I have no idea. I’m saying it is stupid no matter who is doing it. I don’t need to be in a collision with anyone at sea because they won’t turn their lights on. Last I checked, we aren’t at war with each other and I’ve got cargo to deliver on time.
1 Like
The information in the OP comes from a U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Information Bulletin, it’s the standard method to put out safety info. Who is pretending to be shocked?
2 Likes
I still think we should send a USCG boat out to shadow it with regular position reports. Don’t crowd them, just annoy the heck out of them.
From sundown to sunup, fire parachute flares over top of their ship every minute or so. That way they’re visible at all times. It might annoy them but it’s for safety reasons. 
Should the CG ship send their real AIS-position ?
It would certainly be possible to send a fake AIS signal too, with the exact position of the Ruskies,
as “Russian Spy Ship – Out Maneuvered”.
Absolutely! Though I’m not sure if the CG has the ability to spoof an AIS signal. I would be very surprised if the Navy couldn’t.
I was thinking more along the lines of an announcement on 16: “This is USCG Vessel such and such monitoring Russian spy vessel at position such and such, please be alert for Crazy Ivans when transiting the vicinity”
I think the USS Liberty reference was, sadly, missed. That incident is one of the things that always has me question ANY US involvement in the eastern Med.
Never a satisfactory explanation and a scrub and hide job by our Navy to cover our “allies”… just give the families the truth, it has been long enough.
1 Like
When I was master in the TAGOS program for 8 years, “YES” to COLREGS, running lights, & VHF!!
“They routinely deploy intelligence vessels worldwide to monitor the activities and particularly naval activities of other nations, but then again conducted lawfully in international waters and not unlike operations we conduct ourselves,” Davis said in 2017 about the Leonov operating near the East Coast of the U.S.
Foggo said that the Coast Guard reported that the Russian ship was not responding to signals or “bridge to bridge” radio communications and was running without lights on at sea.
Those actions, Foggo said Wednesday, are risky.
Our standard response on a TAGOS ship when asked what we were doing was written on a card next to the VHF: We are a United States naval vessel conducting hydrographic survey operations in international waters. Over."
Yes. And in succeding years, the legal beagles would change the verbiage, essentially saying the same thing though. At one time I think it was said “we were conducting military operations”, to make clear that we were not fishing in their economic zone.
And after reading the official blurb on the VHF to them, I would ask them what were they doing?
Just last week someone leaked to The Washington Times and CNN that the Russians were visiting in international waters off the US East Coast for their almost-yearly visit to conduct signals intelligence; NORAD could have broke that news publicly when they arrived to the region, without the leak and without help from the press. The Russian Navy AGI Viktor Leonov is well known to sail over from Murmansk every year or two. Their mission mostly out of public view because they do not use an AIS transponder, which would show where they are to ship tracking enthusiasts like myself. Without a transponder, I rely on other more creative means, including watching for others who might stumble across their location - but that’s hard to come by, since they’re over 12 NM away from shore, and likely only noticed by a few planes or other ships.
1 Like
So basically this twit feels the need to know of various naval operations.
Being aware of a Russian warship stopping in for supplies in Havana is in the public interest, it is news, and it should be mentioned; thank you for that. However, the follow-up that they left, especially because they left within a couple of days, is equally important. I believe it is important to give the correct impression that they were passing through, not repositioning there.
Granted, the US was saying our Russian friends were there, for domestic propaganda, but there is little propaganda in saying they left the area.
Just last week someone leaked to The Washington Times and CNN that the Russians were visiting in international waters off the US East Coast for their almost-yearly visit to conduct signals intelligence
More domestic propaganda. (To be clear, there is nothing wrong with propaganda - everyone does it.)
In today’s age of information warfare, telling the public the truth, up front, denies NORAD’s adversaries the capability of exploiting a lack of information to propagate disinformation.
Isn’t he cute? So adorable! 
Why not publish everything? Let everyone know what we know. Just think how much effort that would save foreign intelligence.
The guy is a ‘information wants to be free’ snowflake.
1 Like
This is what NORAD said:
We are aware of the deployment of the Russian ship Gorshkov and are taking steps to actively track it. We won’t discuss all measures being taken, but NORAD is conducting air operations in defense of the US & Canada and USNORTHCOM has deployed maritime assets to track Gorshkov.
— U.S. Northern Command (@USNorthernCmd) June 26, 2019
What Watkins is saying is NORAD did not also announce the ship’s departure which opened up an opportunity for disinformation:
I’ve seen (false!) reports alleging that Russian Navy ships (plural!) have been off the coast since Trump was elected, that they dock at Mar-a-Lago, that they drop anchor outside Mar-a-Lago, that they were snooping on Wifi (of course) at Mar-a-Lago, that they were planting nuclear mines along the seaboard, that they communicate with President Trump on his phone, that they tap his phone from offshore, and of course that they’re there to pick up President Trump as he flees from his life of crime. Does anyone take these rumours seriously?
1 Like
I suppose the most reasonable thing to do is just have another ship shadow them and “talk” for them if someone calls them, or is getting close (if they’re not answering). The idea of magnesium flares is neat but i’d not do that. (if a burning flare from a 105 landed on their deck … ? after all, we no doubt have ships of our own doing the same crap in someones waters some place.
I read something once from a scientist on a research vessel that was being dogged by a Russian “trawler”. They got tired of it so they rigged up some sort of air cannon and fired a grapefruit at the Russian. When the inevitable diplomatic complaint got back to them they admitted firing the grapefruit but didn’t mention that they’d dropped it in liquid nitrogen first.
2 Likes
Very considerate of them to make sure it stayed fresh 
1 Like
Fresh through the pilothouse window IIRC.
The only way to quench that argument, that incomplete information can invite speculation, is full disclosure. That level of disclosure could give away methods and capabilities. Or it could be seen as scaremongering. Besides, there will always be conspiracy theory nitwits that believe anything no matter how much information is disclosed. (Russian ships at Mar-A-Largo?)
What he wants is information to satisfy his curiosity and is using some ‘public interest’ straw-man argument to sway others. But I’ll play his game:
-
Where does the ‘public interest’ begin? At 12nm? Or 200nm? 201nm? 202nm…n?
-
What sort of ships and behaviors are reportable? Warships bristling with guns running across shipping lanes while darken ship? Small ‘research’ vessels transmitting on AIS? Private boats registered under a Russian flag?
-
How should these things be reported? As soon as they cross the nth nm? Before? After? When they are detected by radar? Satellite? Acoustic undersea microphones?
-
Is there a reciprocal responsibility to report our own warships off our own coasts? When they go darken ship? When their AIS is off? When they are practicing silent UNREPS or performing sensitive missions?
Naw, Cap, that guy is curious, an info junkie. He just wants to peek in the bedroom windows.