houthi assault Tuesday apparently
targeted the USS Carney, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer that has been
involved in the American campaign against the rebels.
The Houthi
attack on the Carney on Tuesday involved bomb-carrying drones and one
anti-ship ballistic missile, the US military's Central Command said.
The
US later launched an airstrike destroying three anti-ship missiles and
three bomb-carrying drone boats, the Central Command said.
Brigadier
General Yahya Saree, a Houthi military spokesperson, acknowledged the
attack, but claimed its forces targeted two American warships, without
elaborating.
The Houthis “will not stop until the aggression is
stopped and the siege on the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip is
lifted,” Saree said.
Saree did not acknowledge the later US
airstrikes. The Houthis haven't offered any assessment of the damage
they've suffered in the American-led strikes that began in January,
though they've said at least 22 of their fighters have been killed.
Meanwhile,
the Indian navy released a video of its sailors from the INS Kolkata
fighting a fire aboard the MSC Sky II, which had been targeted by the
Houthis in the Gulf of Aden on Monday. Smoke poured out of one container
aboard the vessel, which also showed scorch marks from the impact of a
Houthi missile.
The Mediterranean Shipping Co., a Switzerland-based
company, said the missile struck the ship as it was traveling from
Singapore to Djibouti.
“The missile caused a small fire that has been extinguished while no crew were injured,” the company said.
Iran
separately announced the seizure of the crude oil aboard the Advantage
Sweet through an announcement carried by the judiciary's state-run Mizan
news agency. At the time, Iranian commandos rappelled from a helicopter
onto the vessel, which it alleged collided with another ship, without
offering any evidence.
The court order for the seizure offered an entirely different reason for the confiscation. Mizan said it was part of a court order over US sanctions it alleged barred the importation of a Swedish medicine used to treat patients suffering from epidermolysis bullosa, a rare genetic condition that causes blisters all over the body and eyes. It didn't reconcile the different reasons for the seizure.
The Advantage Sweet had been in the Persian Gulf in late April, but its track showed no unusual behavior as it transited through the Strait of Hormuz, where a fifth of all traded oil passes. Iran has made allegations in other seizures that later fell apart as it became clear Tehran was trying to leverage the capture as a chip to negotiate with foreign nations.
Chevron, based in San Ramon, California, said Wednesday that the Advantage Sweet had been “seized under false pretenses" and that the company “has not had any direct communication with Iran over the seizure of the vessel.”
“Chevron has not been permitted access to the vessel and considers the cargo a total loss due to Iran’s illegal actions,” Chevron said in a statement. “We now consider the cargo the responsibility of the Iranian government.”
Ship seizures and explosions have roiled the region since 2019. The incidents began after then President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from Iran’s nuclear deal with world powers, which saw Tehran drastically limit its enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.
The US Navy also has blamed Iran for a
series of limpet mine attacks on vessels that damaged tankers in 2019,
as well as for a fatal drone attack on an Israeli-linked oil tanker that
killed two European crew members in 2021. Tehran denies carrying out
the attacks.
As U.S. Navy brass continues to sound the alarm about a future war with China, or at least the end of American naval dominance in the Pacific, a new government watchdog report questions whether the sea service would have the ability to repair battle-damaged ships should a conflict break out.
The Navy divested many of its wartime ship repair capabilities following the Cold War, last week’s Government Accountability Office report states.
“With the rise of great power competitors capable of producing high-end threats in warfare, the Navy must now be prepared to quickly salvage and repair damage to a modern fleet,” the report states.
GAO investigators assessed the challenges the Navy would have in using its regular maintenance capability to repair battle damage and also evaluated whether the Navy has begun to develop such a repair capability.
The Navy itself has identified several challenges in using its regular maintenance systems — which restore ships to full operational status — should battle damage repairs be required in war, according to the GAO.
But the Navy lacks “established doctrine for battle damage repair, unclear command and control roles and a shortage of repair capacity,” the report states.
A watchdog report graphic showcases how the Navy's battle damage efforts work. (GAO)
Although the sea service is in the early stages of sussing out how it will provide battle damage repair at war, the Navy has not designated a lead for these plans, according to GAO.
“Without designated leadership, the Navy may be hindered in its efforts to address the many challenges it faces in sustaining its ships during a great power conflict,” the report states.
And while the Navy develops ship vulnerability models during acquisition that estimate damage factors during war, such models are not sufficiently updated during a vessel’s decades of service.
“Without periodically assessing and updating its models to accurately reflect the ship’s mission-critical systems, the Navy has limited its ability to assess and develop battle damage repair capabilities necessary to sustain ships in a conflict with a great power competitor,” the GAO warns.
The 2020 National Defense Authorization Act called for the GAO to study the Navy’s ability to conduct battle damage repair.
The Navy hasn’t had to conduct battle damage repair since World War II and would now need to repair ships with far more intricate electrical, radar and computer systems while doing so without as many public shipyards or tenders, GAO notes.
GAO has in recent years filed several reports warning of the Navy’s challenges when conducting peacetime maintenance and getting ships out of the yards in time when no all-out war is occurring.
“In light of ongoing shipyard challenges to keep up with regular maintenance demand, battle damage repairs may further exacerbate these challenges, the latest report notes.
While any battle damage efforts would lean on the Navy’s conventional maintenance capability, such plans could be affected by repairs having to be conducted in a combat zone, where repair capabilities could be at risk of further attack.
Time constraints — the need to get such ships back into the fight as fast as possible — as well as multiple ships requiring repair, would further complicate such efforts, according to the GAO.
Depending on the nature and location of the conflict, repair resources and replacement warships might not be readily available, either, the report states.
At the same time, the Navy is in the early stages of developing battle damage repair concepts, which could lead to updated requirements, according to the GAO.
U.S. Pacific Fleet began developing the “Ship Wartime Repair and Maintenance” concept in 2019 and finalized it in April, laying out the people, parts and processes required to provide in-theater ship and submarine repair.
U.S. Fleet Forces Command is developing the “Expeditionary At-Sea Repair” concept, and is expected to be completed next fiscal year, according to the GAO.
But while the sea service has 15 battle damage repair efforts in the works, eight of them “are in early development stages,” the report states.
At this stage, the Navy also lacks the command-and-control guidance that would be needed should a warship require urgent battle-damage repair.
“Navy officials we spoke with generally noted a lack of clarity in the decision-making process, such as who within the chain of command decides whether to rearm or repair a damaged ship,” the report states.
Among GAO’s recommendations, the watchdog contends that Navy leadership needs to designate an organization to lead battle damage repair efforts while regularly assessing and updating ship vulnerability models, while also issuing guidance clarifying command and control responsibilities for battle damage repair efforts.
“The Navy partially concurred with these recommendations, which GAO continues to believe are warranted,” the report states.
In its response, the Navy stated that Naval Sea Systems Command is the organization with the authority to oversee and lead development of battle damage repair capability, although NAVSEA is not officially designed to perform these roles, despites studies showing that an official designation would be helpful.
The Navy’s response also noted that NAVSEA has command-and-control responsibilities for battle damage, but that it is not officially designed for such a role.
The GAO report states that such an official designation would help clarify things as Navy officials interviewed by the watchdog “noted a lack of clarity in the decision-making progress.”
While GAO recommended that the Navy establish guidance that would periodically assess and update ship vulnerability models to inform the battle damage repair effort, the sea service noted that NAVSEA determines how frequently such updates occur.
“We agree with the Navy’s commitment to updating ship vulnerability models,” the report states. “However, we continue to believe the frequency and factors requiring those updates should be established in guidance, to ensure the Navy is systematically updating models after it acquires ships.”
Rory O’Connor, a NAVSEA spokesman, said in an email to Navy Times that while the department appreciates independent assessments, it does not feel that formal designations for overseeing battle damage repair is necessary since NAVSEA “already has the authority to lead and oversee development.”
He added that NAVSEA officials will continue determining how often to update vulnerability models “to better support battle damage repair.”
Geoff is the editor of Navy Times, but he still loves writing stories. He covered Iraq and Afghanistan extensively and was a reporter at the Chicago Tribune. He welcomes any and all kinds of tips at geoffz@militarytimes.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment