organization:united states navy

  • U.A.E. Splits With U.S. Over Blame for Oil Tanker Attack in May - Bloomberg
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-26/u-a-e-splits-with-u-s-over-blame-for-oil-tanker-attack-in-may


    A U.S. Navy vessel guards the Japanese oil tanker Kokuka Courageous in the Gulf of Oman.
    Photographer: Mumen Khatib/AFP via Getty Images

    The United Arab Emirates appeared to distance itself from U.S. claims that pinned attacks on oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz on Iran.

    Honestly we can’t point the blame at any country because we don’t have evidence,” Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan said on Wednesday in Moscow. “If there is a country that has the evidence, then I’m convinced that the international community will listen to it. But we need to make sure the evidence is precise and convincing.

    While an investigation by the U.A.E., Norway and Saudi Arabia concluded that a “state actor” was most likely behind the incident in May, no nation was singled out. Still, U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton has said that Iran was almost certainly responsible.

  • صدمة في البنتاغون بسبب نجاح إيران في إسقاط تاج الصناعة العسكرية الأمريكية طائرة ” Global Hawk” والتساؤل : بأي صاروخ أسقطته هل روسي أم محلي الصنع؟ | رأي اليوم
    https://www.raialyoum.com/index.php/%d8%b5%d8%af%d9%85%d8%a9-%d9%81%d9%8a-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a8%d9%86%d8%aa%d8%a

    Le drône US abattu par les Iraniens est un bel engin qui a coûté 270 millions de dollars.L’armée US n’en aurait qu’une dizaine d’exemplaires. Et elle aimerait bien savoir comment les Iraniens l’ont abattu. Cela explique peut-être la "retenue américaine".

    #magicien_d'ormuz #iran

  • US Navy says mine pieces suggest Iranian origin
    (video)
    https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/decorated-navy-seal-trial-63821387

    The United States sought on Wednesday to bolster its case for isolating Iran over its nuclear and regional activities by displaying limpet mine fragments it said came from a damaged oil tanker and saying the ordnance looked Iranian in origin. Nathan Frandino reports.

  • Attaques dans le Golfe : l’Iran affirme avoir abattu un « drone espion » américain
    https://www.latribune.fr/economie/international/attaques-dans-le-golfe-l-iran-affirme-avoir-abattu-un-drone-espion-america


    Selon un responsable américain, le drone de l’US Navy qui a été neutralisé par un missile iranien était un MQ-4C Triton (du fabricant américain Northrop Grumman).
    Crédits : Reuters

    Les autorités iraniennes et un responsable américain ont annoncé ce jeudi 20 juin qu’un drone de l’armée américaine avait été abattu par un missile iranien, tout en divergeant sur le modèle et le lieu où l’incident s’est produit.
    Selon les Gardiens de la Révolution islamique, cités par les agences officielles iraniennes, un drone « espion » américain a été abattu alors qu’il venait d’entrer dans l’espace aérien iranien dans la province côtière d’Hormozgan, dans le sud du pays. L’agence Irna précise que le drone abattu était un RQ-4 Global Hawk.

    De son côté, le responsable américain a déclaré à Reuters que le drone avait été abattu par un missile sol-air alors qu’il se trouvait dans l’espace aérien international au-dessus du détroit d’Ormuz. Il a précisé qu’il s’agissait d’un drone MQ-4C Triton de l’US Navy. Le MQ-4C Triton a un temps de vol, une altitude et un rayon d’action légèrement inférieurs à ceux du RQ-4 Global Hawk. Tous deux sont construits par Northrop Grumman.

    Avant que le responsable américain ne s’exprime, un porte-parole du Commandement central l’armée américaine avait déclaré qu’aucun drone américain n’avait survolé l’espace aérien iranien jeudi, sans fournir plus de détails.

  • Oman attack: Iran is the immediate, but unlikely, suspect - Iran - Haaretz.com

    Oman attack: Iran is the immediate, but unlikely, suspect
    U.S. officials rushed to point to Tehran, but somehow the world’s leading intelligence services failed to discover who is actually behind the strike. And even if they knew, what could be done without risking all-out war?
    Zvi Bar’el | Jun. 14, 2019 | 8:36 AM | 3
    https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/.premium-oman-attack-iran-is-the-immediate-but-unlikely-suspect-1.7368134


    A unnamed senior U.S. Defense Department official was quick to tell CBS that Iran was “apparently” behind the Thursday attack on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, followed by State Secretary Mike Pompeo who later told reported that it was his government’s assessment. There’s nothing new about that, but neither is it a decisive proof.

    Who, then, struck the tankers? Whom does this strike serve and what can be done against such attacks?

    In all previous attacks in the Gulf in recent weeks Iran was naturally taken to be the immediate suspect. After all, Iran had threatened that if it could now sell its oil in the Gulf, other countries would not be able to ship oil through it; Tehran threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, and in any case it’s in the sights of the United States, Saudi Arabia and Israel. But this explanation is too easy.

    The Iranian regime is in the thrones of a major diplomatic struggle to persuade Europe and its allies, Russia and China, not to take the path of pulling out of the 2015 nuclear agreement. At the same time, Iran is sure that the United States is only looking for an excuse to attack it. Any violent initiative on Tehran’s part could only make things worse and bring it close to a military conflict, which it must avoid.

    Iran has announced it would scale back its commitments under the nuclear deal by expanding its low-level uranium enrichment and not transferring the remainder of its enriched uranium and heavy water to another country, as the agreement requires. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s reports reveal that it has indeed stepped up enrichment, but not in a way that could support a military nuclear program.

    It seems that alongside its diplomatic efforts, Iran prefers to threaten to harm the nuclear deal itself, responding to Washington with the same token, rather than escalate the situation to a military clash.

    Other possible suspects are the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, who continue to pound Saudi targets with medium-range missiles, as was the case last week with strikes on the Abha and Jizan airports, near the Yemeni border, which wounded 26 people. The Houthis have also fired missiles at Riyadh and hit targets in the Gulf. In response, Saudi Arabia launched a massive missile strike on Houthi-controlled areas in northern Yemen.

    The strike on the oil tankers may have been a response to the response, but if this is the case, it goes against Iran’s policy, which seeks to neutralize any pretexts for a military clash in the Gulf. The question, therefore, is whether Iran has full control over all the actions the Houthis take, and whether the aid it gives them commits them fully to its policies, or whether they see assaults on Saudi targets as a separate, local battle, cut off from Iran’s considerations.

    The Houthis have claimed responsibility for some of their actions in Saudi territory in the past, and at times even took the trouble of explaining the reasons behind this assault or the other. But not this time.

    Yemen also hosts large Al-Qaida cells and Islamic State outposts, with both groups having a running account with Saudi Arabia and apparently the capabilities to carry out strikes on vessels moving through the Gulf.

    In the absence of confirmed and reliable information on the source of the fire, we may meanwhile discount the possibility of a Saudi or American provocation at which Iran has hinted, but such things have happened before. However, we may also wonder why some of the most sophisticated intelligence services in the world are having so much trouble discovering who actually carried out these attacks.

    Thwarting such attacks with no precise intelligence is an almost impossible task, but even if the identity of those responsible for it is known, the question of how to respond to the threat would still arise.

    If it turns out that Iran initiated or even carried out these attacks, American and Saudi military forces could attack its Revolutionary Guards’ marine bases along the Gulf coast, block Iranian shipping in the Gulf and persuade European countries to withdraw from the nuclear deal, claiming that continuing relations with Iran would mean supporting terrorism in general, and maritime terrorism in particular.

    The concern is that such a military response would lead Iran to escalate its own and openly strike American and Saudi targets in the name of self-defense and protecting its sovereignty. In that case, a large-scale war would be inevitable. But there’s no certainty that U.S. President Donald Trump, who wants to extricate his forces from military involvement in the Middle East, truly seeks such a conflict, which could suck more and more American forces into this sensitive arena.

    An escape route from this scenario would require intensive mediation efforts between Iran and the United States, but therein lies one major difficulty – finding an authoritative mediator that could pressure both parties. Russia or China are not suitable candidates, and ties between Washington and the European Union are acrimonious.

    It seems that all sides would be satisfied if they could place responsibility for the attacks on the Houthis or other terror groups. That is not to say that the United States or Saudi Arabia have any magic solutions when it comes to the Houthis; far from it. The war in Yemen has been going on for five years now with no military resolution, and increased bombardment of concentrations of Houthi forces could only expand their efforts to show their strength. But the United States would pay none of the diplomatic or military price for assaults on the Houthis it would for a forceful violent response against Iran itself.

    If sporadic, small-scale attacks raise such complex dilemmas, one can perhaps dream of an all-out war with Iran, but it is enough to look at the chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan to grow extremely cautious of the trajectory in which such dreams become a nightmare that lasts for decades.❞
    #Oman #Iran
    https://seenthis.net/messages/786937

    • UPDATE 1-"Flying objects" damaged Japanese tanker during attack in Gulf of Oman
      Junko Fujita – June 14, 2019
      (Adds comments from company president)
      By Junko Fujita
      https://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-tanker-japan-damage/update-1-flying-objects-damaged-japanese-tanker-during-attack-in-gulf-of-om

      TOKYO, June 14 (Reuters) - Two “flying objects” damaged a Japanese tanker owned by Kokuka Sangyo Co in an attack on Thursday in the Gulf of Oman, but there was no damage to the cargo of methanol, the company president said on Friday.

      The Kokuka Courageous is now sailing toward the port of Khor Fakkan in the United Arab Emirates, with the crew having returned to the ship after evacuating because of the incident, Kokuka President Yutaka Katada told a press conference. It was being escorted by the U.S. Navy, he said.

      “The crew told us something came flying at the ship, and they found a hole,” Katada said. “Then some crew witnessed the second shot.”

      Katada said there was no possibility that the ship, carrying 25,000 tons of methanol, was hit by a torpedo.

      The United States has blamed Iran for attacking the Kokuka Courageous and another tanker, the Norwegian-owned Front Altair, on Thursday, but Tehran has denied the allegations.

      The ship’s crew saw an Iranian military ship in the vicinity on Thursday night Japan time, Katada said.

      Katada said he did not believe Kokuka Courageous was targetted because it was owned by a Japanese firm. The tanker is registered in Panama and was flying a Panamanian flag, he said.

      “Unless very carefully examined, it would be hard to tell the tanker was operated or owned by Japanese,” he said. (...)

  • UK maritime group warns of incident in the Gulf of Oman | News | Al Jazeera
    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/uk-maritime-group-warns-incident-gulf-oman-190613054602630.html

    A United Kingdom maritime safety group is warning that an unspecified incident has taken place in the Gulf of Oman and is urging “extreme caution” amid heightened United States-Iran tensions.

    The UK’s Maritime Trade Operations, which is run by the British navy, put out the alert early on Thursday. It did not elaborate further, but said it was investigating the incident.

    Joshua Frey, a spokesman for the US Navy’s Bahrain-based 5th Fleet, said his command was “aware” of a reported incident in the area.

    “We are working on getting details,” Frey told The Associated Press.

    Iranian media reported, without offering any evidence, that there had been an explosion in the area targeting oil tankers.

  • U.S. and Russia trade blame over near collision in East Asian waters - Reuters
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-navy-incident-idUSKCN1T80LR
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QeNcKRkvDY

    Russia and the United States blamed each other for a near collision between their warships in East Asian waters on Friday with both countries accusing one another of dangerous and unprofessional behavior.

    Acting U.S. Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said Washington would lodge a formal diplomatic protest to Russia, while a senior Russian parliamentarian said such episodes could easily escalate tensions, which he said were already balanced “on a razor’s edge”.

    Russia’s Pacific Fleet said that the USS Chancellorsville, a guided-missile cruiser, had come within just 50 meters (165 feet) of the Russian destroyer Admiral Vinogradov which was forced to take emergency action to avoid a collision, Russian news agencies reported.

    They cited a Russian Pacific Fleet statement as saying the incident took place in the early hours of Friday morning in the eastern part of the East China Sea at a time when a group of Russian warships was on a parallel course with a U.S. naval strike group.

    The U.S guided-missile cruiser Chancellorsville suddenly changed course and cut across the path of the destroyer Admiral Vinogradov coming within 50 meters of the ship,” the statement said.

    A protest over the international radio frequency was made to the commanders of the American ship who were warned about the unacceptable nature of such actions,” it said.

    The U.S. Navy rejected that version of events, saying the behavior of the Russian ship had been “unsafe and unprofessional”.

    While operating in the Philippine Sea, a Russian Destroyer ... made an unsafe maneuver against USS Chancellorsville,” U.S. Seventh Fleet spokesman Commander Clayton Doss said.

    This unsafe action forced Chancellorsville to execute all engines back full and to maneuver to avoid collision.

    He described a Russian assertion that the U.S. ship had acted dangerously as “propaganda”. The Russian destroyer came within 50 to 100 feet of the Chancellorsville, he said, putting the safety of its crew and the ship at risk.

    Acting U.S. Defense Secretary Shanahan said Washington would formally protest.

    We’ll have military-to-military conversations with the Russians, and of course we’ll demarche them, but to me safety at the end of the day is the most important (part),” he told reporters outside the Pentagon.

    It will not deter us from conducting our operations.

    The incident comes days after Washington and Moscow sparred over an allegedly unsafe spy plane intercept by a Russian fighter jet near Syria.

    Alexei Pushkov, a senior Russian parliamentarian, said the near naval miss and other incidents like it were dangerous.

    We’re balancing on a razor’s edge,” he wrote on social media.

    Pour les Russes, ça s’est passé à l’est de la #Mer_de_Chine_orientale, pour les États-Uniens en #mer_des_Philippines


    WP


    WP

    • Vues de l’hélicoptère de l’USS Chancellorsville :


      et

      sur le site de la Marine états-unienne, ainsi que le communiqué.
      7th Fleet Statement on Unsafe Maneuver by Russian Destroyer
      /submit/display.asp ?story_id=109833

      PHILIPPINE SEA (NNS) — At approximately 11:45 am on June 7, 2019 while operating in the Philippine Sea, a Russian Destroyer (UDALOY I DD 572) made an unsafe maneuver against guided-missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG-62), closing to approximately 50-100 feet putting the safety of her crew and ship at risk. 

      While USS Chancellorsville was recovering its helicopter on a steady course and speed when the Russian ship DD572 maneuvered from behind and to the right of Chancellorsville accelerated and closed to an unsafe distance of approximately 50-100 feet. This unsafe action forced USS Chancellorsville to execute all engines back full and to maneuver to avoid collision. 
      We consider Russia’s actions during this interaction as unsafe and unprofessional and not in accordance with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS), “Rules of the Road,” and internationally recognized maritime customs.

    • Les images aériennes sont impressionnantes et montrent bien qu’on est passé tout près d’une collision. Ce dont ne rendent absolument pas compte les vidéos tournées de la passerelle du Chancellorsville où l’on ne voit que les deux navires en route parallèle. On jurerait presque qu’ils sont en manœuvre de ravitaillement à la mer…

      Les sillages montrent sans ambiguïté que c’est le navire russe qui a manœuvré in extremis. Tout le reste est difficile à interpréter.

      • d’après les É.-U., le Chancellorsville récupère son hélicoptère. Or d’après les images celui-ci est déjà à une distance certaine sur l’avant du navire. On pourrait imaginer qu’il a interrompu son approche (forcément par l’arrière) au vu de l’incertitude de la situation tactique, en ce cas je ne connais pas la procédure de dégagement, certainement une reprise d’altitude, mais dans quelle direction relative au navire ? Ça me paraît étonnant que l’hélico puisse se retrouver aussi loin sur l’avant aussi rapidement.

      Quant à l’application des règles de route du #RIPAM, elle ne me paraît pas aussi évidente que certains commentateurs l’affirment.
      • certes le russe est sur le tribord de l’états-unien, ce qui normalement oblige ce dernier à laisser le passage, mais,…
      • s’il est en route aviation pour l’appontement de son hélico (cf. premier point, douteux) il est alors en manœuvrabilité restreinte et il doit en arborer à son mat la marque (1 boule, 1 icône, 1 boule superposées .
      • on peut aussi se poser la question de l’angle entre les deux sillages. S’il fait moins de 67,5° (de nuit, le russe ne verrait que le feu de poupe, pas le feu de tribord), alors le navire russe est en situation de dépassement et c’est à lui de manœuvrer. Dans le cas contraire, c’est à l’américain. _A priori
      , on est autour des 45°, mais la projection de l’angle due à la perspective vue de l’hélico rend l’évaluation malaisée.
      • enfin, il est aussi difficile de juger si le Chancellorsville bat effectivement en arrière toute. L’absence de sillage sur la deuxième image, alors que sur la première on en perçoit un léger, ainsi que l’écume sur l’arrière du bateau vont dans ce sens, mais des nuages commencent à s’interposer. Par ailleurs, sur les vidéos on ne perçoit pas vraiment de changement de la vitesse relative entre les deux bateaux.

      Au vu de tout ça, il me semble bien que l’Admiral Vinogradov est effectivement navire rattrapant et que la manœuvre qu’il effectue est extrêmement tardive…

  • USS Gerald R. Ford & F-35C : les amours contrariées
    https://www.dedefensa.org/article/ussgerald-rford-f-35c-les-amours-contrariees

    USS Gerald R. Ford & F-35C : les amours contrariées

    L’US Navy se trouve face à une fronde en devenir, de la part du Congrès, à propos de la situation et des prix de la nouvelle classe de porte-avions USS Gerald R. Ford. Une sous-commission de la Chambre des Représentants a modifié le projet de loi pour l’année fiscale 2020, en incluant une clause d’interdiction de livraison à l’US Navy de la prochaine unité de la classe (le CVN-79) tant que cette unité n’aura pas la capacité de déployer des chasseurs embarqués F-35C, – la version aéronavale du JSF.

    L’explication de cette étonnante situation est à déméler de l’imbroglio comptables dans lequel se trouve plongée l’US Navy du fait des exigences de contrôle des prix et de réduction des coûts de la part des législateurs ; et du fait des coûts et des surprises (...)

  • Pendant la visite de Trump à la base navale de Yokosuka, consigne était passée de faire disparaitre toute mention du nom de l’USS John McCain. Non à cause de la collision d’il y a presque 2 ans, mais du fait de la haine personnelle de Trump à l’égard du sénateur John McCain III, aviateur de la marine dont le nom,après son décès, a été ajouté à ceux de John McCain I et II, père et grand-père et tous deux amiraux de l’US Navy comme référence au nom de baptême du navire…

    Le nom a été recouvert d’une bâche, les toiles habillant les coupées ont été retirées, les marins mis en congé,…

    Mais Trump n’y est, évidemment, pour rien !

    Trump says he was not told of request to move USS John McCain ’out of sight’ - Reuters
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-navy/trump-says-he-was-not-told-of-request-to-move-uss-john-mccain-out-of-sight-

    U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he was unaware of any effort to move the USS John S. McCain that was stationed near the site of his recent speech in Japan.

    A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed to Reuters that an initial request had been made to keep the John McCain out of sight during Trump’s speech but was scrapped by senior Navy officials.
    […]
    The USS John S. McCain was initially named for the late senator’s father and grandfather, who were both Navy admirals. In 2018, the Navy added Senator McCain to the official namesake of the guided missile destroyer.

    Trump wrote on Twitter: “I was not informed about anything having to do with the Navy Ship USS John S. McCain during my recent visit to Japan.” The White House declined to comment.

    The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the news, said the White House wanted the U.S. Navy to move the ship “out of sight.” It cited an email between U.S. military officials.

    The email to Navy and Air Force officials had a number of directives, including: “USS John McCain needs to be out of sight,” and asking officials to “please confirm” that directive “will be satisfied.

    The newspaper said a tarpaulin was hung over the ship’s name ahead of Trump’s trip and sailors were directed to remove coverings from the destroyer that bore its name.

    It also said sailors assigned to the ship, who generally wear caps bearing its name, were given the day off during Trump’s visit to the nearby USS Wasp. However, the U.S. official said sailors on the ship were given the day off because of Memorial Day.

    • Admiral Squashed White House Request to Hide USS John McCain – Foreign Policy
      https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/03/admiral-squashes-white-house-request-to-hide-uss-john-mccain


      The USS John S. McCain (DDG 56) destroyer (C) is moored in a dock at the Yokosuka Naval Base on June 01, 2019 in Yokosuka, Japan. On Thursday, U.S. President Donald Trump has denied any involvement the move to hide the Navy Ship USS John S. McCain during his recent visit to its home port in Yokosuka, after reports emerged of emails being exchanged about keeping the ship out of view.
      Photo by Tomohiro Ohsumi/Getty Images

      Shot down. When U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Phillip Sawyer received a request from the White House to obscure the USS John McCain during President Donald Trump’s recent visit to Japan, his answer was crystal clear: No way.

      A senior U.S. defense official told FP on Sunday that Sawyer, commander of the U.S. Navy’s Seventh Fleet, was the person who ultimately squashed the request, which sparked a global furor and threatened to overshadow Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan’s first major speech on the international stage.

      Not an ‘unreasonable’ request. The directive, which was acknowledged by the Navy on Saturday, seems to have come from lower-level aides trying to avert an uncomfortable scenario—an effort that White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney called not “unreasonable.” The president has made no secret of his dislike for Sen. John McCain, who emerged as one of his strongest Republican critics during his 2016 campaign.

      But it raises questions about the politicization of the military, an organization that is traditionally apolitical. Trump has drawn the military into the debate over his long-promised wall on the border with Mexico, clashed with Gold Star families, and frequently used military events to deliver politicized speeches. Following the uproar Shanahan himself, Trump’s nominee to become Secretary of Defense, directed his chief of staff to tell the White House that the military “will not be politicized.

  • Exclusive: Insurer says Iran’s Guards likely to have organized tanker attacks - Reuters
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-oil-tankers-exclusive-idUSKCN1SN1P7


    Port officials take a photo of the damaged tanker Andrea Victory at the Port of Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, May 13, 2019.
    REUTERS/Satish Kumar/File Photo

    LONDON/OSLO (Reuters) - Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) are “highly likely” to have facilitated attacks last Sunday on four tankers including two Saudi ships off Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates, according to a Norwegian insurers’ report seen by Reuters.

    The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Norway are investigating the attacks, which also hit a UAE- and a Norwegian-flagged vessel.

    A confidential assessment issued this week by the Norwegian Shipowners’ Mutual War Risks Insurance Association (DNK) concluded that the attack was likely to have been carried out by a surface vessel operating close by that despatched underwater drones carrying 30-50 kg (65-110 lb) of high-grade explosives to detonate on impact.

    The attacks took place against a backdrop of U.S.-Iranian tension following Washington’s decision this month to try to cut Tehran’s oil exports to zero and beef up its military presence in the Gulf in response to what it called Iranian threats.

    The DNK based its assessment that the IRGC was likely to have orchestrated the attacks on a number of factors, including:
    • A high likelihood that the IRGC had previously supplied its allies, the Houthi militia fighting a Saudi-backed government in Yemen, with explosive-laden surface drone boats capable of homing in on GPS navigational positions for accuracy.
    • The similarity of shrapnel found on the Norwegian tanker to shrapnel from drone boats used off Yemen by Houthis, even though the craft previously used by the Houthis were surface boats rather than the underwater drones likely to have been deployed in Fujairah.
    • The fact that Iran and particularly the IRGC had recently threatened to use military force and that, against a militarily stronger foe, they were highly likely to choose “asymmetric measures with plausible deniability”. DNK noted that the Fujairah attack had caused “relatively limited damage” and had been carried out at a time when U.S. Navy ships were still en route to the Gulf.

    Both the Saudi-flagged crude oil tanker Amjad and the UAE-flagged bunker vessel A.Michel sustained damage in the area of their engine rooms, while the Saudi tanker Al Marzoqah was damaged in the aft section and the Norwegian tanker Andrea Victory suffered extensive damage to the stern, DNK said.

    The DNK report said the attacks had been carried out between six and 10 nautical miles off Fujairah, which lies close to the Strait of Hormuz.

  • Inside the Close Naval Encounters in the South China Sea - Bloomberg

    On notera que la seule chose que confient les officiers interrogés sur ce navire amiral est que le comportement des navires qui les ont pistés à de multiples reprises à toujours été extrêmement sûr. Ils ne disent pas a toujours été extrêmement professionnel, car cela contredirait trop ouvertement les déclarations officielles.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-13/south-china-sea-naval-encounters


    The U.S. Navy’s USS Blue Ridge in Singapore on May 9.
    Photographer : Bryan van der Beek/Bloomberg

    The voice on the radio in the middle of the South China Sea follows a familiar script for Captain Eric Anduze, who helms the USS Blue Ridge. It’s China on the phone.

    They’ll contact us and they’ll go — ‘U.S. government vessel, this is Chinese Navy vessel’ number whatever — ‘we will maintain five miles from you and escort you as you make your transit,”’ Anduze said, describing the English-speaking voice from a rival Chinese warship.

    The U.S. response is short: “Chinese vessel, this is government vessel 1 9, copy, out.” From there on, silence, as the vessels of the world’s rival powers steam onward together.

    The ship-to-ship interactions are a regular potential flash point for the world’s two biggest militaries in contested waters. In September, a Chinese destroyer sailed within a football field’s distance of the USS Decatur in what the U.S. said was an “unsafe and unprofessional” maneuver. That hasn’t deterred future sailings — the U.S. sent two guided-missile destroyers within 12 nautical miles of disputed islands earlier this month.

    Based in Japan, the Blue Ridge is a frequent traveler through the South China Sea, which Beijing considers its waters against an international community increasingly concerned by its encroachment. The area is home to key shipping lanes and fisheries that have sparked dispute between China and its neighbors.
    […]
    The U.S. Navy allowed media outlets, including Bloomberg, an inside look at the sort of ship it’s using to sail through the disputed waters. The oldest operational warship in the American Navy, the Blue Ridge is the flagship of the 7th Fleet, and docked in Singapore as part of a tour of southeast Asian port cities.

    The Blue Ridge is billed as one of the most technologically advanced ships in the world. It operates as a central information node for a fleet whose range stretches from the Indian-Pakistan border to the International Date Line in the Pacific Ocean. Through its several computers flow a database the Navy says gives it a “complete tactical picture of air, surface and subsurface contacts.” That’s what it does: it sails and it knows things.

    The ship is a small floating town of more than 1,000 sailors at any given time. There are beds and cafeterias, fitness centers and a post office. A miniature hospital has sick beds and an operating room, along with a dentist who can fill a cavity or pull a tooth — unless the waves get too rough. Up on deck, sailors can jog around a makeshift track around the ship, at about seven laps to a mile.

    Since February, Captain Anduze said the Blue Ridge has been escorted by Chinese vessels about six times in an almost unremarkable and now routine manner.

    In Washington, the view is that China uses “coercive tactics” including its naval and paramilitary vessels to enforce claims in the South China Sea, the Pentagon said last week in its annual report on China’s military power. Those are targeted “in ways calculated to be below the threshold of provoking conflict,” though have escalated into near-misses with U.S. warships.

    Naval officials on the Blue Ridge declined to comment in detail on those more aggressive encounters, except to say nothing similar had happened with them as they passed through the South China Sea’s shipping lanes.

    We have had ships that come about three to four miles away and then just navigate with us throughout the area,” Anduze said. Those interactions have been “very safe.

  • L’US Navy et le cauchemar chinois
    http://www.dedefensa.org/article/lus-navy-et-le-cauchemarchinois

    L’US Navy et le cauchemar chinois

    A l’heure où les pourparlers sur le commerce entre les USA et la Chine atteignent un point de rupture, ou un point d’arrangement qui ne serait qu’un sursis pour une rupture, à l’heure où Trump annonce qu’actuellement les droits de douane seraient plus avantageux pour les citoyens américains qu’un accord (ce qui est contestable et hautement contesté par des sources anonymes de l’administration), toute l’attention stratégique des militaires US se porte sur la Chine et sur un conflit possible avec ce pays. (Bien plus que sur l’Iran qui est du domaine stratégiquement schizophrénique de la doublette Bolton-Pompeo.)

    En fait les militaires US sont particulièrement inquiets d’un possible engagements avec la Chine parce que cet arrangement se ferait, beaucoup plus que (...)

  • « Actes de sabotage » contre deux pétroliers saoudiens
    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/05/13/actes-de-sabotage-contre-deux-petroliers-saoudiens_5461284_3210.html

    Quatre navires de commerce ont été visés par des « opérations de sabotage » à proximité des eaux territoriales des Emirats arabes unis, a annoncé dimanche 12 mai le ministère des affaires étrangères émirati, ajoutant qu’il n’y a pas eu de victimes.

    L’incident s’est produit près de l’émirat du Foujeyrah, situé à la sortie du détroit d’Ormuz, voie maritime vitale pour le commerce du pétrole.

    Le ministre de l’énergie saoudien a déploré lundi que deux navires pétroliers saoudiens aient été victimes de « sabotage » et menacé la sécurité des livraisons de pétrole mondiales.

    Dans un communiqué transmis par l’agence de presse officielle saoudienne SPA, Khalid Al-Falih a expliqué que cette attaque n’avait fait aucune victime ni provoqué de déversement de pétrole. Des dommages importants ont été causés à la structure de l’un des deux navires, a-t-il précisé.

    Les Emirats n’ont fourni aucun détail sur la nature de ces actes de sabotage ni sur le pavillon des bâtiments visés. On ne dispose à ce stade d’aucune information sur les auteurs des ces « sabotages ». Aucune précision n’a pu être obtenue auprès du commandement de la 5e flotte américaine, basée au Bahreïn. « Soumettre des navires de commerce à des opérations de sabotage et menacer les vies des équipages est un développement dangereux », déclarait le ministère émirati dans un communiqué repris dimanche par l’agence de presse officielle WAM.

    • la dépêche Reuters initiale (le texte du Monde), 12/05 17h49, MàJ, 13/05 7h18 :

      UAE says four vessels subjected to ’sabotage’ near Fujairah port - Reuters
      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-emirates-fujairah-port-shipping-idUSKCN1SI0EG

      Four commercial vessels were targeted by “sabotage operations” near the territorial waters of the United Arab Emirates without causing casualties, the foreign ministry said on Sunday, without giving details of the nature of the sabotage.

      The incident occurred near the UAE emirate of Fujairah, one of the world’s largest bunkering hubs which lies just outside the Strait of Hormuz, the ministry said in a statement.

      Trading and industry sources said operations at Fujairah port ran smoothly on Sunday.

      The strait, a vital global oil and gas shipping route, separates the Gulf states and Iran, which has been embroiled in an escalating war of words with the United States over U.S. sanctions and the U.S. military’s regional presence.

      Subjecting commercial vessels to sabotage operations and threatening the lives of their crew is considered a dangerous development,” according to the statement that was carried by state news agency WAM.

      The statement, which did not identify the vessels beyond saying they were of various nationalities, said the incident did not result in spills. The UAE did not blame any country or other party for the operation.

      Regional tensions have increased, with Washington saying it was sending a U.S. aircraft carrier and other forces to the Middle East due to what it said were Iranian threats, while Tehran has called the U.S. military presence “a target” rather than a threat.

      The U.S. Navy’s Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet told Reuters it was aware of the UAE report but referred queries to the UAE authorities.

    • Un état antérieur de la dépêche (cf. chronologie relative) disparu depuis indiquait :
      UPDATE 1-UAE emirate of Fujairah denies media reports about blasts at Fujairah port

      cf. l’url du 3ème des liens ci-dessus :
      https://www.reuters.com/article/emirates-fujairah-port-shipping/update-1-uae-emirate-of-fujairah-denies-media-reports-about-blasts-at-fujai

    • État actuel de la dépêche (7h09), complétée par :

      Saudi Arabia says two Saudi oil tankers attacked near UAE waters - Reuters
      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-oil-tankers-fujairah-idUSKCN1SJ088

      Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said in a statement that one of the two Saudi vessels attacked was on its way to be loaded with Saudi crude from Ras Tanura port for delivery to state-owned Saudi Aramco’s customers in the United States.

      The attack did not lead to any casualties or an oil spill but caused significant damage to the structures of the two vessels, said the statement carried on state news agency SPA.

      Trading and shipping sources identified the Saudi vessels as Bahri-owned very large crude carrier (VLCC) tanker Amjad and crude tanker Al Marzoqah. National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia (Bahri) did not respond to a request for comment.

      Falih said the attack aimed to undermine maritime freedom and “security of oil supplies to consumers all over the world”.

      The international community has a joint responsibility to protect the safety of maritime navigation and the security of oil tankers, to mitigate against the adverse consequences of such incidents on energy markets and the danger they pose to the global economy,” he said.

      The U.S. Maritime Administration said in an advisory on Sunday that the incidents off Fujairah, one of the seven emirates that make up the UAE, have not been confirmed and urged caution when transiting the area. It said “the precise means of attack or sabotage is unknown”.

      On est sûr de rien, mais faites gaffe !

    • Amjad, à l’ancre à lège depuis le 2 mai, après un voyage Tianjin (11/04) - Fujairah (02/05)
      (indiqué par l’infobulle)

      Al Marzoqah, à l’ancre à lège, un peu plus au sud, après un voyage Yanbu (25/04) - Fujairah (07/05)
      (à la latitude de Global Project, à côté du navire bleu faisant route au nord)

      On notera qu’il y a pas mal de monde à l’ancre, en attente de chargement (les navires représentés par des marques rondes, les rouges sont des pétroliers)

      copie d’écran MarineTraffic

    • Explosions dans le port ? qui «  fonctionne normalement  » ?

      What happened in Fujairah ? Were there explosions and fire ? – Maritime Bulletin
      https://maritimebulletin.net/2019/05/12/what-happened-in-fujairah-were-there-explosions-and-fire

      Contradictory and confusing news on a very major accident in Fujairah, UAE, Gulf of Oman, started to circulate since afternoon May 12, claiming that there were several explosions in Fujairah port area, and that as a result, at least seven tankers were set on fire. UAE officials condemned these rumors as “fake news”, insisting that nothing happened, and that the port is working without any accidents of any kind, let alone series of explosions and fires.

      Later though, UAE admits there were accidents, describing them as “acts of sabotage”. In the evening UAE media Emirates News Agency published official press-release:

      ABU DHABI, 12th May, 2019 (WAM) — Four commercial ships were subjected to sabotage operations today, 12th May, near UAE territorial waters in the Gulf of Oman, east of Fujairah, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, MOFAIC, has announced.
      The Ministry said that the concerned authorities have taken all necessary measures, and are investigating the incident in cooperation with local and international bodies.
      It said that there had been no injuries or fatalities on board the vessels and that there had been no spillage of harmful chemicals or fuel.

      http://wam.ae/en/details/1395302762084

      Iranian PRESS TV claimed it identified tankers hit by explosions:
      Despite the UAE government’s denial, witnesses have emphasized that the blasts have taken place and some media sources have even went further, identifying a number of oil tankers hit by the explosions by their hull numbers as follows:
      Crude oil tanker AMJAD, IMO 9779800, dwt 300000, built 2017, flag Saudi Arabia.
      Crude oil tanker AL MARZOQAH, IMO 9165762, dwt 105084, built 1999, flag Saudi Arabia.
      Product tanker MIRAJ, IMO 9394741, dwt 7414, built 2007, flag Dominica.
      Product tanker A MICHEL, IMO 9177674, dwt 6711, built 2007, flag UAE..
      Product tanker FNSA 10, IMO 9432074, dwt 6453, built 2007, flag UAE.
      https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/05/12/595783/UAE-fujairah-sabotage-vessel

      Among allegedly struck tankers are one VLCC, one Aframax and three small tankers, most probably bunkering tankers.

      What happened exactly, how bad were explosions and fire, if there were any, and what definition “act of sabotage” means, how much true is indeed, the whole story, is so far anyone’s guess.

      At least three of abovementioned tankers, including VLCC and Aframax, are on the AIS, live, no interruptions. There are no auxiliary, or rescue, or fire, boats near them.

      Apparently, if there were “acts of sabotage” on or near at least three tankers listed above, first of all VLCC and Aframax, it didn’t happen in port, but on outer anchorage, so news on port being on fire, immersed in dense smoke, can be considered as fake news.

    • Plus tôt, Al Mayadeen, repris par Sputnik, annonçaient des explosions dans le port et la mention de survol d’avions français et états-uniens,…

      Des médias annoncent une série d’explosions dans un port émirati, les autorités démentent - Sputnik France
      https://fr.sputniknews.com/international/201905121041082126-port-emirati-fujairah-explosions-petroliers-feu

      Selon la chaîne de télévision al-Mayadeen, qui se réfère à des médias locaux, une série d’explosions a retenti ce dimanche 12 mai dans un port émirati de Fujaïrah. Le porte-parole des autorités locales a pourtant démenti ces informations, en affirmant que le port fonctionnait normalement.

      Plusieurs explosions puissantes ont retenti ce dimanche matin 12 mai dans le port de Fujairah, aux Émirats Arabes Unis, a annoncé la chaîne de télévision al-Mayadeen en se référant à des médias locaux. De sept à dix pétroliers seraient embrasés.

      Selon l’agence Mehr, des explosions se sont produites dans le port de Fujaïrah entre 4 et 7 heures du matin.

      Selon des témoins cités par le média, des avions de guerre américains et français survolaient le port au moment des explosions.

      Néanmoins, le porte-parole des autorités locales a démenti les informations diffusées par les médias qui faisaient état de plusieurs explosions.

      Puis Sputnik reprenait le communiqué des EAU

      Les Émirats informent que 4 bateaux ont été victimes de sabotage près de leurs côtes - Sputnik France
      https://fr.sputniknews.com/international/201905121041092056-emirats-arabes-unis-sabotage-bateaux

      Quatre navires de commerce ont été visés par des « opérations de sabotage » près des eaux territoriales des Émirats arabes unis, annonce la diplomatie du pays précisant qu’il n’y a pas eu de victimes.
      […]
      Plus tôt dans la journée, la chaîne de télévision al-Mayadeen a fait état de plusieurs explosions puissantes dans le port. Selon l’agence Mehr, des explosions se sont produites entre 4 et 7 heures du matin. Citant des témoins, le média a en outre affirmé que des avions de guerre américains et français survolaient le port au moment des explosions. Par la suite, le service de presse du gouvernement de l’émirat de Fujaïrah a démenti ces informations.

    • https://www.presstv.com/DetailFr/2019/05/13/595812/ptroliers-iran-golfe-persique-brut-bourse-mirats-arabes-unis-explosion

      La diplomatie iranienne a jugé inquiétant et regrettable l’incident survenu au port de Fujaïra aux EAU sur lequel elle demande l’ouverture d’une enquête.

      Le porte-parole de la diplomatie iranienne a demandé qu’on fasse toute la lumière sur les explosions qui se sont produites, dimanche 12 mai, à l’intérieur du port de Fujaïrah des Émirats arabes unis et qui ont détruit sept à dix pétroliers.

    • Actes de « sabotage » contre des navires de commerce au large des Emirats
      Reuters13 mai 2019 (Maher Chmaytelli et Alexander Cornwell, avec Rania El Gamal à Dubaï et Babak Dehghanpisheh à Genève ; Henri-Pierre André et Jean Terzian pour le service français)
      https://fr.news.yahoo.com/actes-sabotage-contre-des-navires-commerce-au-large-044507526.html

      (...) Dans un communiqué transmis par l’agence de presse officielle saoudienne SPA, Khalid al-Falih a indiqué que cette attaque n’avait fait aucune victime ni provoqué de déversement de pétrole. Des dommages importants ont été causés à la structure de l’un des deux navires, a-t-il précisé.

      Les Emirats n’ont fourni aucun détail sur la nature de ces actes de sabotage ni sur le pavillon des bâtiments visés. On ne dispose à ce stade d’aucune information sur les auteurs des ces « sabotages ». Aucune précision n’a pu être obtenue auprès du commandement de la Ve Flotte américaine, basée au Bahreïn.

      « Soumettre des navires de commerce à des opérations de sabotage et menacer les vies des équipages est un développement dangereux », déclarait le ministère émirati dans un communiqué repris dimanche par l’agence officielle de presse WAM.

      L’incident est survenu dans une phase d’escalade des tensions dans cette région du Golfe, où l’armée américaine a déployé des moyens militaires supplémentaires face à ce que Washington qualifie de menace iranienne.

      Sur Twitter, le député iranien Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, qui préside la commission parlementaire de la Sécurité nationale, a estimé que ces explosions démontraient que la sécurité des Etats du Golfe est aussi fragile que « du verre ».

    • Bon, pas beaucoup de nouvelles précisions, mais quand même deux vidéos tournées sur place aujourd’hui dont il ressort clairement, surtout de la première, qu’il s’est bien produit quelque chose qui ressemble à des attaques. «  Sabotage  » ne semble pas du tout adapté. Ce sont des reportages de RT en arabe (à 18h aujourd’hui) et de Sky News en arabe.

      What happened in Fujairah ? Were there explosions and fire ? May 13 VIDEOS – Maritime Bulletin
      (version mise à jour par rapport à ce matin cf. supra)
      https://maritimebulletin.net/2019/05/12/what-happened-in-fujairah-were-there-explosions-and-fire

      Video showing damaged, listed tanker A MICHELL, and Norwegian tanker ANDREA VICTORY stern hull breach.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxPjdMaRJP4

      On y parle de 4 navires (je ne comprends que quelques bribes)
      Le A Michell avec une légère gîte sur tribord et le Andrea Victory avec une nette perforation de son tableau arrière, le choc ayant provoqué le décrochement du O du nom du navire… À 2’00" on entrevoie la poupe d’un navire sous pavillon des ÉAU dont on ne peut distinguer le nom, masqué sous le bandeau et qui arbore à une drisse le pavillon Bravo (drapeau rouge) indiquant qu’il charge ou décharge des matières dangereuses, apparemment sur rade et non à quai à l’aide probablement du navire voisin qu’on entrevoit sur la droite

      Dans la 2ème vidéo, le reporter est filmé devant la proue du Al Marzoqah dont le flanc bâbord porte des traces de choc ou d’éraflure dont l’article suppose qu’elles peuvent résulter de l’attaque. On ne voit malheureusement aucun autre point de vue.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHeijlXM3uI

      (note pour @gonzo, l’accent du reporter me paraît nettement plus compréhensible, en tous cas, j’en comprends un tout petit plus que dans la première)

    • Ici CBS News, reprenant les images du Al Marzoqah par Sky News, parle d’une explosion l’ayant endommagé sans traces apparentes et mentionne un autre navire attaqué par un objet flottant, ce qui correspond très exactement à ce que l’on peut voir du A Michell dans la vidéo de RT.

      CBS News parlent aussi de méchants ill wishers, sans autre précision…

      Iran news : « Sabotage attacks » on Saudi Arabia oil tankers near Fujairah port in UAE stoke fear of US-Iran conflict today - Live Updates - CBS News
      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-news-saudi-arabia-sabotage-oil-tankers-fujairah-uae-fears-us-iran-conf

      (pas de lien externe vers la vidéo)

  • China’s vast fleet is tipping the balance in the Pacific

    The Chinese navy, which is growing faster than any other major fleet, now controls the seas off its coast. Once dominant, the United States and its allies sail warily in these waters. A former U.S. naval officer says China’s advances have caught America napping.
    https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/china-army-navy
    #chine #etatsunis

    • la version en ligne “ classique ” de ce très bel article interactif :

      Special Report: China’s vast fleet is tipping the balance in the Pacific - Reuters
      https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN1S6139


      FILE PHOTO - Warships and fighter jets of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy take part in a military display in the South China Sea April 12, 2018.
      REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo

      For now, many of China’s warships are smaller vessels, including a big fleet of fast missile-attack craft. But Chinese shipyards are launching surface warships that are closing the gap in size, quality, and capability with the best of their foreign counterparts, according to interviews with veterans of the U.S., Taiwanese and Australian navies. China’s big fleet of conventional and nuclear submarines is also improving rapidly, they say.

      By 2020, the PLA navy will boast more big surface warships and submarines than the Russian navy, the former head of the U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Harry Harris, told a congressional committee last year. Some American naval experts believe China could achieve rough parity with the U.S. Navy in numbers and quality of major surface warships by 2030.

      Crucially, the Chinese navy already has an edge in hitting power, according to senior officers from the U.S. and other regional navies. The best Chinese destroyers, frigates, fast attack craft and submarines are armed with anti-ship missiles that in most cases far outrange and outperform those on U.S. warships, these officers say.

      This firepower explains why Washington keeps its carriers at a distance. The last U.S. carrier to pass through the Taiwan Strait was the now-decommissioned USS Kitty Hawk, which made a transit with its battle group in late 2007 after being denied a port visit to Hong Kong.

      The U.S. Navy and other foreign navies still sail near the Chinese mainland. But they avoid overt shows of force that would increase the risk of clashes with modern Chinese warships and submarines. Retired U.S. Navy carrier-fleet officers say that in recent years the Pentagon has also avoided sending carriers to the Yellow Sea between the Korean Peninsula and the Chinese mainland, amid repeated Chinese warnings.

      An example of China’s determination to control its near waters came this month, when a French warship passed through the Taiwan Strait. After the April 6 transit of the frigate Vendemiaire, China informed Paris that France was no longer welcome to attend celebrations last week to mark the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese communist navy, U.S. officials told Reuters.

    • On peut mettre cet article en perspective avec celui sur les conséquences de l’austérité sur l’armée britannique (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/world/europe/austerity-britain-military.html) alors que partout les dépenses augmentent (https://www.courrierinternational.com/une/rearmement-le-boom-des-depenses-militaires-un-parfum-de-guerr) ; La Russie est en recul, dépassée notamment par la France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)

  • 200 000 tonnes de stupidité
    http://www.dedefensa.org/article/200000-tonnes-de-stupidite

    200 000 tonnes de stupidité

    Avec Trump et les Trump’s boys, y compris les ambassadeurs et les porte-avions de l’US Navy, inutile de chercher un titre : il suffit de les citer texto. Ainsi en est-il de Jon Huntsman, ambassadeur des États-Unis à Moscou. Il est vrai que Huntsman se trouvait à bord du USS Abraham Lincoln qui, s’il n’atteint pas les 100 000 tonnes, s’en approche remarquablement avec les 90 000 tonnes (88 000 tonnes exactement) de la classe Nimitz dont il est issu : pour 10 000 tonnes, on ne chipotera pas l’ambassadeur US auprès de la Russie.

    Pour cette raison de la facilité à laquelle il importe de ne pas céder, le titre qui s’était imposé initialement (“200 000 tonnes de diplomatie…”) a laissé place à une autre formulation qui nous semble finalement mieux adaptée à ce que dissimulent ces (...)

  • China Spying: The Internet’s Underwater Cables Are Next - Bloomberg
    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-09/china-spying-the-internet-s-underwater-cables-are-next


    Underwater eyes on China.
    Photographer: Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Adam K. Thomas/U.S. Navy via Getty Images

    As the West considers the threat posed by China’s naval ambitions, there is a natural tendency to place overarching attention on the South China Sea. This is understandable: Consolidating it would provide Beijing with a huge windfall of oil and natural gas, and a potential chokehold over up to 40 percent of the world’s shipping.

    But this is only the most obvious manifestation of Chinese maritime strategy. Another key element, one that’s far harder to discern, is Beijing’s increasing influence in constructing and repairing the undersea cables that move virtually all the information on the internet. To understand the totality of China’s “Great Game” at sea, you have to look down to the ocean floor.
    […]
    But now the Chinese conglomerate #Huawei Technologies, the leading firm working to deliver 5G telephony networks globally, has gone to sea. Under its Huawei Marine Networks component, it is constructing or improving nearly 100 submarine cables around the world. Last year it completed a cable stretching nearly 4,000 miles from Brazil to Cameroon. (The cable is partly owned by China Unicom, a state-controlled telecom operator.) Rivals claim that Chinese firms are able to lowball the bidding because they receive subsidies from Beijing.
    […]
    A similar dynamic [as in 5G equipment] is playing out underwater. How can the U.S. address the security of undersea cables? There is no way to stop Huawei from building them, or to keep private owners from contracting with Chinese firms on modernizing them, based purely on suspicions. Rather, the U.S. must use its cyber- and intelligence-gathering capability to gather hard evidence of back doors and other security risks. This will be challenging — the Chinese firms are technologically sophisticated and entwined with a virtual police state.

    And back doors aren’t the only problem: Press reports indicate that U.S. and Chinese (and Russian) submarines may have the ability to “tap” the cables externally. (The U.S. government keeps such information tightly under wraps.) And the thousand or so ground-based landing stations will be spying targets as well.

    #cables_sous-marins #internet #espionnage

  • How does Tor actually work?
    https://hackernoon.com/how-does-tor-really-work-5909b9bd232c?source=rss----3a8144eabfe3---4

    The United States Naval Research Laboratory developed The Onion Routing Protocol (T0r) to project U.S. intelligence communications online. Ironically, Tor has seen widespread use by everyone — even those organisations which the U.S. Navy fights against.You may know Tor as the hometown of online illegal activities, a place where you can buy any drug you want, a place for all things illegal. Tor is much larger than what the media makes it out to be. According to Kings College much of Tor is legal.This article doesn’t talk about what’s on Tor, or how to access Tor. This article gives a technical rundown of how the technology works, without speculation and without exaggeration of what Tor is.The core principle of Tor is onion routing which is a technique for anonymous & secure communication (...)

  • Electoral Interference: USA vs USSR/Russia on Vimeo
    https://vimeo.com/319490133

    The map displays known instances of U.S. and Soviet/Russian electoral interference from 1946 through 2000.

    The underlying data comes from:
    Dov H. Levin 2016. “Partisan Electoral Interventions by the Great Powers: Introducing the PEIG Dataset” Conflict Management and Peace Science Early View. The dataset is available by request: dovhlevin.com/datasets

    The audio includes speeches from:
    – Harry Truman, “A Public Man Must Live in the Present” (1955)
    – Ronald Reagan, “Evil Empire” speech (1983)
    – George H.W. Bush in response to shoot-down of Iranian passenger flight by US Navy (1988)

    Visualization by Will Geary. Made with code using Processing.

    #élection #de_quoi_j'me_mêle #visualisation

  • Etats-Unis : Le chef des Marines américains proteste contre le financement du mur de Trump
    https://www.latribune.fr/economie/international/etats-unis-le-chef-des-marines-americains-proteste-contre-le-financement-d

    Le patron des Marines américains, le général Robert Neller, juge que le déploiement militaire à la frontière avec le Mexique et le mur voulu par Donald Trump représentent un « risque inacceptable » pour ses soldats, selon des documents internes cités jeudi 21 mars par le Los Angeles Times

    Dans deux mémos adressés au ministre de la Défense par intérim, Patrick Shanahan, et à son adjoint chargé de l’US Navy, Richard Spencer, le général Neller indique que les déploiements « imprévus et non budgétisés » ordonnés par le président le long de la frontière l’ont obligé à annuler ou réduire des exercices militaires prévus dans cinq pays. Les Marines ne participeront pas à des exercices prévus en Indonésie, en Ecosse et en Mongolie, et leur participation à des manoeuvres conjointes en Australie et en Corée du Sud sera réduite, ajoute le haut gradé américain dans ces documents datés des 18 et 19 mars.

    L’authenticité des documents, dont des copies ont été publiées par le journal, a été confirmée par le corps des Marines. En outre, à cause de la procédure d’urgence que le président a décrétée pour débloquer 6,7 milliards du budget 2019 du Pentagone pour financer la construction du mur, le corps des Marines ne pourra pas financer la reconstruction de ses bases ravagées par des ouragans en Caroline du Nord et en Géorgie, ajoute le général.

  • Navy Bid to Retire Truman Stirs Debate Over Aircraft Carriers - Bloomberg
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-21/navy-bid-to-retire-truman-stirs-debate-over-aircraft-carriers


    The USS Harry S. Truman transits the Strait of Hormuz on Dec. 26, 2015
    Photographer: Mass Communication Specialist 2n/U.S. Navy

    Visiting the USS Gerald R. Ford two years ago, U.S. President Donald Trump extolled the importance of an enlarged naval force featuring a dozen aircraft carriers—including the Ford, the most expensive ship ever built.

    Having 12 of these behemoths—sometimes accompanied by a half-dozen other ships—would send an international signal of U.S. resolve and restore the fleet to its post-Cold War size during the 1990s.

    The Pentagon’s latest budget proposal, however, seems to do the opposite.

    The Defense Department is seeking to—at least for now—shrink the carrier fleet, proposing that the USS Harry Truman be effectively decommissioned in 2024. This would mean that a multibillion-dollar, nuclear-powered super-carrier deployed in 2000 would be mothballed two decades before the end of its service life. 

    The Pentagon plan would skip the vessel’s $6.5 billion midlife nuclear refueling and overhaul to save funds for other military priorities. The Ford alone costs $13 billion.

    The proposal—which already faces congressional headwinds—would for a time leave the Navy with 10 carriers, one fewer than the congressionally mandated fleet size. Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, signaled last week that he opposes the plan. “I’m a little disturbed by the idea,” he said.

    Patrick Shanahan, the acting U.S. secretary of defense, said the decision “represents some of the strategic choices we made in this year’s budget.

    Being forced to choose, however, may prompt Congress to simply find more money to rehabilitate the Truman and move forward with an existing deal to buy a second and third Ford-class carrier. A similar quandary during the Obama administration was resolved this way. Indeed, there’s some question as to whether the Truman proposal is simply a feint: The Navy’s new 30-year shipbuilding plan has a section called “Navy The Nation Needs,” which includes 12 carriers as part of a desired 355-vessel fleet.

  • Abordage de l’USS Fitzgerald, enquête détaillée de ProPublica dans un remarquable format long pour le web.
    (article du 6/02/2019)

    Death and Valor on an American Warship Doomed by its Own Navy
    https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgerald-destroyer-crash-crystal


    Propublica image designed by Xaquín G.V.

    ProPublica reconstructed the Fitzgerald’s journey, relying on more than 13,000 pages of confidential Navy investigative records, public reports, and interviews with scores of Fitzgerald crew members, current and former senior Navy officers, and maritime experts.
    The review revealed neglect by Navy leadership, serious mistakes by officers — and extraordinary acts of valor and endurance by the crew.

  • La liste des incidents du USCG Polar Star continue à s’allonger. Les capacités polaires des garde-côtes états-uniens sont à la merci d’un incident…

    FIRE IN ANTARCTIC OCEAN Aboard USCG’s Last Heavy Icebreaker – gCaptain
    https://gcaptain.com/fire-in-antarctic-ocean-uscg-icebreaker-mcmurdo


    The Coast Guard Cutter Polar Star, with 75,000 horsepower and its 13,500-ton weight, is guided by its crew to break through Antarctic ice en route to the National Science Foundation’s McMurdo Station, Jan. 15, 2017. The ship, which was designed more than 40 years ago, remains the world’s most powerful non-nuclear icebreaker.
    U.S. Coast Guard photo by Chief Petty Officer David Mosley

    The 150-member crew of the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Polar Sta_r fought a fire at approximately 9 p.m. PST Feb. 10 that broke out in the ship’s incinerator room about 650 miles north of McMurdo Sound, Antarctica.

    After initial response efforts using four fire extinguishers failed, fire crews spent almost two hours extinguishing the fire. Fire damage was contained inside the incinerator housing, while firefighting water used to cool exhaust pipe in the surrounding area damaged several electrical systems and insulation in the room.

    Repairs are already being planned for the Polar Star’s upcoming maintenance period. The incinerator will need to be full functional before next year’s mission.
    […]
    “_It’s always a serious matter whenever a shipboard fire breaks out at sea, and it’s even more concerning when that ship is in one of the most remote places on Earth,
    ” said Vice Adm. Linda Fagan, commander of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Pacific Area.
    […]
    The Feb. 10 fire was not the first engineering casualty faced by the Polar Star crew this deployment. While en route to Antarctica, one of the ship’s electrical systems began to smoke, causing damage to wiring in an electrical switchboard, and one of the ship’s two evaporators used to make drinkable water failed. The electrical switchboard was repaired by the crew, and the ship’s evaporator was repaired after parts were received during a port call in Wellington, New Zealand.

    The ship also experienced a leak from the shaft that drives the ship’s propeller, which halted icebreaking operations to send scuba divers into the water to repair the seal around the shaft. A hyperbaric chamber on loan from the U.S. Navy aboard the ship allows Coast Guard divers to make external emergency repairs and inspections of the ship’s hull at sea.

    The Polar Star also experienced ship-wide power outages while breaking ice. Crew members spent nine hours shutting down the ship’s power plant and rebooting the electrical system in order to remedy the outages.

    The U.S. Coast Guard maintains two icebreakers – the Coast Guard Cutter Healy, which is a medium icebreaker, and the Polar Star, the United States’ only heavy icebreaker. If a catastrophic event, such as getting stuck in the ice, were to happen to the Healy in the Arctic or to the Polar Star near Antarctica, the U.S. Coast Guard is left without a self-rescue capability.

    By contrast, Russia currently operates more than 40 icebreakers – several of which are nuclear powered.

    nouvel épisode après https://seenthis.net/messages/754347 il y a 6 semaines.

  • Is Your Ship Safe? Help Us Find Out Whether Navy Reforms… — ProPublica
    https://www.propublica.org/getinvolved/is-your-ship-safe-navy-fleet-reforms

    The Navy promised to implement reforms in the wake of two deadly 2017 crashes. We’re trying to find out how it’s doing — and we need to hear from sailors in all six of the numbered fleets that patrol the world’s oceans.

    @simplicissimus

    • #merci !
      intéressant de voir combien #ProPublica obtiendra de réponses et lesquelles. Le rapport de l’Amiral Fort, sorti la semaine dernière, laisse voir (au moins) certaines des unités dans un état véritablement désastreux…

      Et, dans la série : TVB vs rien ne bouge, cet article d’hier sur ProPublica :

      An Admiral Told a Senator Most Navy Reforms Were… — ProPublica
      https://www.propublica.org/article/admiral-bill-moran-navy-reforms


      The USS Fitzgerald heads toward its Yokosuka Base in Japan after a collision with a cargo ship.
      The Asahi Shimbun via Getty Images

      Adm. Bill Moran told ProPublica this week that none of the promised reforms had been completed, but that work had started on the pledges.

      Sen. Angus King wanted some straight answers. At a Feb. 12 hearing of a panel of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he expressed alarm over recent revelations concerning two deadly collisions of Navy ships in the Pacific in 2017. King, a Maine independent, declared the accidents avoidable and questioned the Navy’s commitment to fixing the problems that had helped cause them. Frustrated, King challenged a top Navy leader to come clean.

      I want real numbers. I don’t want general ‘We’re working on staffing’ or ‘We’re working on more training,’ because these were avoidable tragedies,” King told Adm. Philip Davidson, the top military commander in the Pacific. “I would like to see specific responses from the Navy. Not promises and not good feelings.

      Nine days later, Davidson sought to reassure King, who while an independent caucuses with Democrats, that his worry and frustration were unwarranted. In a letter dated Feb. 21, Davidson told King the Navy counted as “complete” 91 of the more than 100 reforms it had promised to make in the months after 17 sailors died in back-to-back crashes with civilian ships in the summer of 2017.

      It is a claim directly contradicted by Adm. Bill Moran, the No. 2 man in charge of the Navy. Moran told ProPublica this week that, in fact, none of the promised reforms had been completed. Moran said work had started on 91 of what he said were 103 pledges to, among other things, provide more sailors to under-manned ships in Japan and stop ships from sailing without complete certifications regarding their navigation and war-fighting abilities — both issues in the two 2017 deadly collisions.

      It doesn’t happen overnight,” Moran said of the reforms.

      ProPublica contacted both the Navy and King’s office to inquire about the discrepancy. A spokesman for the Navy said it had “implemented” 91 of its many reforms, pledges that included more sailors for its ships, fixes for its equipment and ending the practice of forcing ships out to sea before they were ready. The spokesman said “implemented” meant “corrective actions, plans or policies are in place.” But they are not yet completed, the spokesman said, correcting Davidson’s claim.

      Many of these recommendations will take time to fully assess their completeness. So even though they may be fully implemented, they won’t be considered complete … until measurable outcomes are achieved,” the spokesman said. “We are not concerned with actions taken but rather on outcomes achieved, and while significant improvements have been made, we are urgently focused on how we can do things better.

      The spokesman said the Navy planned to update its response to King and the Armed Services Committee.

      The Navy released a breakdown of the status of every reform Wednesday evening. ProPublica has asked sailors to weigh in on the changes they have seen.

      Davidson’s letter to King was first reported on the U.S. Naval Institute’s news website, which posted a copy.

    • les déclarations de l’amiral Moran à ProPublica, reprises sur gCaptain. Et autres,…

      Top US Navy Admiral Says « None Of The Promised Reforms Are Complete » – gCaptain
      https://gcaptain.com/top-us-navy-admiral-says-none-of-the-promised-reforms-are-complete

      Nine days later, Davidson sought to reassure [Sen. Angus] King [Maine, independent], who while an independent caucuses with Democrats, that his worry and frustration were unwarranted. In a letter dated Feb. 21, Davidson told King the Navy counted as “complete” 91 of the more than 100 reforms it had promised to make in the months after 17 sailors died in back-to-back crashes with civilian ships in the summer of 2017.

      It is a claim directly contradicted by Adm. Bill Moran, the No. 2 man in charge of the Navy. Moran told ProPublica this week that, in fact, none of the promised reforms had been completed. Moran said work had started on 91 of what he said were 103 pledges to, among other things, provide more sailors to under-manned ships in Japan and stop ships from sailing without complete certifications regarding their navigation and war-fighting abilities — both issues in the two 2017 deadly collisions.
      […]
      At the hearing, Davidson defended the Navy by noting that the vast majority of ships were not crashing, a remark that drew widespread derision.

      ProPublica also reported that after the crashes, in a talk to ship commanders and other officers, Davidson was asked whether they would be able to push back against orders to sail if they believed their ships were not ready.

      Davidson, according to an admiral inside the theater, responded with anger.

      If you can’t take your ships to sea and accomplish the mission with the resources you have,” he said, “then we’ll find someone who will.

      The remark spread across the Navy, stoking fears among commanders about honestly communicating unsafe conditions for fear of losing their jobs.

      Davidson’s spokesman told ProPublica that he only meant to say that if ships were not fit to sail, they would be replaced by other ships that were.

  • #USS_Fitzgerald : le rapport de l’Amiral Fort sur la collision de juin 2017, produit moins de 6 semaines après l’événement et resté secret, fuite dans le Navy Times depuis le 14 janvier. Une succession d’articles décrit une situation catastrophique : des marins non formés, ne sachant pas utiliser les équipements, les équipements qui dysfonctionnent et sont bricolés ou carrément ignorés, absence de communication et de confiance entre les équipes, commandement dépassé dont un commandant absent de la passerelle…

    Plusieurs articles, tous aussi effrayants les uns que les autres…

    The ghost in the Fitz’s machine : why a doomed warship’s crew never saw the vessel that hit it
    https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/14/the-ghost-in-the-fitzs-machine-why-a-doomed-warships-crew-never-saw-the-v


    The warship Fitzgerald returns to Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan, following a collision with a merchant vessel on June 17, 2017.
    U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Peter Burghart/Released

    When Navy Rear Adm. Brian Fort stepped aboard the guided-missile destroyer Fitzgerald in the aftermath of the 2017 collision with a commercial cargo ship, everything was off.

    Any warship would seem a little off after a catastrophe that claimed the lives of seven sailors, but this was different.

    It didn’t look right, smell right, sound right,” Fort said during a hearing last year for a Fitzgerald officer facing court-martial in the wake of the June 17, 2017, disaster.

    After gazing at the gash in the hull through which gushed the seawater that drowned the Fitz’s dead, Fort and his team of investigators walked to the destroyer’s electronic nerve center, the combat information center everyone calls the “CIC.”

    It hadn’t taken a direct hit from the bow of the Philippine-flagged ACX Crystal, but it was trashed nonetheless and smelled like urine.

    He found a pee bottle that had tipped and spilled behind a large-screen display. Fort’s eyes started to take over for his nose, and he took it all in.

    There was debris everywhere,” Fort said under oath. “Food debris, food waste, uneaten food, half-eaten food, personal gear in the form of books, workout gear, workout bands, kettlebells, weightlifting equipment, the status boards had graffiti on them.

    I’d never seen a CIC like that in my entire time in the Navy,” the surface warfare officer of more than 25 years recollected.

    The more Fort looked, the worse it got: broken sensors that were reported for repairs but never fixed, schedule changes ordered by superiors high above the Fitz’s command triad that delayed crucial maintenance, taped-up radar controls and, worse, sailors who had no idea how to use the technology.

    About six weeks after the Fitzgerald collision, Fort signed and submitted his damning internal report to superiors.

    Designed in part to help federal attorneys defend against a wave of lawsuits from the owners and operators of the ACX Crystal and, indirectly, the families of the Fitz’s injured, traumatized and drowned, the Navy sought to keep Fort’s findings from the public.

    But Navy Times obtained a copy of it and began stitching his details to a growing body of court testimony by the crew of the Fitzgerald to reveal just how much worse conditions were on the destroyer than the Navy previously shared with the public.

    What it all reveals is that a mostly green crew joined the Fitzgerald shortly after the warship left dry dock maintenance in early 2017.

    They learned to make do with broken equipment, a lack of communication between departments and, especially in the CIC, a world in which failure had become “systemic across the board,” as Fort put it at last year’s hearing.

    Or as his secret report described it, a lack of training in basic seamanship fatally combined with material deficiencies to create “a culture of complacency, of accepting problems, and a dismissal of the use of some of the most important, modern equipment used for safe navigation.

    • A warship doomed by ‘confusion, indecision, and ultimately panic’ on the bridge
      https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/14/a-warship-doomed-by-confusion-indecision-and-ultimately-panic-on-the-brid


      The guided-missile destroyer Fitzgerald’s heavily damaged starboard side as the warship made its way back to port following a 2017 collision off the coast of Japan.
      Photo courtesy Sean Babbitt

      The Navy has paraded out a series of public reports addressing both the Fitzgerald tragedy and the Aug. 21, 2017, collision involving the John S. McCain and the Liberian-flagged tanker Alnic MC that killed 10 more American sailors.

      But none of those investigations so starkly blueprinted the cascade of failures at all levels of the Navy that combined to cause the Fitzgerald disaster, especially the way the doomed crew of the destroyer was staffed, trained and led in the months before it the collision.

      Fort’s team of investigators described a bridge team that was overworked and exhausted, plagued by low morale, facing a relentless tempo of operations decreed by admirals far above them, distrustful of their superiors and, fatally, each other.

      And Navy officials knew all of that at least a year before the tragedy.
      […]
      [The Commanding Officer (CO) Commander] Benson was “a little more active” on the bridge than Shu [his predecessor], but “it was not routine for the CO or (executive officer) to come up to the Bridge from (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.),” Fort wrote.

      Out of 78 underway days from February to May of that year, the CO was on the bridge just four times between the dark hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., according to the report.

      Et donc logiquement, absent de la passerelle quand le navire a croisé le “rail” de nuit…

    • A watery hell: how a green crew fought the Fitz to save her
      https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/15/a-watery-hell-how-a-green-crew-fought-the-fitz-to-save-her


      The inside of the destroyer Fitzgerald after it collided with a merchant vessel on June 17, 2017, killing seven sailors.
      U.S. Navy photo

      On the day after the Fitzgerald limped back to Yokosuka, a plane carrying Rear Adm. Brian Fort landed in Japan.

      A surface warfare officer with a quarter-century in uniform, Fort had been tasked with creating a report the Navy would use, in part, to defend itself against potential negligence lawsuits brought by ACX Crystal’s owners and operators and, indirectly, by the families of the Fitz’s dead sailors.

      Completed 41 days after the disaster, it remained secret from the public until it was obtained by Navy Times.

      Far more candid than the parade of public pronouncements by senior Navy officials since 2017, Fort’s report details how the the skills of Fitzgerald’s crew had atrophied in the months since it went into dry dock.

      For example, after reporting to the Fitz, sailors were supposed to receive instruction on how to escape flooded berthing areas, a crucial course that was to be followed up by retraining every six months.

      Of the 38 sailors assigned to Berthing 2, which flooded minutes after the ACX Crystal collision, 36 of 39 “were delinquent in the six-month periodic egress training,” Fort wrote.

    • Et si, le rapport de l’amiral Fort est resté secret, c’est parce qu’"il recouvre très largement les informations fournies dans les rapports publiés" (publiés d’ailleurs, nettement plus tard…

      CNO defends hiding scathing internal report on Fitzgerald collision from public
      https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/02/16/cno-defends-hiding-scathing-internal-report-on-fitzgerald-collision-from-

      The Navy’s top officer Friday defended the decision to keep from the public eye a damning internal report on the 2017 warship Fitzgerald collision that killed seven sailors.

      Speaking to reporters after his appearance at the U.S. Naval Institute’s West 2019 conference here, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said much of the report overlapped with what the service publicly released.

      But much of the probe overseen by Rear Adm. Brian Fort portrayed a far grimmer picture of what the crew of the guided-missile destroyer faced. It also prompted hard questions about the actions taken by the Fitz’s squadron and Navy officials back in the United States.

      First revealed by Navy Times, the Fort report chronicled details that Richardson, other Navy leaders and their public reports never mentioned, such as specifics about the destroyer’s brutal operational tempo, officers who didn’t trust each other, radars that didn’t work and sailors who didn’t know how to operate them.

      The investigators also portrayed the warship’s chiefs mess as ineffective and their sailors plagued by low morale in the months leading up to the June 17, 2017, collision.

      (les 3 expressions en gras sont des liens vers les articles ci-dessus)

  • Replenishment Gone Wrong: U.S. Navy Cruiser and MSC Dry Cargo Ship Collide Off U.S. East Coast – gCaptain
    https://gcaptain.com/replenishment-gone-wrong-u-s-navy-cruiser-and-msc-dry-cargo-ship-collide-o


    The Military Sealift Command dry cargo and ammunition ship USNS Robert E. Peary (T-AKE 5) pulls alongside the amphibious dock landing ship USS Ashland (LSD 48) (not pictured) to conduct a replenishment at sea.
    U.S. Navy File Photo

    A U.S. Navy guided-missile cruiser and a Military Sealift Command dry cargo ship collided Tuesday during an underway replenishment off the coast of Florida, the U.S. Navy has confirmed.

    The Navy said no personnel were injured when the USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55) and USNS Robert E. Peary (T-AKE 5) made contact.

    Both ships were able to safely operate after the incident.

    The ships had been conducting a replenishment-at-sea when the sterns touched at approximately 4 p.m. Eastern Standard time,” the Navy said in a statement.

    U.S. Fleet Forces Command and Military Sealift Command will thoroughly investigate this incident,” the statement added.

    Damage will be assessed when the ships arrive in port.

    The ships were conducting operations in conjunction with the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group.