• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Iran Navy to Patrol US Borders

Cainkane1 said:
If they stay over 200 mies off Americas shores they will be on the high seas. Not much they can do.
Click to expand...
True. But what would be the point?
If it's for internal consumption, you sail out, sail around a bit, take some pictures captioned: "Great Satan 200 nm thataway", sail back.
One patch of ocean looks very like another.
 
Dragoonster said:
Let's just say Iran has 20 old-fangled electric subs. Each fires one torpedo at 6 different ships. Just what are those ships going to do about it? And keep in mind no submarine has ever destroyed any other submarine in history. So preemption by subs towards subs may not be a best approach.
Click to expand...


HMS Venturer did

Nevertheless, Launders and his crew made the necessary calculations, made assumptions about U-864's defensive manoeuvres, and ordered the firing of all torpedoes in the four bow tubes. As a small, fast-attack boat, Venturer was equipped with only four torpedo tubes, all in the bow, and carried only eight in total. The torpedoes were fired with a 17.5 second delay between each pair, and at variable depths. U-864 attempted to evade once it heard the torpedoes coming, but the Type IXD2 boats were large and not quick when diving or turning; additionally, time would have been needed to drop the snorkel, call the crew to action stations, disengage the diesel, and start the electric motors. The fourth torpedo struck the target. Her pressure hull punctured, U-864 instantaneously imploded with the loss of all hands.
Click to expand...

And the only reason why there haven't been any more is because there hasn't been a full blown naval war since.
 
Dragoonster said:
Oh I do remember one, though not involving subs. US Lt. General defeats US Navy with minimal (based on Iran fwiw) forces; US Navy then pretends that didn't happen and rewrites rules in order to triumph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002



...and so Blue/US Navy won...



I love doing this in Age of Empires and Baldur's Gate. Reload buttons and save points rock!
Click to expand...

Apart from in a real war the ships would be moving so your cruise missiles wouldn't have any targets. So it's all bollocks
 
I find it unlikely that Iran has enough torpedo's for every ship in our navy. To feign concern for their capabilities would be laughable.
 
catsmate1 said:
I don't know the Perrys were still around, though given the LCS debacle it's not really surprising.
Click to expand...

There's still 16 of the old boys floating around in the American fleet, but there all all supposed to be phased out within about 4 or 5 years. A few foreign countries have expressed interest in buying them, but most of them are probably going to wind up scrapped or used in SINKEXes.
 
JoeBentley said:
There's still 16 of the old boys floating around in the American fleet, but there all all supposed to be phased out within about 4 or 5 years. A few foreign countries have expressed interest in buying them, but most of them are probably going to wind up scrapped or used in SINKEXes.
Click to expand...
The last time I looked at them they were all supposed to be disposed of, but that was a few years ago and you're right, LCS problems and need for hulls will keep them going for a few more years. Not bad for disposable ships.

Though they wouldn't be my first choice if actual shooting was likely; old electronics, no proper air defenses (except the Phalanx) and no surface attack weapons but the 76mm and the helos.
 
catsmate1 said:
24 nautical miles, unless they start fishing. Or drilling for oil
Click to expand...
A distance which presumably was set by treaties long ago, before modern weapons came along with ranges greater than that, so you not only weren't allowed to shoot at targets on another country's land, but also weren't even allowed to get close enough that you could do so. Now, you are technically allowed to move into a position from which you could shoot at buildings in a coastal city if you chose to, so it would be illegal to take action against you until after you've already fired. That means, if that country's navy were to take action to physically prevent you from shooting at their land before you start, they'd have to do it while you're in international water.

* * *

I'm not going to quote the posts, but I see some pretty fundamental misrepresentation of what happens in war games here. The instant anybody tells you that one side or the other was "supposed to" win/lose, or that a game totally discredited an otherwise respected combat system, you're being sold a bill of goods. War games are about practice and process. They try various scenarios to see how they might play out and try to learn and adapt to various contingencies. Sometimes they're based on scenarios that they don't expect to happen or would just never get themselves into in real life just so they can come up with reactions in case the unexpected were to happen, or they run scenarios with seemingly predictable outcomes just to learn details of exactly how they get there and what can be done to change the odds for the outcome. Sometimes that means crippling some or all of the players with unrealistic restrictions. Whichever side "wins", the point is that you learn something about how & why, and everybody gets some practice at doing his/her part, possibly under adverse conditions.

For example, in the most open, least-restricted games between fighter jets, where they are most free to use the features & advantages that benefit them the most, anything that isn't an F-22, flying against an F-22, simply gets promptly shot down and returns to base wondering where in the world that shot came from. But F-22s have been shot down in some other games, and other mismatches have gone the opposite of the way they really would before, when the rules were set up for the specific purpose of getting around that, such as by not letting pilots fire until they're in a certain kind of position relative to the target, or not letting them use some features of their radars, or even having the planes wear radar reflectors to simulate stealth failure. Are they trying to make their best fighters look bad? No, they're doing scenario drills, role-playing exercises, what-ifs; trying to work out what to do if things went wrong and see how the planes' other features work out independent of the most obvious ones.

So in looking at any war game, you need to consider what the rules were that made things the way they were. And people who just read about it later often don't get to see that information, either because it involves technical secrets or because the source they're reading is biased/dishonest. For example, if you start with a bunch of big open-sea ships that operate spread out over long distances, and jam them into a confined space near shore where you don't let them move much and they're within range of short-ranged things they wouldn't deal with otherwise, it's pretty easy to predict that this won't work very well for them. Running a game that way won't prove anything about how well or badly they work at doing what they actually do in real life, so people who want to use it to claim the Navy "lost" conveniently leave out the nature of the setup.

But such a game might show you something about exactly how & why the end result comes about, give you an opportunity to put yourself in the other side's shoes and discover how they could react to the situation, and help you figure out what changes you'd need to make to your ships & tactics if you wanted to operate in that setting. And it wasn't long after this particular game that the Navy put out a call for a new class of ships that are designed to work essentially like an extended foreign-shores coast guard, directly aimed at the kind of scenario that the deep-blue-sea ships weren't meant for but had been dragged into for this unrealistic game. Object to the new ships or their general mission type or some particular technical aspect of them if you want, but they show what the war game was really about: not proving a point one way or the other about our navy versus a foreign force, but working out how best to adjust for a new type of mission that we already knew we weren't set up for before.

Similarly, the "what if each of their subs fired torpedoes at a bunch of our ships, one per target" idea is another war game. It was presented as if it represented a realistic war scenario our navy should be concerned about, but just think about how that kind of situation would ever have arisen in the first place, and you can easily see that the only way it can is if somebody setting up a war game wrote the rules for the explicit goal of making exactly that thing happen. And maybe there could be a productive reason to do that. But proving that it can happen, or proving which side would end up winning the war if it did, would not be it.
 
Last edited:
Delvo said:
A distance which presumably was set by treaties long ago, before modern weapons came along with ranges greater than that, so you not only weren't allowed to shoot at targets on another country's land, but also weren't even allowed to get close enough that you could do so. Now, you are technically allowed to move into a position from which you could shoot at buildings in a coastal city if you chose to, so it would be illegal to take action against you until after you've already fired. That means, if that country's navy were to take action to physically prevent you from shooting at their land before you start, they'd have to do it while you're in international water.

...
Click to expand...
What I find more worrisome.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/exper...earemp-attack-humiliate-obama/article/2544041
 
Delvo said:
A distance which presumably was set by treaties long ago, before modern weapons came along with ranges greater than that, so you not only weren't allowed to shoot at targets on another country's land, but also weren't even allowed to get close enough that you could do so. Now, you are technically allowed to move into a position from which you could shoot at buildings in a coastal city if you chose to, so it would be illegal to take action against you until after you've already fired. That means, if that country's navy were to take action to physically prevent you from shooting at their land before you start, they'd have to do it while you're in international water.
Click to expand...

100% true, but seeing as how practically all modern Navies have weaponry that can hit several foreign countries while sitting in their own ports and more then a few have weapons that could destroy a city on the other side of the planet while sitting comfortably moored to their home port piers, there's no way around this short of abandoning the idea of treaty waters at all.

I'm not going to quote the posts, but I see some pretty fundamental misrepresentation of what happens in war games here. [respectful snip of rest of post]
Click to expand...

Well said. When a unit "loses" in a war game it doesn't necessarily mean the unit failed, it means the unit learned something.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom