If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Global Geopolitics)   In a historical first, Iran projects its naval power to the Atlantic, dominates 50 square miles   (glblgeopolitics.wordpress.com) divider line 51
    More: Scary, Iran, navies, shipping route, Fars News Agency  
•       •       •

1487 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jan 2014 at 10:13 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-22 10:20:24 AM
Whenever I think of the Iranian navy, I think buggery.
 
2014-01-22 10:22:41 AM
They have subs and torpedo boats and several frigates and like-sized ships. Basically they are limited to torpedo attacks, can lay mines in quantity, and have minor missile capability. Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups. They might pick a few ships off and make it difficult to operate in those seas, however, which may be all they need, depending on the situation, and how willing we are to engage in a war with them.
 
2014-01-22 10:25:54 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups.


Well, if we were dumb enough to park a carrier group right in the narrow point of the Strait of Hormuz, then maybe.  But as long as we keep the carriers in the open Indian Ocean but within range of aircraft, they'd be fine.
 
2014-01-22 10:27:14 AM
Time to increase our military spending by a few trillion dollars and give a tax cut to our top 1%. That will teach them damn Persians.
 
2014-01-22 10:30:25 AM
Maybe we could link an article that mentions what ships they've sent.

Iran's 29th fleet includes the destroyer, Sabalan, and helicopter-carrying support ship, Kharg, the state news agency FARS reported. It is to sail 25,000 nautical miles over its three-month long trip.

 It's not a destroyer in the Anglo-American sense of the class; it's a frigate that Vospers built for the previous regime.  That class is almost 50 years old, and one of the four is somewhere at the bottom of the Persian Gulf after being sunk in retaliation for Iran mining the Gulf shipping lanes.

The Kharg, meanwhile, is a converted British tanker that operates as a general replenishment ship.  It does carry a couple of Sea Kings (which the U.S. Navy retired in the mid-2000s).  If I remember correctly, their American-bought helicopters were maintained and possibly replaced with parts from a contracting company in Italy.  The helos are there mostly for anti-submarine and utility duty, though I doubt they've got the doctrine and training to detect a veteran sub crew in the open waters of the Atlantic.

Overall, an interesting little maneuver by the Iranians.  If a different administration were in place in Washington, they might respond poorly to this bit of saber-rattling.
 
2014-01-22 10:31:59 AM

UNC_Samurai: That class is almost 50 years old, and one of the four is somewhere at the bottom of the Persian Gulf after being sunk in retaliation for Iran mining the Gulf shipping lanes.


I think this is a new Sabalan, domestically built, and the previous one was retired
 
2014-01-22 10:33:21 AM

zedster: UNC_Samurai: That class is almost 50 years old, and one of the four is somewhere at the bottom of the Persian Gulf after being sunk in retaliation for Iran mining the Gulf shipping lanes.

I think this is a new Sabalan, domestically built, and the previous one was retired


Never mind, got it confused with the Sahand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moudge_class_frigate
 
2014-01-22 10:34:41 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: They have subs and torpedo boats and several frigates and like-sized ships. Basically they are limited to torpedo attacks, can lay mines in quantity, and have minor missile capability. Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups. They might pick a few ships off and make it difficult to operate in those seas, however, which may be all they need, depending on the situation, and how willing we are to engage in a war with them.


I thought Iran had those supercavitating torpedoes that were certain to doom US Naval power for decades?

Not to mention superior photoshop technology ;)
 
2014-01-22 10:34:59 AM
Uh-oh. We better call the Coast Guard and put them on notice.  ;) 

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-rescues-iranian-sailors/st or y?id=15331425
 
2014-01-22 10:36:36 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: They have subs and torpedo boats and several frigates and like-sized ships. Basically they are limited to torpedo attacks, can lay mines in quantity, and have minor missile capability. Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups. They might pick a few ships off and make it difficult to operate in those seas, however, which may be all they need, depending on the situation, and how willing we are to engage in a war with them.


Not according to some war games the Navy carried out back in 2002. Long story short, the "Red" (Iranian) team was commanded by the Marines' top expert on asymmetrical warfare; he destroyed 16 "Blue" (US) warships, including an aircraft carrier and ten cruisers, with a massive cruise missile salvo that saturated the ships' anti-missile defenses.

As a result, the referees halted the simulation, re-floated the ships, and ordered both sides to follow a script that ensured victory for the Blue team.
 
2014-01-22 10:40:25 AM
We're well and truly farked now. If push comes to shove, it might take a couple of our carrier groups 15 minutes or more to sink both of those ships.
 
2014-01-22 10:43:21 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: They have subs and torpedo boats and several frigates and like-sized ships. Basically they are limited to torpedo attacks, can lay mines in quantity, and have minor missile capability. Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups. They might pick a few ships off and make it difficult to operate in those seas, however, which may be all they need, depending on the situation, and how willing we are to engage in a war with them.


Them sinking a boat would drive the pro-war party into a frenzy, and would probaby make a multi-year conflict a certainty.
 
2014-01-22 10:49:18 AM

qorkfiend: PC LOAD LETTER: They have subs and torpedo boats and several frigates and like-sized ships. Basically they are limited to torpedo attacks, can lay mines in quantity, and have minor missile capability. Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups. They might pick a few ships off and make it difficult to operate in those seas, however, which may be all they need, depending on the situation, and how willing we are to engage in a war with them.

Not according to some war games the Navy carried out back in 2002. Long story short, the "Red" (Iranian) team was commanded by the Marines' top expert on asymmetrical warfare; he destroyed 16 "Blue" (US) warships, including an aircraft carrier and ten cruisers, with a massive cruise missile salvo that saturated the ships' anti-missile defenses.

As a result, the referees halted the simulation, re-floated the ships, and ordered both sides to follow a script that ensured victory for the Blue team.


WE'RE NUMBER ONE! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!! WOOOOOO!!!!!!
 
2014-01-22 10:50:27 AM

Alebak: PC LOAD LETTER: They have subs and torpedo boats and several frigates and like-sized ships. Basically they are limited to torpedo attacks, can lay mines in quantity, and have minor missile capability. Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups. They might pick a few ships off and make it difficult to operate in those seas, however, which may be all they need, depending on the situation, and how willing we are to engage in a war with them.

Them sinking a boat would drive the pro-war party into a frenzy, and would probaby make a multi-year conflict a certainty.


Unlikely to be a multi-year endeavor. Based upon our prior experience in that region it would "[L]ast five days, five weeks or five months but it won't last any longer than that"
 
2014-01-22 10:52:27 AM

qorkfiend: PC LOAD LETTER: They have subs and torpedo boats and several frigates and like-sized ships. Basically they are limited to torpedo attacks, can lay mines in quantity, and have minor missile capability. Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups. They might pick a few ships off and make it difficult to operate in those seas, however, which may be all they need, depending on the situation, and how willing we are to engage in a war with them.

Not according to some war games the Navy carried out back in 2002. Long story short, the "Red" (Iranian) team was commanded by the Marines' top expert on asymmetrical warfare; he destroyed 16 "Blue" (US) warships, including an aircraft carrier and ten cruisers, with a massive cruise missile salvo that saturated the ships' anti-missile defenses.

As a result, the referees halted the simulation, re-floated the ships, and ordered both sides to follow a script that ensured victory for the Blue team.


It's a nice trick, but they can only do it once
 
2014-01-22 10:52:41 AM
I'm hardly a naval warfare expert, but aren't there substantial logistical challenges to operating a blue water fleet far from your home base? I wouldn't think it would be as simple as taking your destroyer and saying "Go over there towards America."
 
2014-01-22 11:01:00 AM

Lost Thought 00: qorkfiend: PC LOAD LETTER: They have subs and torpedo boats and several frigates and like-sized ships. Basically they are limited to torpedo attacks, can lay mines in quantity, and have minor missile capability. Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups. They might pick a few ships off and make it difficult to operate in those seas, however, which may be all they need, depending on the situation, and how willing we are to engage in a war with them.

Not according to some war games the Navy carried out back in 2002. Long story short, the "Red" (Iranian) team was commanded by the Marines' top expert on asymmetrical warfare; he destroyed 16 "Blue" (US) warships, including an aircraft carrier and ten cruisers, with a massive cruise missile salvo that saturated the ships' anti-missile defenses.

As a result, the referees halted the simulation, re-floated the ships, and ordered both sides to follow a script that ensured victory for the Blue team.

It's a nice trick, but they can only do it once


Or as long as the cruise missiles hold out, I guess; plus, the guy behind that plan surely has more tricks up his sleeve.

In any case, my point wasn't that Iran could win the war; my point is that even the US Navy is vulnerable (and a widespread belief in its invulnerability doesn't help), and that a determined and clever actor can inflict a lot of damage on the US military, even in the process of losing. Imagine the reaction here at home if one of our carrier groups got gobsmacked like that, especially if it happened more than once.
 
2014-01-22 11:04:26 AM
Your blog still sucks.
 
2014-01-22 11:07:37 AM

qorkfiend: PC LOAD LETTER: They have subs and torpedo boats and several frigates and like-sized ships. Basically they are limited to torpedo attacks, can lay mines in quantity, and have minor missile capability. Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups. They might pick a few ships off and make it difficult to operate in those seas, however, which may be all they need, depending on the situation, and how willing we are to engage in a war with them.

Not according to some war games the Navy carried out back in 2002. Long story short, the "Red" (Iranian) team was commanded by the Marines' top expert on asymmetrical warfare; he destroyed 16 "Blue" (US) warships, including an aircraft carrier and ten cruisers, with a massive cruise missile salvo that saturated the ships' anti-missile defenses.

As a result, the referees halted the simulation, re-floated the ships, and ordered both sides to follow a script that ensured victory for the Blue team.


A) Millennium Challenge '02 was 12 years ago. Armies run wargames so they don't make stupid mistakes that can lose real wars, like not noticing and interdicting a flotilla of pleasure craft and fishing boats.

B) A lot of what Van Riper did was gaming the game, so to speak. He put up a wall of chemical weapons at the landing site, which the US would just outwait in real life, but which they could not in the prescribed time frame. He kept his radar off, relying on his preexisting knowledge to know when and where the attack was coming. The referees declared his motorcycle messages arrived instantaneously. He communicated all his orders in real time to tiny boats without radio. Van Riper was a rules lawyer playing to win the game as a game, and Blue was trying to sim a war.

C) The only reason this is a story at all is that Van Riper got butthurt and went to the media with a tailor made David and Goliath story in the runup to the Iraq war.
 
2014-01-22 11:16:08 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: They have subs and torpedo boats and several frigates and like-sized ships. Basically they are limited to torpedo attacks, can lay mines in quantity, and have minor missile capability. Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups. They might pick a few ships off and make it difficult to operate in those seas, however, which may be all they need, depending on the situation, and how willing we are to engage in a war with them.


Mine-laying in quantity is true near their coast, not in the Atlantic. They probably couldn't get within range in the Atlantic to pick off anything.
 
2014-01-22 11:17:24 AM

UNC_Samurai: Overall, an interesting little maneuver by the Iranians.  If a different administration were in place in Washington, they might respond poorly to this bit of saber-rattling.


I don't really consider that sabre-rattling.
 
2014-01-22 11:17:51 AM
good for them, maybe we can sell them some cool toys soon :)
 
2014-01-22 11:18:28 AM

pkjun: He kept his radar off, relying on his preexisting knowledge to know when and where the attack was coming.


This wasn't a sneak attack by the US. When your enemy is headed towards you for weeks, then sends you an ultimatum with a 24-hour time limit, you're pretty well aware of where they are, what they're doing, and what they're planning to do in the near future. Also, do you honestly think that anyone with even a passing familiarity with US capabilities would leave their anti-aircraft radar on so it can be detected and destroyed when expecting an imminent and massive air assault?

pkjun: He communicated all his orders in real time to tiny boats without radio.


There's absolutely no way to communicate real-time without radio?

pkjun: C) The only reason this is a story at all is that Van Riper got butthurt and went to the media with a tailor made David and Goliath story in the runup to the Iraq war.


The reason it's a story is because the Navy went in to demonstrate its superiority, and when it started losing, the rules were changed to force a predetermined outcome. The runup to the Iraq War made it a bit higher profile than it would have been, sure.
 
2014-01-22 11:19:37 AM

qorkfiend: Lost Thought 00: qorkfiend: PC LOAD LETTER: They have subs and torpedo boats and several frigates and like-sized ships. Basically they are limited to torpedo attacks, can lay mines in quantity, and have minor missile capability. Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups. They might pick a few ships off and make it difficult to operate in those seas, however, which may be all they need, depending on the situation, and how willing we are to engage in a war with them.

Not according to some war games the Navy carried out back in 2002. Long story short, the "Red" (Iranian) team was commanded by the Marines' top expert on asymmetrical warfare; he destroyed 16 "Blue" (US) warships, including an aircraft carrier and ten cruisers, with a massive cruise missile salvo that saturated the ships' anti-missile defenses.

As a result, the referees halted the simulation, re-floated the ships, and ordered both sides to follow a script that ensured victory for the Blue team.

It's a nice trick, but they can only do it once

Or as long as the cruise missiles hold out, I guess; plus, the guy behind that plan surely has more tricks up his sleeve.

In any case, my point wasn't that Iran could win the war; my point is that even the US Navy is vulnerable (and a widespread belief in its invulnerability doesn't help), and that a determined and clever actor can inflict a lot of damage on the US military, even in the process of losing. Imagine the reaction here at home if one of our carrier groups got gobsmacked like that, especially if it happened more than once.


The US Navy knows it is vulnerable. They run these things to find out what their vulnerabilities are. They didn't refloat and replay with rules adjustments so they could pretend they were invincible; they did it because they were testing dozens of operational procedures, and tactics, and technologies, and they weren't going to call the whole thing off because the Blue commander let Red cheese the Blue fleet to death with a bunch of cruise missiles apparently self launching from a bunch of fishing boats and yachts that the Blue commander decided were just dandy to allow in a war zone. Van Riper earned his win, but it wasn't an act of imperial hubris or anything to restart the wargames with rules adjustments.
 
2014-01-22 11:21:12 AM
Plus cruise missile guidance technology is hardly stagnant. Ships are very large and very slow, if optical, magnetic or any combination of guidance systems become capable of defeating the countermeasures (they will) naval warfare will be very different. Our multi trillion dollar navy could be sunk very fast for very little. Every navy is either going to be vulnerable to less prosperous nations or they already are.
 
2014-01-22 11:22:32 AM
FTA: "In 2012, Iran said it aims to put warships in international waters off the U.S. coast within the next few years..."

Fair enough.  Render honors 100 yards away with the Ike when they do.
 
2014-01-22 11:24:55 AM

qorkfiend: PC LOAD LETTER: They have subs and torpedo boats and several frigates and like-sized ships. Basically they are limited to torpedo attacks, can lay mines in quantity, and have minor missile capability. Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups. They might pick a few ships off and make it difficult to operate in those seas, however, which may be all they need, depending on the situation, and how willing we are to engage in a war with them.

Not according to some war games the Navy carried out back in 2002. Long story short, the "Red" (Iranian) team was commanded by the Marines' top expert on asymmetrical warfare; he destroyed 16 "Blue" (US) warships, including an aircraft carrier and ten cruisers, with a massive cruise missile salvo that saturated the ships' anti-missile defenses.

As a result, the referees halted the simulation, re-floated the ships, and ordered both sides to follow a script that ensured victory for the Blue team.


Yeah - don't read too much into that. Having designed such simulations for the navy, a lot of the parameters to BEGIN with are pulled out of our asses. This kind of game isn't intended to test capabilities. It's designed to get people to think about the decisions they might need to make. They probably let the red cell go and do their attack to throw a curve-ball at the US side despite it not really being a realistically effective attack. Then, what, you tell them to all go home, thanks for the 30 minutes? Do you play just one hand of poker, say, "wow, I lost a hand. Good night, see you next Saturday!"? OF COURSE you refloat the fleet and start again. Lesson learned, OF COURSE you don't then just make it another Kobayashi Maru. You now go through and encourage the decision-making they're likely to face.

That some idiot flag officer didn't understand that and went away whining about how the DM wouldn't let him use the vorpal blade at 1st level anymore is hardly surprising.
 
2014-01-22 11:25:52 AM

Lost Thought 00: It's a nice trick, but they can only do it once


Reminds me of the difference between submarines and surface ships. All ships can submerge. Some can just do it more than once.
 
2014-01-22 11:30:21 AM

qorkfiend: pkjun: He kept his radar off, relying on his preexisting knowledge to know when and where the attack was coming.

This wasn't a sneak attack by the US. When your enemy is headed towards you for weeks, then sends you an ultimatum with a 24-hour time limit, you're pretty well aware of where they are, what they're doing, and what they're planning to do in the near future. Also, do you honestly think that anyone with even a passing familiarity with US capabilities would leave their anti-aircraft radar on so it can be detected and destroyed when expecting an imminent and massive air assault?

pkjun: He communicated all his orders in real time to tiny boats without radio.

There's absolutely no way to communicate real-time without radio?

pkjun: C) The only reason this is a story at all is that Van Riper got butthurt and went to the media with a tailor made David and Goliath story in the runup to the Iraq war.

The reason it's a story is because the Navy went in to demonstrate its superiority, and when it started losing, the rules were changed to force a predetermined outcome. The runup to the Iraq War made it a bit higher profile than it would have been, sure.


Sorry for the wall quotes, I'm on mobile. Anyway, no, they didn't do it to demonstrate superiority. That's silly david-goliath storytelling. They were testing new equipment and procedures. Van Riper successfully made his point, he was congratulated halfheartedly, then it was time to get on with the other parts of the test, which meant rerunning it (and this time paying attention to the fishing boats).

The whole thing is a great reminder of the fact that a clever commander can disrupt plans, but also of the fact that the US has plenty of clever commanders who are always trying to anticipate how to do just that. The fishing boat flotilla could only work once, and the Iranians used it without even knowing it in 2002.
 
2014-01-22 11:31:40 AM

vygramul: qorkfiend: PC LOAD LETTER: They have subs and torpedo boats and several frigates and like-sized ships. Basically they are limited to torpedo attacks, can lay mines in quantity, and have minor missile capability. Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups. They might pick a few ships off and make it difficult to operate in those seas, however, which may be all they need, depending on the situation, and how willing we are to engage in a war with them.

Not according to some war games the Navy carried out back in 2002. Long story short, the "Red" (Iranian) team was commanded by the Marines' top expert on asymmetrical warfare; he destroyed 16 "Blue" (US) warships, including an aircraft carrier and ten cruisers, with a massive cruise missile salvo that saturated the ships' anti-missile defenses.

As a result, the referees halted the simulation, re-floated the ships, and ordered both sides to follow a script that ensured victory for the Blue team.

Yeah - don't read too much into that. Having designed such simulations for the navy, a lot of the parameters to BEGIN with are pulled out of our asses. This kind of game isn't intended to test capabilities. It's designed to get people to think about the decisions they might need to make. They probably let the red cell go and do their attack to throw a curve-ball at the US side despite it not really being a realistically effective attack. Then, what, you tell them to all go home, thanks for the 30 minutes? Do you play just one hand of poker, say, "wow, I lost a hand. Good night, see you next Saturday!"? OF COURSE you refloat the fleet and start again. Lesson learned, OF COURSE you don't then just make it another Kobayashi Maru. You now go through and encourage the decision-making they're likely to face.

That some idiot flag officer didn't understand that and went away whining about how the DM wouldn't let him use the vorpal blade at 1st level anymore is hardly surprising.



Your logically consistent argument mixed with geekisms from multiple genres has me confused as to whether this post belongs on Fark or not....

/gonna let it slide this time.
 
2014-01-22 11:32:22 AM

qorkfiend: pkjun: He kept his radar off, relying on his preexisting knowledge to know when and where the attack was coming.

This wasn't a sneak attack by the US. When your enemy is headed towards you for weeks, then sends you an ultimatum with a 24-hour time limit, you're pretty well aware of where they are, what they're doing, and what they're planning to do in the near future. Also, do you honestly think that anyone with even a passing familiarity with US capabilities would leave their anti-aircraft radar on so it can be detected and destroyed when expecting an imminent and massive air assault?


This kind of thing works when you know what your enemy is going to do. Sure, if we handed the Iranians as much information as the red cell had, then maybe they could ALMOST get away with turning off their AA radar. But then they wouldn't shoot anything down, either. The Serbs, who really knew what they were doing (unlike the Iranians), took a long time before they managed to pull off that trick. And only got one aircraft that way.

pkjun: He communicated all his orders in real time to tiny boats without radio.

There's absolutely no way to communicate real-time without radio?


Between the high command and a ship at sea? Not really. I've used sat phones at sea. They're nice, but I wouldn't want to try to coordinate an attack with them.

pkjun: C) The only reason this is a story at all is that Van Riper got butthurt and went to the media with a tailor made David and Goliath story in the runup to the Iraq war.

The reason it's a story is because the Navy went in to demonstrate its superiority, and when it started losing, the rules were changed to force a predetermined outcome. The runup to the Iraq War made it a bit higher profile than it would have been, sure.


That game is not designed to prove superiority. Frankly, that's just silly.
 
2014-01-22 11:34:13 AM

Fizpez: Your logically consistent argument mixed with geekisms from multiple genres has me confused as to whether this post belongs on Fark or not....

/gonna let it slide this time.


data.whicdn.com
 
2014-01-22 11:35:15 AM
If they come all the way to the Atlantic... would our navy see any big savings in gas by not having to go all the way to Iran to sink theirs?
 
2014-01-22 11:36:44 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: They have subs and torpedo boats and several frigates and like-sized ships. Basically they are limited to torpedo attacks, can lay mines in quantity, and have minor missile capability. Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups. They might pick a few ships off and make it difficult to operate in those seas, however, which may be all they need, depending on the situation, and how willing we are to engage in a war with them.


Pick off what US ships?  Non-US flagged merchant vessels which are unarmed?  This "oooh....don't underestimate the Iranian Navy" give me a break.  A country that has been suffering under crippling sanctions for YEARS, flies R/C model aircraft in the vain attempt that the world won't notice that it is a toy, photoshops military exercises to demonstrate "power", and built a mock-up of a "stealth fighter" with a car stereo as some sort of avionics equipment.......and I'm supposed to be worried about them somehow having the ability, on their first "deployment" beyond the Indian Ocean...EVER, to be able to sink a ship of the world's only superpower, who, coincidentally, has ruled the seas for the last 70 years? Come on.....

Only the Soviets had that ability, and they were much larger, had more capability, and had been at sea for decades, too, and even then, they were in a bad way to challenge the US Navy on that front.

This is fear-mongering...that's all it is.
 
2014-01-22 11:41:08 AM

kbronsito: If they come all the way to the Atlantic... would our navy see any big savings in gas by not having to go all the way to Iran to sink theirs?


I understand your point, but I think we use nuclear fuel these days, not gas or diesel.
 
2014-01-22 11:46:23 AM

sdd2000: kbronsito: If they come all the way to the Atlantic... would our navy see any big savings in gas by not having to go all the way to Iran to sink theirs?

I understand your point, but I think we use nuclear fuel these days, not gas or diesel.


For subs and CVNS. DDGs and other surface combatants use fuel. We actually looked into how much fuel it would save to go all-nuke. The answer is: hardly any. The air wing uses so much fuel that the escorts are almost literally a drop in a bucket. Even the big amphibs most other countries would consider aircraft carriers aren't nuclear.
 
2014-01-22 11:54:04 AM
Aww, that's so cute.  They sent half their navy to the Atlantic to play.
 
2014-01-22 11:55:42 AM

vygramul: Lost Thought 00: It's a nice trick, but they can only do it once

Reminds me of the difference between submarines and surface ships. All ships can submerge. Some can just do it more than once.


I think we can assist.  With the submerging, I mean.  After that they're on their own.
 
2014-01-22 12:03:14 PM

Mi-5: PC LOAD LETTER: They have subs and torpedo boats and several frigates and like-sized ships. Basically they are limited to torpedo attacks, can lay mines in quantity, and have minor missile capability. Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups. They might pick a few ships off and make it difficult to operate in those seas, however, which may be all they need, depending on the situation, and how willing we are to engage in a war with them.

Pick off what US ships?  Non-US flagged merchant vessels which are unarmed?  This "oooh....don't underestimate the Iranian Navy" give me a break.  A country that has been suffering under crippling sanctions for YEARS, flies R/C model aircraft in the vain attempt that the world won't notice that it is a toy, photoshops military exercises to demonstrate "power", and built a mock-up of a "stealth fighter" with a car stereo as some sort of avionics equipment.......and I'm supposed to be worried about them somehow having the ability, on their first "deployment" beyond the Indian Ocean...EVER, to be able to sink a ship of the world's only superpower, who, coincidentally, has ruled the seas for the last 70 years? Come on.....

Only the Soviets had that ability, and they were much larger, had more capability, and had been at sea for decades, too, and even then, they were in a bad way to challenge the US Navy on that front.

This is fear-mongering...that's all it is.


The British had the same mindset going into the Falkland's War. Yes, they won, but they incurred vastly more losses than they ever anticipated.

Asymm warfare is not something to brush off. Iran may be under sanctions, but Russia and China are more than happy to give them military hardware. They aren't formidable, but they just need to be slightly effective to make a point perhaps. Or just exploit our mistakes. The number of "WHAT? How could THEY win/incur so many casualties?" moments in history are numerous. I mean we don't need to go all McClellan and think they are 5x the ability they are, but we can't dismiss them either.
 
2014-01-22 12:48:36 PM

qorkfiend: PC LOAD LETTER: They have subs and torpedo boats and several frigates and like-sized ships. Basically they are limited to torpedo attacks, can lay mines in quantity, and have minor missile capability. Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups. They might pick a few ships off and make it difficult to operate in those seas, however, which may be all they need, depending on the situation, and how willing we are to engage in a war with them.

Not according to some war games the Navy carried out back in 2002. Long story short, the "Red" (Iranian) team was commanded by the Marines' top expert on asymmetrical warfare; he destroyed 16 "Blue" (US) warships, including an aircraft carrier and ten cruisers, with a massive cruise missile salvo that saturated the ships' anti-missile defenses.

As a result, the referees halted the simulation, re-floated the ships, and ordered both sides to follow a script that ensured victory for the Blue team.


That's actually pretty badass. Good thing he's on our (your) side.
 
2014-01-22 12:51:46 PM

vygramul: qorkfiend: PC LOAD LETTER: They have subs and torpedo boats and several frigates and like-sized ships. Basically they are limited to torpedo attacks, can lay mines in quantity, and have minor missile capability. Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups. They might pick a few ships off and make it difficult to operate in those seas, however, which may be all they need, depending on the situation, and how willing we are to engage in a war with them.

Not according to some war games the Navy carried out back in 2002. Long story short, the "Red" (Iranian) team was commanded by the Marines' top expert on asymmetrical warfare; he destroyed 16 "Blue" (US) warships, including an aircraft carrier and ten cruisers, with a massive cruise missile salvo that saturated the ships' anti-missile defenses.

As a result, the referees halted the simulation, re-floated the ships, and ordered both sides to follow a script that ensured victory for the Blue team.

Yeah - don't read too much into that. Having designed such simulations for the navy, a lot of the parameters to BEGIN with are pulled out of our asses. This kind of game isn't intended to test capabilities. It's designed to get people to think about the decisions they might need to make. They probably let the red cell go and do their attack to throw a curve-ball at the US side despite it not really being a realistically effective attack. Then, what, you tell them to all go home, thanks for the 30 minutes? Do you play just one hand of poker, say, "wow, I lost a hand. Good night, see you next Saturday!"? OF COURSE you refloat the fleet and start again. Lesson learned, OF COURSE you don't then just make it another Kobayashi Maru. You now go through and encourage the decision-making they're likely to face.

That some idiot flag officer didn't understand that and went away whining about how the DM wouldn't let him use the vorpal blade at 1st level anymore is hardly surprising.


I love that that this now a common term for a no-win scenario test.
 
2014-01-22 01:04:03 PM
While it's worth keeping an eye on them, this is barely worth raising an eyebrow over. Which means I'm sure we will hear about how this is an utter failure of Obama's foreign policy because reasons and such as
 
2014-01-22 01:05:41 PM

HMS_Blinkin: PC LOAD LETTER: Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups.

Well, if we were dumb enough to park a carrier group right in the narrow point of the Strait of Hormuz, then maybe.  But as long as we keep the carriers in the open Indian Ocean but within range of aircraft, they'd be fine.


We actually did that last year when Iran was making noise and ratcheting up naval efforts in the Strait. The Abraham Lincoln was sent to slowly pass through just as a hello. The Navy actually does that kind of thing on a regular basis, it's a major reason we have these things. Somehow, a US Carrier Group often has the effect of quieting belligerent rhetoric. Also the reason one's always hanging out near the South China Sea these days.
 
2014-01-22 01:22:12 PM

theknuckler_33: While it's worth keeping an eye on them, this is barely worth raising an eyebrow over. Which means I'm sure we will hear about how this is an utter failure of Obama's foreign policy because reasons and such as


Lol - unfortunately, that's probably true.
 
2014-01-22 02:25:44 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Mi-5: PC LOAD LETTER: They have subs and torpedo boats and several frigates and like-sized ships. Basically they are limited to torpedo attacks, can lay mines in quantity, and have minor missile capability. Never underestimate your enemy, but it's not like they can sink our carrier groups. They might pick a few ships off and make it difficult to operate in those seas, however, which may be all they need, depending on the situation, and how willing we are to engage in a war with them.

Pick off what US ships?  Non-US flagged merchant vessels which are unarmed?  This "oooh....don't underestimate the Iranian Navy" give me a break.  A country that has been suffering under crippling sanctions for YEARS, flies R/C model aircraft in the vain attempt that the world won't notice that it is a toy, photoshops military exercises to demonstrate "power", and built a mock-up of a "stealth fighter" with a car stereo as some sort of avionics equipment.......and I'm supposed to be worried about them somehow having the ability, on their first "deployment" beyond the Indian Ocean...EVER, to be able to sink a ship of the world's only superpower, who, coincidentally, has ruled the seas for the last 70 years? Come on.....

Only the Soviets had that ability, and they were much larger, had more capability, and had been at sea for decades, too, and even then, they were in a bad way to challenge the US Navy on that front.

This is fear-mongering...that's all it is.

The British had the same mindset going into the Falkland's War. Yes, they won, but they incurred vastly more losses than they ever anticipated.

Asymm warfare is not something to brush off. Iran may be under sanctions, but Russia and China are more than happy to give them military hardware. They aren't formidable, but they just need to be slightly effective to make a point perhaps. Or just exploit our mistakes. The number of "WHAT? How could THEY win/incur so many casualties?" moments in history are numerous. I mean we don't need ...


Asymm warfare is much more difficult in a blue-water sense, though. On the ground you have random civilians walking by, and any one of them could suddenly pull out a gun or explode themselves. In the open ocean? There aren't any boats just driving by. Anything within 150+ miles is being observed. They have anti-missile defenses for small attacks. If a nation can somehow launch hundreds of cruise missiles it isn't exactly an assym attack. I mean, cost-wise, sure, but that's like calling Hellfire missiles assym warfare because they cost less than a main battle tank.

And it's not like naval commanders are ignorant of the idea of a massed missile attack.
 
2014-01-22 02:37:55 PM
It might be a good opportunity for us to watch them and determine their capabilities.  But the Persians have been around for thousands of years and have yet to circumnavigate the globe.  So there's that.
 
2014-01-22 03:51:07 PM

SkittlesAreYum: If a nation can somehow launch hundreds of cruise missiles it isn't exactly an assym attack.


Or it may be photoshop in this case. The problem with that is that you blow your wad in one shot. If the US says "Ok, we're out" then it works. If not, then, well, you have a major problem. Maybe mines can help, but that would just slow things down.
 
2014-01-22 03:52:43 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: SkittlesAreYum: If a nation can somehow launch hundreds of cruise missiles it isn't exactly an assym attack.

Or it may be photoshop in this case. The problem with that is that you blow your wad in one shot. If the US says "Ok, we're out" then it works. If not, then, well, you have a major problem. Maybe mines can help, but that would just slow things down.


Mines aren't very good against the US's preferred form of retribution these days.
 
2014-01-22 03:52:47 PM

ThreadSinger: Kobayashi Maru.

I love that that this now a common term for a no-win scenario test.


And in this case literally correct: the Red Commander gamed the system and software features to get his outcome.
 
2014-01-22 04:07:16 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: ThreadSinger: Kobayashi Maru.

I love that that this now a common term for a no-win scenario test.

And in this case literally correct: the Red Commander gamed the system and software features to get his outcome.


If you lean left and use binoculars, an endless stream of grenades with issue forth.
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report