New twist in Ukraine tank ship hijacking: US and Russian navy ships both headed into Indian Ocean.

[bushmeister0]

NYT:

"The Ukrainian ship was seized Thursday evening about 200 miles off the coast of Somalia.

According to Andrew Mwangura, the program coordinator of the Seafarers’ Assistance Program in Kenya, the ship was carrying around 30 T-72 battle tanks, which were to be offloaded in Mombasa, Kenya.

Kenyan and Western officials said that an American warship was steaming toward the hijacked Ukrainian ship to intercept it, and the Russian Navy announced on Friday that it too was sending a warship, named the 'Dauntless,' to the region.

Lt. Commander. Bill Speaks, a spokesman for the United States military, said on Friday afternoon, 'We are aware of the situation and actively tracking it.'”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/world/africa/27pirates.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Funny thing is, I can't find any mention anywhere of a Russian naval vessel called "Dauntless."

Anyway, kind of an intriguing scenario here. The US is going after their ally's ship and the Russians are sending a ship to presumably keep an eye on their own shipping in the area. Or are they there to keep an eye on our shipping?

Hopefully, everyone will keep a polite distance and behave themselves.

[Sanity Claws]

1. Did the Russian ships go thru Alaskan waters first?

I couldn't resist the dig at the ex-would-be Beauty Queen

[charlie and algernon]

2. how the hell does a ship carrying 30 tanks get hijacked???

don't you think it would be seriously heavily guarded?

[Posteritatis]

12. They tend not to disclose what's on them

Security through obscurity and all that. (Obviously it doesn't always work.) A ship full of tanks and spare parts would be a really, really tempting target.

Either the pirates have some connections - which is possible - or they got really lucky, between the cargo and the fact that the place is increasingly crawling with patrols.

[malaise]

3. Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Blow up the fugging ship full of weapons and save some African lives. The Ukrainian was doing some dirty work for an ally. They have been exposed.

[bushmeister0]

7. Right, that's all Africa needs is more weapons.

And what the hell does Kenya need with 30 T-72 battle tanks anyway?

Seriously, who are they going to us them on?

Their own people, naturally.

[Hawkowl]

17. Fantastic idea!

When's the last time one of our submarines got to sink a real ship! Seriously, the last thing Africa needs is more weapons.

[FreakinDJ]

4. So the Ship was Hi-jacked

I think everyone knows there is a large potential for things "other then" the stated Tanks

If Russia attempts to interfer our efforts to intercept the Hi jacked vessle....

Well that would signal Russia is attempting to export some thing that could be used against the USA while maintaining they did nothing wrong. Typical of Russian Tactics of Old, when they would rely on the USA being occupied by a crisis at home before they would act against us

[bushmeister0]

5. I don't think there's anything nefarious, besides the obvious, going on here.

This is just arms dealers doing what they do.

One questions arises, though: If the Ukrainians are so worried about Russia pulling another Georgia against them, how can they afford to be sending tanks to Africa? I mean, they might need them at home, no?

Apparently, they're not that worried about Vlad & Co. marching in any time soon. Either tha, or they're really, really, stupid.

[clear eye]

16. Or really, really broke

If they were not actually selling them to Kenya and using "hijacking" as cover, that means they were selling them to someone else.

[bushmeister0]

18. Good point.

Lose the ship, transfer the tanks to another ship and then send 'em to Georgia.

Hmmm . . .

[HereSince1628]

6. Nothing in Jane's?

Dauntless is obviously a translation it could be some other slavic word with similar meaning.

[HereSince1628]

8. Curious...Jane's lists a patrol boat "Dauntless" in the GEORGIAN navy

Did Russia take a prize during it's recent unpleasantness?

[ogneopasno]

9. Besstrashny = Dauntless

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/sovremenny/sovremenny3.html

[bushmeister0]

10. Ah ha!

I was thinking that the Russian navy's nomenclature normally follows the rules of either naming ships after princes, politicians or cities. "Dauntless" didn't make any sense.

Thanks for that!

[ogneopasno]

14. No problem!

nt

[Posteritatis]

13. Nice, another navy that has British-style nomenclature

(They're one of the only ones who I think can competently name ships. Lord knows the US and Canadian schemes are kinda dull lately..)

[Lex]

11. Pirates!

Arrrrrr?

[bushmeister0]

15. USN supply ship attacked yesterday

VOA News:

"The U.S. Navy says a security team fired warning shots Wednesday at two small boats that tried to approach a naval supply ship off the coast of Somalia.

The Navy's Fifth Fleet says the shots were fired after a number of 'defensive measures' were taken to deter the boats from approaching the USNS John Lenthall.

A naval statement says the shots landed about 50 meters from the closest boat and resulted in both small boats ending their pursuit. There were no reported casualties."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2008/09/mil-080924-voa06.htm

These guys have some balls, huh?