Jump to content


Photo

Storm In A Teacup, Or Rn Vs. Iran


  • Please log in to reply
274 replies to this topic

#41 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,942 posts

Posted 27 July 2019 - 0928 AM

Realistically, you're on a bit of a losing wicket trying to defend a missile magnet from even Silkworm era AShMs. IMHO it would make sense to make it clear that such an attack, whether successful or not, would invoke a suitably punitive response.


  • 0

#42 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,720 posts

Posted 27 July 2019 - 1100 AM

As we are no proposing at least one of these vessels, one has to ask what we would do in those circumstances.


  • 0

#43 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,942 posts

Posted 27 July 2019 - 1250 PM

As we are no proposing at least one of these vessels, one has to ask what we would do in those circumstances.

 

Don't send it into AShM range. If you are going to send it into AShM range it needs at least one towed or otherwise floating decoy, rapid bloom overhead chaff and IR decoys, an integrated ESM and ECM system connected to minimum fit radar/EO system that can acquire and direct CAMM with some bolt on launchers thereof and at least one Block 1B Phalanx, together with an AIS/FCS to integrate them all.  Anixtu could elaborate, but I'm pretty sure even RFAs sent into dodgy places (and I don't mean Plymouth :) ) are fairly bristling with automatic weapons including at least one Phalanx, 30mm DS30B cannon, miniguns, GPMGs, and  chaff and IR decoy launchers. I still don't think the plan would be to drop anchor within range of a Silkworm battery or obvious launch site for one though. 


  • 0

#44 Anixtu

Anixtu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,088 posts

Posted 27 July 2019 - 1335 PM

I'm pretty sure even RFAs sent into dodgy places (and I don't mean Plymouth :) ) are fairly bristling with automatic weapons including at least one Phalanx, 30mm DS30B cannon, miniguns, GPMGs, and  chaff and IR decoy launchers.


At least two Phalanx. They come in pairs or threesomes for 360° coverage. Some RFAs still have 20mm GAM-B01. At least one is lucky enough to have DS30M/ASCG which is vastly better operationally than the manual DS30B mounting.
  • 0

#45 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,602 posts

Posted 27 July 2019 - 2043 PM

Realistically, you're on a bit of a losing wicket trying to defend a missile magnet from even Silkworm era AShMs. IMHO it would make sense to make it clear that such an attack, whether successful or not, would invoke a suitably punitive response.

 

If they sink your warship, that opens the door to you sinking all of theirs. The only reason they can do what they do is plausible deniability and pseudo non warfare. Putting an AShM into someone's FOB is an overt act of war that would demand a fairly simple and easy response, even from the RN.


  • 0

#46 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,042 posts

Posted 27 July 2019 - 2120 PM

 

Realistically, you're on a bit of a losing wicket trying to defend a missile magnet from even Silkworm era AShMs. IMHO it would make sense to make it clear that such an attack, whether successful or not, would invoke a suitably punitive response.

 

If they sink your warship, that opens the door to you sinking all of theirs. The only reason they can do what they do is plausible deniability and pseudo non warfare. Putting an AShM into someone's FOB is an overt act of war that would demand a fairly simple and easy response, even from the RN.

 

 

DPRK sank an ROK warship and ROK didn't respond in kind.

 

The UK would do the same.


  • 0

#47 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,030 posts

Posted 27 July 2019 - 2230 PM

If they sink your warship, that opens the door to you sinking all of theirs. The only reason they can do what they do is plausible deniability and pseudo non warfare. Putting an AShM into someone's FOB is an overt act of war that would demand a fairly simple and easy response, even from the RN.
 
The Iranians are unlikely to venture out of the friendly confines of pseudo-warfare, as that is all they can afford. If they are smart, they will seek a diplomatic solution before the situation escalates beyond their means. 

Edited by Nobu, 28 July 2019 - 0115 AM.

  • 0

#48 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,942 posts

Posted 28 July 2019 - 0528 AM

 

I'm pretty sure even RFAs sent into dodgy places (and I don't mean Plymouth :) ) are fairly bristling with automatic weapons including at least one Phalanx, 30mm DS30B cannon, miniguns, GPMGs, and  chaff and IR decoy launchers.


At least two Phalanx. They come in pairs or threesomes for 360° coverage. Some RFAs still have 20mm GAM-B01. At least one is lucky enough to have DS30M/ASCG which is vastly better operationally than the manual DS30B mounting.

 

 

Wow! Which RFAs have three?  


  • 0

#49 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,837 posts

Posted 28 July 2019 - 0616 AM

 

Realistically, you're on a bit of a losing wicket trying to defend a missile magnet from even Silkworm era AShMs. IMHO it would make sense to make it clear that such an attack, whether successful or not, would invoke a suitably punitive response.

 

If they sink your warship, that opens the door to you sinking all of theirs. The only reason they can do what they do is plausible deniability and pseudo non warfare. Putting an AShM into someone's FOB is an overt act of war that would demand a fairly simple and easy response, even from the RN.

 

 

And what would the regime in Iran care if all ships are sunk?

 

However how would the public in a Western nation care if one of your warships is sunk close to Iranian waters in a pointless conflict.


  • 0

#50 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,720 posts

Posted 28 July 2019 - 0621 AM

 

 

Realistically, you're on a bit of a losing wicket trying to defend a missile magnet from even Silkworm era AShMs. IMHO it would make sense to make it clear that such an attack, whether successful or not, would invoke a suitably punitive response.

 

If they sink your warship, that opens the door to you sinking all of theirs. The only reason they can do what they do is plausible deniability and pseudo non warfare. Putting an AShM into someone's FOB is an overt act of war that would demand a fairly simple and easy response, even from the RN.

 

 

And what would the regime in Iran care if all ships are sunk?

 

However how would the public in a Western nation care if one of your warships is sunk close to Iranian waters in a pointless conflict.

 

 

 

They might when they realize they have nothing left to support the war in Yemen.

 

I think it far more likely Iran would push Hamas to launch an attack in the UK, than sink a warship off the coast of Iran. Thankfully they would have to demonstrate a degree of competence to do the latter.


  • 0

#51 Anixtu

Anixtu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,088 posts

Posted 28 July 2019 - 0831 AM

Wow! Which RFAs have three?  


No RFAs have three. Those fitted or FTR all have two.
  • 0

#52 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,030 posts

Posted 28 July 2019 - 1200 PM

The effect of a complete Iranian loss of face and excessive Iranian loss of life at sea in a lopsided naval engagement with a superior enemy would have repercussions on the Iranian government's popularity. 

 

The loss of an Astute against an outclassed enemy would have the same.

 

There will probably be multiple opportunities for diplomacy, as the benefits of escalation do not outweigh these potential outcomes.


  • 0

#53 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,720 posts

Posted 29 July 2019 - 0520 AM

We are more likely to lose an Astute to being run over by a Supertanker than we are to the Iranian Navy. I know you shouldnt denigrate your opponent, but for all their undoubted skill in plinking tankers, they have yet to show any aptitude for ASW. Other than minelaying anyway.


  • 0

#54 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,030 posts

Posted 29 July 2019 - 0642 AM

I would tend to agree that losing an Astute to the Iranians is unlikely, but the confined nature of the gulf, the Iranian Air Force's proximity to it, the Iranian Navy's close familiarity with it, and a fairly serious submarine capability that appears to be designed for it make losing an Astute to the Iranians more likely in the gulf than in any other body of water in the world.


  • 0

#55 Anixtu

Anixtu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,088 posts

Posted 29 July 2019 - 0745 AM

We are more likely to lose an Astute to being run over by a Supertanker than we are to the Iranian Navy.


Or one or our own ships, if we follow he US Navy example: https://en.m.wikiped...leans_collision
  • 0

#56 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,720 posts

Posted 29 July 2019 - 0805 AM

Ouch! Still, its one more demonstration of what a solid boat the 688's were.

 

https://news.sky.com...m-iran-11772261

Britain will send a small number of additional military personnel to Bahrain this week to help boost maritime protection for ships, Sky News has learnt.

The handful of extra forces will be part of the UK Maritime Component Command. The move comes after the arrival of a second major British warship in the Gulf as the crisis over Iran's seizure of a UK-flagged tanker stretches well into its second week.

 

The Royal Navy's HMS Duncan will support the safe passage of British-flagged ships through the Strait of Hormuz, where the Stena Impero was detained by Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard earlier this month.

Iran targeted Britain after Royal Marines helped to seize an Iranian super tanker off the coast of Gibraltar in early July on suspicion it was carrying oil bound for Syria in breach of EU sanctions.

The Ministry of Defence said HMS Duncan would work alongside HMS Montrose to "ensure the continuous availability of ships to accompany merchant vessels".

 

"Merchant ships must be free to travel lawfully and trade safely, anywhere in the world. I'm pleased that HMS Duncan will continue HMS Montrose's fine work in helping to secure this essential route.

"While we continue to push for a diplomatic resolution that will make this possible again without military accompaniment, the Royal Navy will continue to provide a safeguard for UK vessels until this is the reality."

About a fifth of the world's oil travelled through the strait between Iran and Oman in 2018.

 

Last week the government said the Royal Navy has been tasked to accompany British-flagged ships through the strait to try and provide reassurance to the shipping industry.

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said: "Freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz is vital not just to the UK, but also our international partners and allies.


  • 0

#57 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,301 posts

Posted 29 July 2019 - 0958 AM

 

 

Realistically, you're on a bit of a losing wicket trying to defend a missile magnet from even Silkworm era AShMs. IMHO it would make sense to make it clear that such an attack, whether successful or not, would invoke a suitably punitive response.

 

If they sink your warship, that opens the door to you sinking all of theirs. The only reason they can do what they do is plausible deniability and pseudo non warfare. Putting an AShM into someone's FOB is an overt act of war that would demand a fairly simple and easy response, even from the RN.

 

 

And what would the regime in Iran care if all ships are sunk?

 

However how would the public in a Western nation care if one of your warships is sunk close to Iranian waters in a pointless conflict.

 

 

Any Iranian Silkworms have probably had their electronics upgraded and will most likely be used only in the deterrence role rather than as an act of aggression to provoke a conflict that must cause Iran extreme pain.


  • 0

#58 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,301 posts

Posted 29 July 2019 - 1020 AM

We are more likely to lose an Astute to being run over by a Supertanker than we are to the Iranian Navy. I know you shouldnt denigrate your opponent, but for all their undoubted skill in plinking tankers, they have yet to show any aptitude for ASW. Other than minelaying anyway.

 

The last part.  The only scenario to worry about would be a mine.   Since it'll be there to hunt Iranian submarines and for cruise missile attacks, I would guess its deployment zone is well at sea, nowhere near the Gulf where the mining scenario is most dangerous.


  • 0

#59 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,602 posts

Posted 29 July 2019 - 1033 AM

The Gulf is periscope depth only. It is a horrible place for a nuke boat (even though the USN must put them there at least sometimes - see the accident between the SSN and the LSD). It isn't even a particularly good environment for those three Iranian Kilos. At that depth, any full sized boat could easily turn up visually - hence the Iranians painting their boats aqua blue. I don't think anything useful is gained by deploying a nuke boat there, but on the other hand just saying you're going to deploy a boat there adds pressure. There's no reason the boat will actually be in the Gulf, or necessarily even be in theater. It could easily be ordered anywhere after the public announcement was made and no one would know. One of the advantages of nuke boats.


  • 0

#60 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,301 posts

Posted 29 July 2019 - 1100 AM

If the Iranians deploy their boats in the open sea they risk losing them.  OTOH, if they operate in the Persian Gulf using minefields for defensive screening, they could cause some serious havoc against tanker traffic.


  • 0