U.S. Navy: Iran prepares suicide bomb boats in Gulf
46 replies, posted
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;34691117]No.[/QUOTE]
Blow up boat + civilians or possibly lose a carrier worth billions and losing thousands of lives? I think the answer is obvious. War is hell and sometimes you have to choose the lesser of 2 bads.
[QUOTE=rnate;34691600]Blow up boat + civilians or possibly lose a carrier worth billions and losing thousands of lives? I think the answer is obvious. War is hell and sometimes you have to choose the lesser of 2 bads.[/QUOTE]
And then the media reports it and whichever president is in gets fucked for his next term.
Civilians die, it is a very unfortunate part of war. There's been a shit ton in Afghanistan / Iraq. Here's a wikipedia link about it, but I don't know how credible it is.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War[/url]
[QUOTE=ewitwins;34690962]For some reason that just has me picturing the Top Gear "Toyotaboat" with a missile strapped to the bed :v:[/QUOTE]
Jermey Clarkson in his Toyboata with missiles. RUN!
[QUOTE=ewitwins;34690962]For some reason that just has me picturing the Top Gear "Toyotaboat" with a missile strapped to the bed :v:[/QUOTE]
Oh great, a Amphibian technical.
Excellent tactics there.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;34691074]What if Iran took hostages on the small boats. Would the US carriers fire on the boats given the presense of civilians?[/QUOTE]
Yes, they would. Hell the U.S Air force has the ability to shoot down an airliner if it is hijacked and deemed to be a threat.
Turn up the Volksempfänger, Propaganda is on our way!
[QUOTE=rnate;34691600]Blow up boat + civilians or possibly lose a carrier worth billions and losing thousands of lives? I think the answer is obvious. War is hell and [b]sometimes you have to choose the lesser of 2 bads.[/b][/QUOTE]
I don't think I've ever seen anybody butcher that expression before...
[IMG]http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070825121009/cnc/images/archive/1/1a/20100226173646!Generals_Terrorist.jpg[/IMG]
I'll make a boat bomb.
It'll still demoralize people fighting against them, showing how Iran won't stop.
[QUOTE=beanhead;34689907]Wouldn't the carriers escorts blow the larger ship out of the water before the carrier could scramble its units?[/QUOTE]
I think you need to read the article again, mate.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34689408]The carrier is going to sit outside of the range of any shore launched missiles and do exactly what it does constantly anyways: deploy patrol aircraft.
The RADAR on the ship itself will cover the area around the carrier itself while aircraft extend that considerably out to hundreds of miles.
A fleet of small ships will be detected a considerable distance from the carrier. The carrier will laugh, scramble interceptors equipped with CBU-97's and annihilate them.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97[/url]
A single F/A-18E (So could an F/A-18C, it would seem) could fill all 11 hardpoints with 97's and still not be anywhere near its weight limit. (2 are wingtips hardpoints and only accept missiles. So only 9 theoretically can accept them.)
Each CBU-97 has 10 BLU-108 submunitions, each of which carry 4 individual hockey puck warheads. A single CBU-97 deploys 40 warheads that each individually target and destroy lightly armored vehicles.
Given that an F-18 can carry 9 of them, that is an aircraft with 360 guided micromunitions.
That is a single F-18. The carriers sitting off the coast of Iran each carry anywhere from 40-60 hornets. (Plus a variety of other fixed wing aircraft and helicopters). I highly doubt they have anywhere near enough of the CBU-97's to outfit all of them or even most of them, but really they only need a handful and any suicide boat attack is just going to be a joke.
A fleet of boats all launching anti ship missiles might get further, but even then I don't think they have the ability to move a fleet of sufficient size into position to simultaneously launch enough missiles to overwhelm the anti missile defenses of the fleet.
Any way you slice this, those carrier battle groups are in a pretty good position and Iran is pretty well fucked if they decide to spin up the war machine.[/QUOTE]
As confident as I am in our navy, you really cant discount the results of Millennium Challenge
(Red being the "Middle east" and Blue being the US)
[quote]Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.
[/quote]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002[/url]
I have my doubts that it would be as much of a cakewalk as you say it would.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;34700893]As confident as I am in our navy, you really cant discount the results of Millennium Challenge
(Red being the "Middle east" and Blue being the US)
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002[/url]
I have my doubts that it would be as much of a cakewalk as you say it would.[/QUOTE]
but i was pretty sure the millennium challenge was rigged?
[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;34701235]but i was pretty sure the millennium challenge was rigged?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, in favor of BlueFor.
RedFor (Middle East) kicked the shit out of BlueFor (US) in the first day so they reset the exercise and forced RedFor to follow a script such that they would lose.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;34701612]Yeah, in favor of BlueFor.
RedFor (Middle East) kicked the shit out of BlueFor (US) in the first day so they reset the exercise and forced RedFor to follow a script such that they would lose.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2002/November%202002/1102test.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE][B]Not in the Script[/B]
By the time Millennium Challenge had ended, the Army Times reported that Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps general who led the opposition force during the experiment, resigned in protest. He claimed the game had been scripted to allow US forces to win and his team had not been allowed to apply legitimate Red [opposition] team tactics, such as simulating the release of chemical weapons.
Van Riper again made headlines when he disclosed that his Red forces had simulated cruise missile attacks launched from aircraft and small boats, successfully “destroying” 16 Navy vessels, including an aircraft carrier, an Aegis cruiser, and five amphibious ships. Joint Forces Command would not confirm specifics of the losses, contending that analysis of the wargame must be complete before individual elements can be given context.
[B]However, Kernan did tell reporters in September that it was the modeling and simulation tools that inadvertently put the Navy in “harm’s way.”
“The Navy was just bludgeoning me dearly,” said Kernan, because the service maintained it would never fight the way the simulation was set up.[/B]
Regarding whether opposition teams were too restrained, Navy Cmdr. Sandra Irwin, a JFCOM spokeswoman, said US and enemy forces “worked under similar constraints and requirements” to ensure concepts were tested adequately. [B]Also, because live exercises were "layered” upon ongoing virtual experiments, “the timing and evolution of the experiment at times required both Red and Blue forces to make choices they might not have taken in the real world,” Irwin said.[/B]
Likewise, senior military officials publicly defended their decision to restrict Red force tactics during Millennium Challenge, contending that an experiment augmented by live operational exercises must remain somewhat scripted to be effective. [B]“There’s a difference between experimentation, which takes a particular set of criteria and changes one at a time to see what the results of that change are, and exercises, which are primarily free play,”[/B] Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in late August.
[B]Millennium Challenge was an experiment[/B] “designed to help quantify where we are and where we might be able to go, and then to experiment again,” he said.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.au.af.mil/AU/AWC/AWCGATE/dod/dsb-redteam.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE][B][U]USJFCOM Red Teams for joint concept development and experimentation: [/U][/B]
JFCOM has been using red teams for joint concept development (including Rapid Decisive and Effects-Based Operations) and experimentation (including Unified Vision ‘01, Millennium Challenge ‘02 (MC02) and Unified Quest ‘03).
[B]JFCOM representatives to our task force stated a continuing need to get red teams engaged earlier in the concept development and experiment design process before large amounts of money [I](and therefore egos / careers)[/I] are committed to a concept.[/B] They cited a need for standards for establishing and using red teams for joint concept development and experimentation and organizational self-confidence to accept and act on criticism.[B] Understanding the difference between an experiment and an exercise is important.[/B] Concepts can fail; experiments fail only if nothing is learned.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3110_wartech.html[/url]
[QUOTE]PAUL VAN RIPER: Three days into Millennium Challenge, [B]we attacked with more cruise missiles from more directions and more locations at sea and the air and on land than I knew their systems were capable of handling.[/B] And the results? At least in the simulation, they lost 16 U.S. Navy ships.[/QUOTE]
MC02 wasn't a war game, it was a set of various experiments and demonstrations and simulations which required things rigged on both sides. One crazy marine deciding to throw down an unrealistically massive quantity of cruise missiles at a fleet in a position it was forced to be in to handle some demos doesn't really demonstrate much, other than that if we go to war and the enemy has a stockpile of Tomahawk's that'd make us blush, we shouldn't be tooling about performing air and radar experiments if they go berserk. I mean, there's a reason one of the biggest things gained from it was a realization that parties involved can get butthurt.
Nevermind looks like xenocide actually already got it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.