Coast Guard and machine guns

[psneeld]

I'm not so much concerned with the assets coming and going as I am with the posting about escorts and security measures. A post was made with specifics about numbers of escorts, weapons readiness status and size of escorts and types. Further a timeline of comms with that asset was discussed. Those are the details that are important not the freaking carrier at the pier or the sub in transit.

As I said...all in public view every time one goes in or out.

Security is as much about what IS seen as what IS NOT seen...random action and numbers are your friend...if someone posts numbers of boats and guns..only the dummest of bad guys would believe it without confirming it anyway.

 

[Marin]

The point Don made about satellites trumping anything that might be said on a forum like this is a good one. Things are far more sophisticated today, but back when they built the Trident sub base at Bangor (WA) on the Hood Canal, they built a tall, enclosed "shed" for loading the missiles out of the weather. At the time, the base served both Trident and Polaris subs. The loading shed was long enough to completely enclose a Polaris sub. But a provision in one of the SALT treaties with the Soviet Union required that when a Trident sub was in the loading shed, the Russians had to be able to tell. So the shed was built too short for a Trident--- when one is inside the stern sticks out of the shed.

An even more dramatic example can be found on the B-52. In the mid-80s when Boeing developed the ALCM (Air Launched Cruise Missile) for the B-52, another SALT treaty provision was that the Russians had to be able to differentiate between B-52s that were not equipped to carry the nuclear-capable cruise missile and B-52s that were. So a small fairing was added to the wings of ALCM-capable B-52s. This fairing rounds off the sharp angle made by the leading edge of the wing meeting the fuselage. It's not very big--- just a few feet long. But it made it very easy for the Soviet's satellites to look down on the planes on the ground and determine which ones were nuclear-missile capable and which ones weren't.

This was in the 1980s. I suspect today that satellte imagery is such that one could look down on the boats escorting a Naval ship into port and tell if the safeties on the escort vessels weapons are on or off.

On the other hand, the people who seem to like to fly planes into buildings and blow up wedding parties probably don't have access to this kind of satellite imagery. So they very well may take advantage of seemingly innocent dialogue on a website.

 

[Blue Heron]

Gentlemen,, I will add one more comment and then will say no more on this subject. The comments indicate a gross lack of understanding of OPSEC and strategic asset security. Folks are getting wrapped around the prop shaft on this. A picture taken if the ships in Norfolk, or the Boomers coming out of Kings bay are not a big deal. Yea google earth shows some of them in detail. Got it.
The problem I have stated is that specific force protection measures ARE critical and it is inappropriate to discuss how many small craft are used by a certain base, the size of the escort vessels and type and caliber of weapons. When the reaction of these units are discussed in detail it builds a picture. The USS Cole was probed and when observed measures where validated she was attacked. All without satellite pics. All with Humint.
I say again it is inappropriate to discuss force protection and escort measures taken by security forces. Regardless if you can download a 3 month old photo from google.

Psneeld, you should know that the size and composition of security forces and the operational flow of those units is the dynamic zip lip not the airplane sitting on the ramp. One human observation is not going to be acted upon but repeated observation by multiple sources IS valuable. You should know this due to your last job. When in doubt folks should refrain Seeing a boomer out of Kings bay , fine snap away. See 4 patrol boats with 3 crew and specific weapons, shut up.
BH out.

 

[RickB]

I say again it is inappropriate to discuss force protection and escort measures taken by security forces.

This is probably better suited for OTDE than here but what the hey, it's here anyway ...

I say the greatest threat to national security and the freedom of the American people is the kind of mentality that makes one citizen tell another that it is somehow unpatriotic or dangerous to photograph, discuss, debate, or describe anything or everything they see the military doing in public or which involves private citizens.

It is inappropriate to hand your hard won rights to someone, anyone, just because they carry a gun (that you paid for) and use the flag as a shield. No nation has ever fallen to the citizens but more than we can count have fallen to a military dictatorship. Be very careful about what you are willing to give away.

Take photos, ask questions, tell people what you see, write about it, don't fall for the Walter Mitty wannabe spook defense agent song and dance.

 

[psneeld]

Gentlemen,, I will add one more comment and then will say no more on this subject. The comments indicate a gross lack of understanding of OPSEC and strategic asset security. Folks are getting wrapped around the prop shaft on this. A picture taken if the ships in

....snip...

Psneeld, you should know that the size and composition of security forces and the operational flow of those units is the dynamic zip lip not the airplane sitting on the ramp. One human observation is not going to be acted upon but repeated observation by multiple sources IS valuable. You should know this due to your last job. When in doubt folks should refrain Seeing a boomer out of Kings bay , fine snap away. See 4 patrol boats with 3 crew and specific weapons, shut up.
BH out.

I do know and unless this thread was going to post asset movement/security forces info every day for a year it's random info and easily observed by anyone standing on shore or from a boat.

I've clearly stated that without confirmation of what security assets are going to be deployed from within...or knowing after casual observation that the security forces act identical each time...none of what is written here is valuable intel.

 

[rwidman]

I think if the terrorists were reading this forum to determine what security the US Navy uses around their ships, they would have gotten a headache by now and clicked away from this thread.

I think some folks here are taking themselves far too seriously.

 

[Anode]

I think some folks here are taking themselves far too seriously.

A decoy to confuse the terrorists might be in order.

 

[RickB]

A decoy to confuse the terrorists might be in order.

You shouldn't post photographs of homeland sekurity officials at work!

 

[Giggitoni]

It is inappropriate to hand your hard won rights to someone, anyone, just because they carry a gun (that you paid for) and use the flag as a shield. No nation has ever fallen to the citizens but more than we can count have fallen to a military dictatorship. Be very careful about what you are willing to give away.

That is exactly why it is important to defend our second amendment.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. Marmot. GW Bush is working for homeland sekurity now?????

 

[markpierce]

San Francisco police boats don't display machine guns, yet.