tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post1481150799101613022..comments2024-03-28T04:22:28.228-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Mining HainanComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-27147812441891244482019-08-13T10:25:01.256-07:002019-08-13T10:25:01.256-07:00"war between Hezbollah and Israel, "
Yo..."war between Hezbollah and Israel, "<br /><br />You're missing the key aspect and key lesson of both this and the Kosovo conflicts and that is the half-hearted approach. Israel has consistently opted NOT to whole-heartedly engage. They have valued avoidance of collateral damage and 'civilian' (are there really any? see post on the subject) casualties over military objectives. Had the Israelis approached this as a war for survival, they would have committed overwhelming ground force to first destroy everything and then occupy what was left. Those 18,000 rockets would have been neutralized in a matter of days through sheer occupation. Guerrillas have no chance against an armored, mechanized force with air supremacy THAT CHOOSES TO ENGAGE TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY. The US engaged totally in Desert Storm. The US barely engaged in Kosovo. Israel half-heartedly engages.<br /><br />Now, if the US chooses to engage Iran half-heartedly then all your predictions will be true, more or less. If the US chooses to engage totally, a war with Iran will be over in two weeks. Day 1 will see every significant military target destroyed and the Iranian leadership all dead. Armored divisions would sweep through Iran from all directions. And so on.<br /><br />I have never said that Iranian military would give up. What I'm saying is that it will be academic because they'll be dead.<br /><br />I'm not saying the Iranian people will rise up and welcome us as liberators. What I'm saying is that they won't be terribly upset by having their oppressive government removed.<br /><br />Too many people want to try to draw lessons about total war from half-hearted wars. The only lesson from half-hearted wars is don't fight half-hearted wars.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59948209380531757552019-08-13T09:57:42.852-07:002019-08-13T09:57:42.852-07:00A second key historical example would be the 2006 ...A second key historical example would be the 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel, especially useful since it’s a showcase of a force using Iranian tactics and weapons fighting against a force using ours.<br /><br />Israel went into the war counting on the same advantages we would in a war on Iran - total air supremacy, superiority in numbers, training, and technology in general. But while the extent to which they were “defeated” may be debatable, the fact that they didn’t get what they were hoping for or what they expected is not.<br /><br />Two very important aspects of this war to focus on. The first was the survivability of Hezbollah’s rocket force. The Israelis had a large Air Force, highly equipped and well-trained, which had uncontested control over Lebanese airspace, Hezbollah at the time having no air defenses to speak of. Yet in spite of all this, and given a country the size of a postage stamp to hunt in (okay, the size of Connecticut), they still weren’t able to find all of Hezbollah’s missile and rocket assets. In fact, they never never even made much of a dent in their force at all. Hezbollah started the war with 18,000 rockets. They still had 14,000 left when the war ended 33 days later (just outside of the four weeks you see as the upper limit of how long it would take to defeat the Iranians). Rocket fire went on every single day of the war and could have kept up at the same pace for another three months.<br /><br />Unguided artillery rockets have very little impact outside of a psychological one when they’re used this way as strategic weapons. But give a force that well-drilled at hiding its weapons and launching them without getting spotted some real weapons, like the Soumar, the Zulfiqar, the Sunburn, and so on, and there’s going to be some real damage on the other end of those strikes. US air and naval bases, desalinization plants, and a massive amount of oil and shipping infrastructure are all sitting right there across the Gulf, waiting to be hit by something.<br /><br />Even the Iraqis were very successful in hiding their Scud missiles from the US Air Force, and the Saudis are having little luck in wiping out the Houthi missile force either, no matter how much advice and hand-holding the US gives them. I have no doubt that a massive amount of firepower would be rained down on the Iranian side, and lots of things will go boom. But I don’t think our historical record (or anyone else’s) should give as much confidence in the ability to wipe out an enemy’s missile force purely from the air. Especially not in a timeframe of just two weeks, much less just two days.<br /><br />Which brings up the other important lesson from the 206 war: the Iranians are not a joke in a fight on the ground. They took Arabs, who have a fifty year track record of being some of the lousiest infantry fighters in the world, and turned them into a force that was able to hold its ground against the Israelis (put that in contrast with the stubborn ineptitude of the Syrian and Iraqi armies the Soviets spent billions training and equipping, or the Saudis or the new Iraqi army we did the same for).<br /><br />This will not be Saddam’s army running away and crying after the first wave of airstrikes hit them. This is the same country that spent eight years at war, whose soldiers charged through minefields when there was no other way to get through. All their commanders are now are veterans who fought in that war<br /><br />Don’t expect these guys to give up quickly, even if the losses are 10:1 in our favor or worse. You can find one of two assumptions behind just about any failed military campaign throughout all of history. One of them is “the enemy will give up the first time we hit them hard” and the other is “the people will rise up and welcome as liberators.” <br /><br />It seems to me you’re making both of them here.<br /><br />Useful sources:<br />https://www.counterpunch.org/2006/10/13/how-hezbollah-defeated-israel-2/<br />https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-second-lebanon-war-failures-lessons-learned-and-the-future<br />Vendettahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812812538430876798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-21673239378337935942019-08-13T09:37:25.189-07:002019-08-13T09:37:25.189-07:00"campaign against Serbia"
I'd be ve..."campaign against Serbia"<br /><br />I'd be very cautious about using that as an example of anything military. The main military objective of the US was to avoid any casualties. Any actual military objectives were distant secondary concerns, at best. Target lists were scrubbed through a coalition of twenty some countries.<br /><br />This could barely be described as a military venture. We used no ground forces and applied only a portion of our aviation capabilities and then in only a half-hearted manner. Low level flights we eliminated so as to avoid casualties. The anti-SAM effort was perfunctory, at best.<br /><br />The Serbian AAW system was totally ineffective. As I recall, they achieved 3 kills against 30,000 - 40,000 coalition sorties, or something on that order. So, yes, their AAW systems may have survived but they achieved nothing.<br /><br />This was not a war or military exercise. It was a political live fire demonstration. It offered nothing of military value in terms of lessons learned because it was conducted as a PR demonstration rather than actual combat.<br /><br />The better study is Desert Storm. Iran and Iraq fought inconclusively for, what, eight years or so? The US defeated Iraq in a matter of days. There's the model for a war with Iran and the source of lessons learned. <br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10319271580179311312019-08-13T09:04:02.528-07:002019-08-13T09:04:02.528-07:00Agreed on the value of having open-minded debate. ...Agreed on the value of having open-minded debate. There are certainly some out there who exaggerate Iranian power or underestimate America’s. <br /><br />I prefer to error on the side of caution but I try to keep my views grounded by looking to historical examples. Here’s a few that I have in mind.<br /><br />The NATO bombing campaign against Serbia in the Kosovo War. Fought against Serbia, a state that while militarily quite competent, is much smaller, weaker, and more poorly equipped than Iran. This was intended to be a quick shock and awe victory through massive airpower. It ended up dragging on for 78 days. Strikes on military targets proved totally ineffective at achieving the outcomes of the operation (getting the Serbs to pull out of Kosovo). Only after the bombing campaign switched to targeting civilian infrastructure did the Serbian government buckle and order a withdrawal. We thought we’d blast the Serbian Army back into its villages with their tails between their legs; instead, they withdrew from Kosovo in good order, having only suffered limited losses thanks to their dispersion and deception tactics. Their army wasn’t beaten, their government caved in. If we assume the Iranian government is as fanatical as claimed to be, it’s hard to imagine the same thing would happen there.<br /><br />Particularly notable from this campaign was the success of the Serbian mobile air defense systems in surviving under US airpower. Referring here to the SA-6 Gainful (or Kub), a system which dates back to the end of the 1960s.<br /><br />The Serbs had 22 of these systems in operation. The United States fired 389 HARM missiles at them throughout the conflict. Only 3 of them were actually destroyed (stats are in the first link below). Serbia is not a big country, but mobile SAM systems are really hard to track down when proper scoot and shoot tactics are used (the Israelis only achieved an easy wipeout on the Syrian AD network in 1982 because the Syrians parked them on top of hills and marked their locations with smoke, thinking wrongly that it would conceal them).<br /><br />Now the Serbs didn’t manage to hit much with their missiles, 665 shots for only a handful of kills (one of them a stealth bomber), because 1960s vintage radars don’t do so well against 1990s era jamming.<br /><br />But just surviving and being a potential threat has a radical impact on your enemy’s air campaign. Every strike package you send in needs to be escorted by jamming and SEAD, limiting the number of sorties you can fly in total. You also have to divert your efforts from going after the targets that really matter to trying to track down and wipe out those SAMs. In naval terms, think of it like a fleet-in-being strategy. It might not actually be doing much direct damage to the enemy, but it’s tying down far more enemy resources than it takes to maintain it.<br /><br />Finally, you’ve got to consider the fact that air defense systems have improved radically since the 1960s, or even the 1990s, while air defense suppression systems have not. We’re still using the same AGM-88 that served (rather questionably) in Kosovo, with minor improvements. The Iranians will be employing systems a generation or two ahead of those the Serbs fielded in 1999 (or indeed any other enemy’s we’ve actually faced in battle, Iraq and Libya having fielded the same vintage systems as Serbia).<br /><br />Now the Iranians certainly don’t have enough of these systems to lock down their entire airspace and make it impenetrable. But if the USAF with full NATO support couldn’t clean out a much weaker system in a much smaller country over a 78 day period, I find it doubtful in the extreme that it will manage to do so against Iran’s in just 2-4 weeks. And it should make you wonder what else they won’t manage to destroy in that window of time as well...<br /><br />Useful sources:<br />https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-04.html<br />https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1365/MR1365.ch3.pdfVendettahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812812538430876798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-40020994141907102062019-08-12T11:49:26.606-07:002019-08-12T11:49:26.606-07:00"They have a lot of ballistic missiles, a lot..."They have a lot of ballistic missiles, a lot of cruise missiles, and I would bet on Russia supplying them some more if the US went to war with Iran "<br /><br />Unless we try to do something incredibly stupid like a 'limited war' or some such nonsense, a war with Iran would be over far too quickly for any resupply from Russia to be a factor.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-78037881809769437502019-08-12T11:40:38.954-07:002019-08-12T11:40:38.954-07:00"A whole lot in the minus column and not much..."A whole lot in the minus column and not much at all in the positive. That’s why I see it as so important to stop this from happening."<br /><br />I have a different view but you make a valid case and I value that kind of comment! My agreement is not a requirement for a worthwhile comment and yours are quite worthwhile. Thanks for the effort you put into writing them!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61160138842434991872019-08-12T11:37:54.387-07:002019-08-12T11:37:54.387-07:00"War with Iran is worrying because … another..."War with Iran is worrying because … another state collapse, this time with a country of 80 million people."<br /><br />Okay, now how do you reconcile that pessimistic outcome view with the end of WWII and Germany/Japan? Is it not possible that good could come out of such a state collapse? Of course, the good in Germany/Japan was the result of US total occupation. Would we do that in Iran? If not, why not?<br /><br />"100,000 or more ex-Revolutionary Guards who are now out of a job, hellbent on revenge"<br /><br />Aside from the fact that many would have been killed in the fighting, how would they be different from the German/Japanese soldiers (even ex Nazi/SS) after WWII? Those people didn't go on murderous rampages. Why would this be different? If it is different, does that argue for a focus on killing them during the fighting?<br /><br />"hitting every oil facility and tanker terminal on the other side of the Gulf "<br /><br />In a total war, we'd eliminate most of those missiles on Day 1. The remainder on Day 2 and any left for revenge launches should be handled by a couple of Tico/Burkes with Aegis. Not saying we could stop 100% of the missiles but the resultant damage should be minimal. <br /><br />I think people tend to forget just how much firepower and capability we can bring to bear if we really want to. A war with Iran should be a two week exercise, at most.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-53388474871578764342019-08-12T10:12:07.540-07:002019-08-12T10:12:07.540-07:00They have a lot of ballistic missiles, a lot of cr...They have a lot of ballistic missiles, a lot of cruise missiles, and I would bet on Russia supplying them some more if the US went to war with Iran while remaining hostile to them - no better chance for them to see how their latest generation weapons will fare against us.<br /><br />We know from past experience that recon is hard, we know from looking at a map that Iran is big and has lots of places to hide, and we know from how they’ve fought in Syria and against Israel that Hezbollah are pretty skilled at what they do - so it follows that the people who trained them will probably be just as good.<br /><br />I can guarantee USAF won’t find all their missiles, and I’d also bet they wouldn’t even find most. Add a world economic crisis to a massive refugee crisis and probably an ongoing civil war in Iran, and the prizes to be won from this war look real shitty to me.<br /><br />And even if some kind of ‘democracy’ emerges from the ruins, I wouldn’t be too optimistic about what that’s going to look like. Democracy in Turkey led to Erdogan, when they tried it in Egypt they got Morsi, etc. The only way we got a somewhat stable and somewhat friendly regime together again in Iraq was because Iran did us (and more so themselves) a favor by helping us do it.<br /><br />In this case we’re not going to have any help from the outside, and friends of the US are going to be few and far between after we’ve blown up half their country and killed a bunch of their brothers and cousins.<br /><br />A whole lot in the minus column and not much at all in the positive. That’s why I see it as so important to stop this from happening.Vendettahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812812538430876798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-20617509114407982412019-08-12T09:52:51.797-07:002019-08-12T09:52:51.797-07:00War with Iran is worrying because if it goes total...War with Iran is worrying because if it goes total and the US really takes its gloves off, and pushes it to its final conclusion, the outcome is probably going to be another state collapse, this time with a country of 80 million people. Afghanistan and Iraq are in no position to take refugees, so where do they go? Probably three million plus trying to get into Europe at once (notice how the Europeans really, really don’t want to get involved in this war).<br /><br />Along with them you have 100,000 or more ex-Revolutionary Guards who are now out of a job, hellbent on revenge, and have no bosses to take any orders to hold their fire from anymore. Iranian terrorism would take off like never before. <br /><br />Finally, if they know that they’re going down, nothing will hold them back from playing their last cards, which would be hitting every oil facility and tanker terminal on the other side of the Gulf with every missile they they have left. Might as well take everyone else with you, right?Vendettahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812812538430876798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-71731128769540646982019-08-12T09:28:37.538-07:002019-08-12T09:28:37.538-07:00The main problem facing the world today is state c...The main problem facing the world today is state collapses rather than specific rivalries between states. When a country falls apart it becomes open ground for terrorism and organized crime to thrive in, and it unleashes waves of refugees on its neighbors and the first world countries. The instability spreads, everyone suffers from it, and it’s much harder to put a state back together afterward than it is to destroy it in the first place. We’ve seen it happen some places on its own, and some places where we went in and caused it through regime change attempts.<br /><br />Keeping more of these disasters from happening should be priority number one in foreign policy. Every country in the world has an interest in this, and the big three in particular (America, Russia, China) should come to an understanding that whatever our other differences, we need to coordinate on that particular issue.<br /><br />Two general trends that are going to contribute to state fragility in this century are Islamic fundamentalism (particularly the Sunni variety, since it’s far more widespread and less under the control of any state) and the ongoing population explosion in Africa.<br /><br />Islamic terrorism has been a problem for all three, mass migration from Africa has been a problem for Europe and will be for everyone as time goes on. Those are key issues to finding common ground with them.Vendettahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812812538430876798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69543646092183040802019-08-11T19:32:21.857-07:002019-08-11T19:32:21.857-07:00I happen to agree that we could be friends (or at ...I happen to agree that we could be friends (or at least, not enemies) with Russia. What points of common interest do you see with Russia that are significant? Of course, it would help if they, too, would dial back the rhetoric, stop invading countries, and stop antagonizing our military assets.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-46286048272015068542019-08-11T19:03:40.689-07:002019-08-11T19:03:40.689-07:00Diplomacy is a difficult art of its own, and our r...Diplomacy is a difficult art of its own, and our ruling class has become even more inept in that than they are at war. The most likely path to reconciling with Iran now probably relies on reconciling with Russia first, which would certainly be easier were it not for the stupidity of those running our government and our media.Vendettahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812812538430876798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82037003567204462782019-08-11T13:48:25.628-07:002019-08-11T13:48:25.628-07:00So, without agreeing or disagreeing, it sounds lik...So, without agreeing or disagreeing, it sounds like you're proposing that we wait for the next opportunity to find common ground and seize it? Status quo until an opportunity presents. Is that a fair summary of what you'd suggest? If so, I have no problem with it, in theory but I am mindful of the IMMENSE challenges in doing so. Of course, we're now semi-friends with the North Vietnamese - who'd have thought it? - so anything is possible!<br /><br />What would help a lot is for Iran to dial back some of the 'Death to America' rhetoric as a prelude to better relations - assuming they even want better relations - while they, too, wait for an opportunity. Well, I guess this is what makes international diplomacy so challenging.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-3951812078240769162019-08-11T13:31:25.389-07:002019-08-11T13:31:25.389-07:00The only group we have lined up to support our reg...The only group we have lined up to support our regime change effort is the MEK, who are a sick joke. They were a crypto-communist, cult-like organization that committed a lot of terrorist attacks and signed up to fight for Saddam against their own country. Traitors who have zero support in their own country. The US found them camped out in Iraq when we took over in 2003, detained them for a while, then decided they might be useful and rebranded them as a “democracy movement.” Moved them out to Albania instead (and the Albanians got sick of having them around real quick).<br /><br />Those couple thousand clowns who’ve been in exile for decades are all we’ve got. The ayatollahs have eight million young men in the Basij. Safe to say they’re not going anywhere unless there’s a total invasion and occupation of their country.<br /><br />If that’s the case, the blockade is pointless and just increases the likelihood of starting a war we have nothing to gain from.<br /><br />Try convincing Bolton and the other political hacks though. They actually give speeches in front of the MEK and think they’re talking to “the Iranian people.”Vendettahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812812538430876798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-60000663762595111902019-08-11T13:20:46.956-07:002019-08-11T13:20:46.956-07:00At this point however, the best we can hope for is...At this point however, the best we can hope for is avoiding outright war. Unfortunately the blockade is going to make it harder and harder to prevent as time goes on. It’s one thing to embargo a country from trading with you, but another thing to try and cut off their trade with the entire world. That’s pretty much an act of war itself. <br /><br />Iran’s policy is that if they’re not allowed to export oil through the Gulf, no one will. Which explains the steady series of provocations on their part. <br /><br />I don’t see regime change on the horizon at all no matter how bad the economic crisis gets. There are some mainstream parties in Iran advocating reform but none at all supporting the complete overthrow of the system.Vendettahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812812538430876798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-88662238157916358292019-08-11T13:07:44.856-07:002019-08-11T13:07:44.856-07:00That is the ideal solution for me to me but it wou...That is the ideal solution for me to me but it would be an uphill struggle, perhaps impossible in the near future because of the current administration’s actions. Obama’s, however, missed the real opportunity (surprise, surprise) when ISIS arose as a greater evil that America, Russia, and Iran could have united against. That could have built some good will and grounds to improve upon but we chose to keep on trying to overthrow Assad instead (and failing).<br /><br />I would note that Russia and China are infidel nations as well but the Iranians don’t seem to have any issue honoring agreements with them. There was also a brief opening of cooperation with us during the start of the Afghan War (can even find quotes from guys like Suleimani back then about how maybe it was time to re-evaluate our whole relationship) but that crashed after they were labeled part of the Axis of Evil.Vendettahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812812538430876798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-41971100295289758372019-08-11T10:02:01.619-07:002019-08-11T10:02:01.619-07:00"Small boats of our own"
Our Mk VI'..."Small boats of our own"<br /><br />Our Mk VI's far outgun their typical small boats and have some degree of Kevlar type protection. I have no idea whether they'd be able to operate in a mine field?<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-49737705738152007222019-08-11T09:59:54.167-07:002019-08-11T09:59:54.167-07:00"One thing the boats will have a hard time do..."One thing the boats will have a hard time doing when they’re going at full speed is actually hitting anything with a manually aimed weapon like an artillery rocket."<br /><br />True. On the other hand, proximity fuzed, fragmentation warheads could do a lot of damage to and LCS or Burke without needing accurate aiming. Showering shrapnel will do lots of damage to an LCS (might well sink one with a few hits since they have no crew for damage control) and enough damage to a Burke to mission kill and claim a PR victory.<br /><br />While a single rocket on a single boat may have a low probability of hitting, a swarm of rockets is statistically likely to achieve a hit or two and, given today's lightly built ships and minimal crew for damage control, one or two hits would prove quite damaging.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38015110168590043422019-08-11T09:55:19.934-07:002019-08-11T09:55:19.934-07:00"I personally am in favor of a diplomatic rea..."I personally am in favor of a diplomatic realignment with Iran"<br /><br />In theory, who isn't? The reality is that there is a WHOLE LOT of pent up animosity in them towards the US. Until they stop chanting 'Death to America', alignment would be difficult. There's also the seemingly intractable issue of their genocidal view on Israel which is a non-starter for us. Their desire to become a nuclear weapon state (any doubt they'd use it in an irresponsible manner?) is another solid road block. Finally, they view the Great Satan (tough to be friends with someone who sees you that way!) as infidels and any agreement entered into with infidels holds no validity, in their minds. Such pragmatic issues aside, sure, we'd like to have better relations but there seems to be little common ground or compromise.<br /><br />Now, Russia is an example of an enemy who could be friend-ized with some effort. <br /><br />Practical challenges aside, I like your philosophy (stop me if I'm putting words into your mouth) that the best way to defeat an enemy is to make him your friend. I'm just afraid that with Iran the entrenched animosities run too deep for that to work.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67979129905072076302019-08-11T09:45:14.224-07:002019-08-11T09:45:14.224-07:00"A robust coastal raiding … regain some of th..."A robust coastal raiding … regain some of the initiative against the enemy, instead of being totally reactive."<br /><br />Yes! The best ASW is to destroy subs before they put to sea. Similarly, the best MCM is to destroy these mini-miners before they hit the water. Small drones to hunt and some kind of fairly quick reaction attack capability from waiting boats would be nice. <br /><br />I like the way you think!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4071163750732294812019-08-11T09:14:54.937-07:002019-08-11T09:14:54.937-07:00Apart from that, there needs to be cheap recon, a ...Apart from that, there needs to be cheap recon, a lot of it. One of the enemy’s toys I’m actually kind of curious about is their Bavar ekranoplan. An unmanned version of that of that might offer the right combination of speed, loiter time, and affordability to lose. Not sure on the details, but those are the things you’d want. Ability to cover a lot of ground without worrying too much if they get shot down.<br /><br />Having something like an AC-130 would be an easy way to wipe out any flotillas that get spotted, depending on how clear the SAM environment is (obviously a big fat target if they have S-300’s unaccounted for or Buk launchers close to shore). But that’s a whole different story...<br /><br />As far as escort and patrol ships I think the safest bet would be ones close to the size the Iranians are using. My guess (though it is only a guess) is that their mines would be fused to detonate on vessels larger than themselves so that they can move through their own fields freely. Small boats of our own could then (hopefully) do the same. Try to armor them against 12.7mm fire (where you can, without losing too much speed) and pack something a quad .50 or a compact 25mm autocannon if you can to give them the edge in shootouts. A radio and a launcher for signal flares would probably be the most useful features on these things (warning everyone else would be main use of them, winning dogfights against their opposite numbers is secondary).<br /><br />A robust coastal raiding capability with the SEALs and appropriate equipment for sneaking in and out quickly would also be helpful to try and regain some of the initiative against the enemy, instead of being totally reactive.Vendettahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812812538430876798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-62950769310470508592019-08-11T09:14:33.483-07:002019-08-11T09:14:33.483-07:00I personally am in favor of a diplomatic realignme...I personally am in favor of a diplomatic realignment with Iran and I think we missed a big opportunity to do that when we had the chance to combine our efforts against ISIS and chose not to. The way I see it, the Saudis are responsible for as much, if not more instability throughout the region, and the smart way to deal with that would be the ability to pivot between one and the other depending on which gets more out of line.<br /><br />Setting politics aside though, first capability we’d need is more minesweepers, and a lot of them. Preferably with a self-defense weapon like an autocannon that can handle small boats, and the ability to see and shoot at night.<br /><br />Having some self-defense capability is crucial because they will be operating in mined waters, every ship you bring in to escort them runs the risk of hitting a mine. And the numbers are crucial not only to account for clearance rate and attrition but also so they can operate in groups and help watch each other’s backs (and pick up survivors from any losses, if need be).<br /><br />High speed is something they built into the LCS because they had some sort of scenario like this vaguely in mind, but it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Zipping around and trying to dance with these speedboats seems like a good way to blunder into mines, and the newer speedboats they have like the Safir can pull something like 70-90 knots, easily outrunning even a “fast” ship like the LCS.<br /><br />Better to have a slow, stable firing platform so as to accurately hit these fast moving targets. One thing the boats will have a hard time doing when they’re going at full speed is actually hitting anything with a manually aimed weapon like an artillery rocket. They’ll have to either dash in and fire their shot when they’re real close, or sneak slow, launch from further away, and use their speed to execute an escape. Being able to shoot at them before they can shoot you is the best defense, since even a boat that is zigzagging and dodging fire will have a much harder time lining up a straight shot on you.<br /><br />One weird gonzo idea that occurs to me for these minesweepers is having outriggers that support supporting a screen of some kind up to about gunwale height, kind of like the slat armor they use on tanks to detonate projectiles prematurely. Might be a cheap way to improve survivability against the rockets these boats use (and easily removable for sweeping in non-contested environments where they’d just get in the way).Vendettahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812812538430876798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-84520909666477224812019-08-11T06:19:48.336-07:002019-08-11T06:19:48.336-07:00Very nice example of some alterative thinking. Th...Very nice example of some alterative thinking. This is exactly the kind of alternative scenario that we should be exercising against. I want you for OpFor leader in our exercises!<br /><br />Now, what would you suggest for a US response to this tactic? How could we deal with it? Do we need our own small boat flotillas (Mk VI, Cyclones) to counter it? Greater use of drones? Guys in RHIBS?<br /><br />Keep posting comments of this nature. This is the kind of creative thinking I love to see!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-78265834812585705032019-08-10T23:19:45.348-07:002019-08-10T23:19:45.348-07:00I would argue the main strategic value of the Iran...I would argue the main strategic value of the Iranian speedboat fleet is its ability to interfere with any mine clearance operations in the Strait of Hormuz. Both sides like to talk up the idea of swarming an aircraft carrier with them but that seems a misdirection to me. Most of them are mounting something like a 107mm artillery rocket as a main weapon, that’s not going to do much to a carrier or a big destroyer - but it could really mess up a small mine clearing vessel.<br /><br />Picture this as an Iranian war strategy, instead of the popularly imagined swarms of doom. On day one, sow mines all over the strait and shut it down. Keep the boats hauled up on shore and under wraps. Drag a dozen or two of them down to the beach and send them out each night to toss a few more mines in and take potshots at any ships trying to sweep the field. <br /><br />Even if you (very generously) assume all the boats they send out like this each night are going to get sunk, they’ve got over a thousand of them, and the ability to manufacture for. They can keep this up more or less indefinitely. Blasting the ports to scrap (which I assume would be taking place) does nothing to stop this, since the boats are small enough to be towed around trailers and launched almost anywhere.<br /><br />Bring a few MANPADs along on each of the boat squadrons too and you make it risky for any helicopters flying patrol over the minesweepers as well.<br /><br />Couple that with some land-based anti-ship missile launchers and surface-to-air missile units leading USAF around on a very frustrating game of hide-and-seek and there might be no means of reopening the straits at all, short of coming to terms with the Iranians or trying to seize and hold the entire Iranian coastline facing the straits (which the US has no effective means to do, so back to square one: make peace with the Iranians).Vendettahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812812538430876798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90291482061106600802019-08-01T11:19:17.130-07:002019-08-01T11:19:17.130-07:00"I would have …"
Okay, that's what ..."I would have …"<br /><br />Okay, that's what you would do but would it work in an operationally useful time frame? Or, have mines become so smart that they can't be cleared in a useful time frame?<br /><br />Your method may be better than the Navy's but still not operationally useful? What do you think?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com