Coast Guard Finds Critical Aids-To-Navigation Shot And Sunk Near Rhode Island

[IslandHopper]

Is this a new sport in the US?

Either way, I wonder if the pillocks doing this have any idea as to the ramifications of there actions, personally I doubt they do or care.....

The crew of Coast Guard Cutter Ida Lewis discovered a buoy sunk in the water with bullet holes, Monday, near Block Island, Rhode Island.

The crew was conducting regular aids-to-navigation maintenance when they approached Clay Head buoy number 7 and found it submerged. The crew raised the 12,000-pound buoy and found 20 bullet holes in it.

Coast Guard Finds Critical Aids-To-Navigation Shot And Sunk Near Rhode Island

[LoudMusic]

That's along the lines of shooting up a lighthouse. Pure jackassery.

(Old news.)

[boatman61]

Anti-Pirate practice..

[1affiah]

Gives them Russians something to do when they cruise by!

[Jason Flare]

The photo in the article shows rusty holes above the waterline.

I'd like to see real evidence to it being sunk by bullet holes.

[Jason Flare]

In reading the article again there is nothing in the article saying that the buoy's sinking was caused by bullet holes.

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

The photo in the article shows rusty holes above the waterline.

I'd like to see real evidence to it being sunk by bullet holes.

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

In reading the article again there is nothing in the article saying that the buoy's sinking was caused by bullet holes.

Well I suggest you give the USCG a call and ask for Senior Chief Petty Officer Timothy Chase, maybe he will clarify for you.....

Either way, shooting the ***t out of nav aids is a dog act and the numbnuts responsible need to spend a little time in jail with bubba....

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by IslandHopper

Well I suggest you give the USCG a call and ask for Senior Chief Petty Officer Timothy Chase, maybe he will clarify for you.....

Either way, shooting the ***t out of nav aids is a dog act and the numbnuts responsible need to spend a little time in jail with bubba....

The evidence provided is not enough to convince anyone that the navaid was sunk by a bullet or bullet holes. It just isn't there.

Fake news.

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

Show me in the article where the buoy was sunk by bullet holes.

I never claimed it stated that, what I posted is what was released by your CG, wording and all......

https://content.govdelivery.com/acco...letins/196bafd

As I suggested, CONTACT YOUR COASTGARD IF YOU WANT/NEED CLARIFICATION!!!

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

The photo in the article shows rusty holes above the waterline.

I'd like to see real evidence to it being sunk by bullet holes.

Just because they've been there long enough to rust doesn't mean they couldn't be the cause.

Let's say the holes are 12" above the waterline. Every time a boat passes waves slosh an ounce of water into the hull. Every storm has waves so more water is sloshing in, lets say 1 oz per minute. A 24hr storm is going to put 90lb into the hull. In anything but calm conditions it will be taking on water very slowly.

Lets say the buoy takes on 110 lb per week and evaporates back out 10lb. It hasn't been that warm back east, and the holes to allow vapor back out are very small and there's limited to no cross ventilation so 10 lb is probably pretty liberal, it's probably a lot less.

Let's say we are netting 100lb per week.

Let's assume the bouy is 8' diameter, so 50.25 sf. For sea water that amounts to 3200 lb/ft immersion or 266 lb/inch.

So after 2.5 weeks, the bouy is going to be sitting 1" lower in the water which means that it will also be taking on water slightly faster.

Let's ignore that and just assume the water ingress is constant. So to drop the hole to the water line is 12" which would take 3200 lb seawater. At 100lb per week that's 32 weeks.

Would 32 weeks be long enough for the bullet holes to rust out in a salt water environment like that?

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by IslandHopper

I never claimed it stated that, what I posted is what was released by your CG, wording and all......

https://content.govdelivery.com/acco...letins/196bafd

As I suggested, CONTACT YOUR COASTGARD IF YOU WANT/NEED CLARIFICATION!!!

The author provided me with all the clarification I need. I'm just performing a public service here pointing out the facts as presented.

I even suggested members read the fine print before before renewing their boat's documentation for $75.00.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

What were you convinced of? They didn't say the buoy was sunk as the result of bullet holes and they provided pictures of what might be bullet holes in an area obove the water line that could not contribute to its sinking.

Read the article carefully.

-I am convinced that bullet holes in the hull could have sunk the buoy.
-I am convinced that there were another 18 or so more bullet holes in the buoy than the 2 shown in the photos.
-I am convinced that some of the bullet holes were in the hull.
-I am convinced that whomever wrote the article would be happy if their article aided the CG in finding the shooter(s).
-I am convinced that the writer was more interested in garnering readers than in providing us with complete technical info so we could determine on our own whether or not the bullet holes had led to the sinking of the buoy.
-I am convinced that the writer chose those specific photos because they were the ones provided by the USCG and it was too much hassle to bug the USCG for more photos or heaven forbid, go take some of their own photo. Also it might have been too late to take their own.
-I am convinced the USCG chose those 2 photos because they were the best ones that A] showed the buoy sunken in the water and B] showed bullet holes. Those being the key elements of the story that could be shown photographically.
-I am convinced that the USCG is rather seriously looking for whomever shot up the buoy.
-I am convinced that the USCG would not be as bothered by this if the bullet holes hadn't A] cost them a lot of money to retrieve and repair the buoy and B] put people's lives at risk while the buoy was not floating where it should have been.

I am convinced that as a Moderator I shouldn't be this sarcastic.
I am convinced that I couldn't help myself, it was too much fun.

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by Adelie

-I am convinced that bullet holes in the hull could have sunk the buoy.
-I am convinced that there were another 18 or so more bullet holes in the buoy than the 2 shown in the photos.
-I am convinced that some of the bullet holes were in the hull.
-I am convinced that whomever wrote the article would be happy if their article aided the CG in finding the shooter(s).
-I am convinced that the writer was more interested in garnering readers than in providing us with complete technical info so we could determine on our own whether or not the bullet holes had led to the sinking of the buoy.
-I am convinced that the writer chose those specific photos because they were the ones provided by the USCG and it was too much hassle to bug the USCG for more photos or heaven forbid, go take some of their own photo. Also it might have been too late to take their own.
-I am convinced the USCG chose those 2 photos because they were the best ones that A] showed the buoy sunken in the water and B] showed bullet holes. Those being the key elements of the story that could be shown photographically.
-I am convinced that the USCG is rather seriously looking for whomever shot up the buoy.
-I am convinced that the USCG would not be as bothered by this if the bullet holes hadn't A] cost them a lot of money to retrieve and repair the buoy and B] put people's lives at risk while the buoy was not floating where it should have been.

I am convinced that as a Moderator I shouldn't be this sarcastic.
I am convinced that I couldn't help myself, it was too much fun.

Thank you.

What convinced you that some of the bullet holes were in the hull? I see nothing written to suggest that.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

Thank you.

What convinced you that some of the bullet holes were in the hull? I see nothing written to suggest that.

I am convinced that you are beating a dead horse.

Yep, still having fun with this.

[SailFastTri]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Just because they've been there long enough to rust doesn't mean they couldn't be the cause.

Let's say the holes are 12" above the waterline. Every time a boat passes waves slosh an ounce of water into the hull. Every storm has waves so more water is sloshing in, lets say 1 oz per minute. A 24hr storm is going to put 90lb into the hull. In anything but calm conditions it will be taking on water very slowly.

Lets say the buoy takes on 110 lb per week and evaporates back out 10lb. It hasn't been that warm back east, and the holes to allow vapor back out are very small and there's limited to no cross ventilation so 10 lb is probably pretty liberal, it's probably a lot less.

Let's say we are netting 100lb per week.

Let's assume the bouy is 8' diameter, so 50.25 sf. For sea water that amounts to 3200 lb/ft immersion or 266 lb/inch.

So after 2.5 weeks, the bouy is going to be sitting 1" lower in the water which means that it will also be taking on water slightly faster.

Let's ignore that and just assume the water ingress is constant. So to drop the hole to the water line is 12" which would take 3200 lb seawater. At 100lb per week that's 32 weeks.

Would 32 weeks be long enough for the bullet holes to rust out in a salt water environment like that?

Let's say that's a LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS!

I think it's pretty safe to ASSUME that the buoy was in good enough shape to not sink on its own between normal inspection intervals, or the CG would have repaired/replaced it.