Being a former submariner, I’m actually not too familiar with the surface fleet. That being said, IIRC, a carrier has (at a minimum) a Commanding Officer (CO), an Executive Officer (XO), and a Reactor Officer (RO) attached to the ship, all with the rank of Captain (O-6). Nevertheless, the CO is the only “Captain” of the ship.
Also, IIRC, the CAG (Commander, Air Group) does not actually report to the CO of the ship. I believe that he is a Commanding Officer in his own right (commanding the embarked aircraft squadrons), who (along with the carrier CO) reports directly to the commander of the Carrier Battle Group (usually a Rear Admiral).
Installation commanders do tend to be O-6’s as well, but there are exceptions.
I have read the rest of the thread, but there is a point here. The Bainbridge, according to your link, had 4 12.7mm machine guns. You don’t need snipers when those guns would rip a small boat apart. So, you would need a guy with a night vision set (probably able to mount this on the gun based upon my experience with .50 cals in the army) and someone manning the gun with the permission to shoot if he saw an escape attempt.
Frigates are commanded by O-6s as well. To my recollection, ballistic missile submarines also used to have an O-6 as captain, but that may have changed.
I think that has not been so for years now – for some reason, in the 1960s and early 70s the US Navy called ships between destroyer and cruiser tonnage/firepower (essentially stretched, souped-up destroyers) “frigates”, reversing the convention of every other NATO fleet that “frigate” was the term for the tonnage/firepower category** below **destroyer. By the 1980s they had reverted to the standard terminology so light destroyers were “frigates” (e.g. Perry class) and the uprated, enlarged, upgunned destroyers were renamed as “cruisers”. The frigates got O-5 and even O-4 captains IIRC.
(but then again, depending on assigned mission, you may have a higher-ranking-than-usual CO on a particular vessel)
One question that I have is; sure, there may have SEALs or other fire or HBT teams on the ship, but is the CO in charge of THEIR operation as well, even if they’re not attached to that boat, or does the team leader have final say? I’d think it would be the team leader, but I’ve been wrong before.
As far as I know you have it backwards in the typical situation–the way my dad put it (he was a CPO) was “The captain’s the captain. If an E-5 petty officer is in command of a ship’s boat to deliver an admiral to another ship, unless that admiral formally relieves the guy he’s bound to answer orders from the E-5 as though the E-4 were the commanding officer.”
He also noted that in practice, said E-5 was generally mindful of the fact that as soon as they got back to the flagship, one of them could order the other to peel potatoes in the galley for the rest of eternity.
So as far as the 1970s Navy goes, the destroyer’s captain is in charge barring a formal statement of the chain of command to the effect that the SEAL team leader is in charge–but in practice, the destroyer’s captain is equally aware that the SEAL team leader is more knowledgeable about hostage rescue ops and his advice on such should be taken as gospel to the limits of the ship’s ability to maneuver in that manner.
That’s also the source of the practice, as far as I’m aware–the vessel’s serving commander is generally most aware of its quirks and limitations and how best to employ its specific capabilities in services of a goal.
JRDelirious: Crap. I was indeed thinking of cruisers when I wrote frigates.
I’m really doing poorly today in my posts. There was this flub in this thread, and in the Iranian hostage thread in GD I posted about the OTHER hostages we traded arms for.
Man, I hope I’m not losing it. Especially all at once. On the same day.
Wait, why are we supposed to have put piracy behind us, as opposed to any other sort of theft? I don’t know many folks who think it’s okay to summarily shoot someone for stealing… unless it’s stealing while on a boat? I’m against theft in general, don’t get me wrong. But why should I be particularly opposed to piracy, or expect humanity to have evolved beyond this one specific form of larceny?
Okay, fair point, but if someone compared holding up a liquor store to slavery, they’d get all sorts of eyerolls. And no one ever seriously argues that muggers should be summarily executed. What makes piracy such special moral outrage?
Is drowning a more horrible fate than being shot? And is it sensical to be more offended by one crime because it might be accompanied by a different crime? Should we treat burglars more harshly because they might also commit rape when they break into someone’s house?
Yeah, I figure that’s a part of it. Pirates are the natural enemy of mankind, or at least, that segment of mankind that owns boats. I’m not sure why the rest of us are supposed to especially torqued up about it.
Also a good point, but also something that happens on dry land a lot, too. I don’t have a problem will killing kidnappers if that’s the best way to make sure the hostages get out safely, but there seems to be an idea in this thread that killing pirates is a desirable end in and of itself, even (in Paul’s case, at least) at the expense of the hostage’s lives.
What makes piracy special is that it tends to take place beyond the reach of the civilized world’s courts. A mugger or even a kidnapper in our countries is doing his or her mugging and kidnapping in places where they can expect to be nabbed by the cops and courts if identified. A pirate operates out of lawless places like Somalia, there are no cops and no courts, and of course their crimes take place on the high seas … which means that, practically speaking, force is the only way to deter them.
I think it is shocking because it is something that is supposed to belong to a bygone era, when Yellowbeard was sailing the seven seas making his victims eat their own lips.
I don’t think it’s a special or even moral outrage, I think overkill is kinda required simply because you’re threatened with violence from armed men somewhere that no help can reach you. On land, that liquor store is between 30 seconds and 5 minutes away from help, at sea, you might go hours or even a day before help can get to you.
Well, yeah. That’s why we usually find burglary more objectionable than pickpocketing, because we feel like we ought to be more secure in our homes. Criminal law makes these distinctions all the time, like how murder for hire or killing a cop is a typical aggravating circumstance that may make punishment more harsh than your run of the mill murder.
As I’ve said before, pirates are the original terrorists. They are armed bullies who target the defenseless to bring personal profit without even the slightest pretense that they’re pursuing a political goal that would (in their view) make the world better. As was said in the Big Lebowski, “One can argue the merits of National Socialism, but at least that’s an ethos.” (Just had to throw that in there.)
