Jump to content


Photo

Storm In A Teacup, Or Rn Vs. Iran


  • Please log in to reply
280 replies to this topic

#61 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,085 posts

Posted 29 July 2019 - 1300 PM

 

Wow! Which RFAs have three?  


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

 

 

Sorry, you said "at least two Phalanx" which I took to imply that some had three.


  • 0

#62 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,971 posts

Posted 29 July 2019 - 1305 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.

 

 

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.

 

 

They have plenty of fishing boats and small merchantman. Much less suspicious than a warship entering a foreign port.


  • 0

#63 Anixtu

Anixtu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,090 posts

Posted 29 July 2019 - 1540 PM

Sorry, you said "at least two Phalanx" which I took to imply that some had three.


I was probably thinking in broader terms than RFA but still limited to UK. Ark Royal had three. No UK ship that I can think of had less than two other than the first installation on HMS Edinburgh.
  • 0

#64 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,442 posts

Posted 29 July 2019 - 1708 PM

I wouldn't want to be relying on Phalanx to stop a heavy AShM. Its effective range is likely to be marginal in real world condition. I think it's far more likely to be useful against boat swarms, provided anyone allows them to be used.

Which isn't going to happen. The Iranians could play kiss-chase with warships and claim there was no hostile intent if they were smoked for it. They'd have to caught live on CNN hijacking a cruise ship in the Bay of Biscay before their lies would be disregarded.

ETA: Given the Martlet mount shown earlier, I wonder about turning it on its head and using that mount for Starstreak as well, It's more or less the same thing under the skin.

Edited by DB, 29 July 2019 - 1716 PM.

  • 0

#65 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,632 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 0009 AM

Russian embassy diplomats visiting Rus sailors onboard Iran-detained British "Stena Impero" tanker. Guy on the right looks like typical young FSB officer (not necessarily he actually is, but general style is  very similar)

67773961_2294411470820310_77963425969759


  • 0

#66 Anixtu

Anixtu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,090 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 0206 AM

I wouldn't want to be relying on Phalanx to stop a heavy AShM. Its effective range is likely to be marginal in real world condition. I think it's far more likely to be useful against boat swarms, provided anyone allows them to be used.

Typical Iranian AShMs should be within its capabilities. However, CIWS should only ever be the last layer of defence, after strikes against launch platforms, area air defence, close escort air defence and softkill.

I wouldn't want to empty my Phalanx magazines on boats if I had other options and there was an extant AShM threat. You'd feel pretty stupid being hit by a C-802 clone after firing off your CIWS against boats armed with MGs and RPGs.

Edited by Anixtu, 30 July 2019 - 0206 AM.

  • 0

#67 Anixtu

Anixtu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,090 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 0210 AM

Russian embassy diplomats visiting Rus sailors onboard Iran-detained British "Stena Impero" tanker. Guy on the right looks like typical young FSB officer (not necessarily he actually is, but general style is  very similar)


Have Russian media said what their role is onboard? Are they navigation officers or engineers (or a mix)?

I don't see any colour between the stripes in their rank slides, which would imply deck/navigation officers, but that would put them on the hook against the Iranian charges of colliding with a fishing boat.
  • 0

#68 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,291 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 0223 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.

 

 

They have plenty of fishing boats and small merchantman. Much less suspicious than a warship entering a foreign port.

 

 

 

How are they going to move Scud Missiles to Yemen with those? The US (and Britain for that matter) are perfectly able to track even minor vessels if they are acting suspiciously. For example, during the conflict in Northern Ireland, RN submarines on at least one occasion tracked a gunrunning fishing boat.

 

 

 

 

 

Russian embassy diplomats visiting Rus sailors onboard Iran-detained British "Stena Impero" tanker. Guy on the right looks like typical young FSB officer (not necessarily he actually is, but general style is  very similar)


Have Russian media said what their role is onboard? Are they navigation officers or engineers (or a mix)?

I don't see any colour between the stripes in their rank slides, which would imply deck/navigation officers, but that would put them on the hook against the Iranian charges of colliding with a fishing boat.

 

Perhaps they are just innocent tourists :)


  • 0

#69 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,632 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 0254 AM

 

Russian embassy diplomats visiting Rus sailors onboard Iran-detained British "Stena Impero" tanker. Guy on the right looks like typical young FSB officer (not necessarily he actually is, but general style is  very similar)


Have Russian media said what their role is onboard? Are they navigation officers or engineers (or a mix)?

No information, just "Russian Embassy is in close contacts with Iran authorities regarding the timing of sailors return to Russia"


  • 0

#70 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,971 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 0832 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.

 

 

They have plenty of fishing boats and small merchantman. Much less suspicious than a warship entering a foreign port.

 

 

 

How are they going to move Scud Missiles to Yemen with those? The US (and Britain for that matter) are perfectly able to track even minor vessels if they are acting suspiciously. For example, during the conflict in Northern Ireland, RN submarines on at least one occasion tracked a gunrunning fishing boat.

 

 

Why should Yemen need SCUDs?  They should have plenty of stocks and the missile force went over to the Houthis on a large scale and was really good.


  • 0

#71 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,694 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 1026 AM

Getting off the point a bit with the Scud argument - Iran would definitely care if its regular navy was sunk. The IRGC itself might see that as win-win, but few others in the government would. Plus the IRGC does operate at least one large, valuable ship in addition to its boghammers: the cargo ship saviz, which has been based in the Red Sea and is apparently a Quds SOF support ship supporting the Houthi effort. It would be a prime target for retribution specifically against the IRGC as opposed to regular Iranian naval vessels which AFAIK have never taken part in any of these harassment operations. Its position make it rather vulnerable to any variety of attacks.


  • 0

#72 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,291 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 1134 AM

This might prove useful.
https://www.thedrive...6-adversary-jet
  • 0

#73 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,085 posts

Posted 30 July 2019 - 1542 PM

 

I wouldn't want to be relying on Phalanx to stop a heavy AShM. Its effective range is likely to be marginal in real world condition. I think it's far more likely to be useful against boat swarms, provided anyone allows them to be used.

Typical Iranian AShMs should be within its capabilities. However, CIWS should only ever be the last layer of defence, after strikes against launch platforms, area air defence, close escort air defence and softkill.

I wouldn't want to empty my Phalanx magazines on boats if I had other options and there was an extant AShM threat. You'd feel pretty stupid being hit by a C-802 clone after firing off your CIWS against boats armed with MGs and RPGs.

 

 

I think CAMM has great scope as it's cold launch enables it to be bolted on relatively easily. As you know it has both anti air and anti surface capabilities. An expensive way to take out a small boat, but Brimstone or MMW HELLFIRE would be too. They don't have the anti fast jet/AShM capability of CAMM and aren't cold launch.


  • 0

#74 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,442 posts

Posted 31 July 2019 - 1803 PM

The "Sea Spear" Brimstone option certainly has the advantage over misusing CAMM :D

 

It's likely far easier to package due to its smaller size, for instance, and would be a candidate for containerisation for "hasty" fits or conversions. I'm sure MBDA would be quite happy to put say 16 missiles per side in box launchers for hammering Stuart's favourite Boghammars.

 

Nevertheless, it's not the capability that's lacking. Even if fitted, under what circumstances would a local commander be given the freedom to use them? If an engagement was conducted early enough to be effective, the Iranians would claim that it was innocent fishermen who were sunk, or that the IRGC were simply exercising their right to free passage, etc.

 

In other news, it seems that Iran has asked the Chinese for support to fend off the big British bully (timed to coincide with the arrival of HMS Duncan).

 

How many combat aircraft does the Iranian air force have?


  • 0

#75 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,485 posts

Posted 31 July 2019 - 1824 PM

Possibly around 12 fully operational F-14 airframes at the tip of its spear, armed with locally produced AIM-54s.


  • 0

#76 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,291 posts

Posted 01 August 2019 - 0138 AM

Last I heard it was something like 22 flyable, which doesnt mean fully operational. They lost one not long ago in a crash.

 

The locally build Phoenix isnt a patch on the original, but a 60nm range Sparrow equivalent still has a lot to commend it.


  • 0

#77 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,085 posts

Posted 01 August 2019 - 0148 AM

Last I heard it was something like 22 flyable, which doesnt mean fully operational. They lost one not long ago in a crash.

 

The locally build Phoenix isnt a patch on the original, but a 60nm range Sparrow equivalent still has a lot to commend it.

 

The AIM-54C was a completely different animal and far more capable than its predecessors. It would be interesting (from a purely academic standpoint) to discover which AIM-54 the Iranians had and how good a job they did at reverse-engineering it.


  • 0

#78 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,291 posts

Posted 01 August 2019 - 0201 AM

They had Aim 54A. They WERE supplied with some kits under Iran contra to upgrade them in the mid 1980's, but I dont know to what version. There was a number of different rocket motors for it as you know. They also got bomb racks for them, which like the USN, they never really used.

 

From what ive read online, they have basically recreated an Aim54 bodyshell, with some Hawk innards. Which sounds unpromising, but ive listened to an online lecture where an Iranian  F14 pilot claimed to have shot down a Mig29 with a Hawk missile that was mated to his F14, and there was I gather some evidence to support his claim. If they can pack the same package in a decent airframe, they might have a capable system. Not as capable as a Phoenix, but you take what you can get, right?


  • 0

#79 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,694 posts

Posted 01 August 2019 - 0639 AM

 

Last I heard it was something like 22 flyable, which doesnt mean fully operational. They lost one not long ago in a crash.

 

The locally build Phoenix isnt a patch on the original, but a 60nm range Sparrow equivalent still has a lot to commend it.

 

The AIM-54C was a completely different animal and far more capable than its predecessors. It would be interesting (from a purely academic standpoint) to discover which AIM-54 the Iranians had and how good a job they did at reverse-engineering it.

 

 

Since the AIM-54C didn't come out until the 80's, presumably the Iranians had all 'A's.

As for total numbers, the Wikki entry lists over a dozen squadrons of various types of aircraft, of which the MiG-29 is comfortably the most modern. I believe those MiGs were ex Iraqi machines that flew over during ODS. The material condition of all of those aircraft is very suspect. Even Iran's civilian aircraft are very accident prone due to the sanctions making spare parts difficult to find, plus I imagine it is just hard to find parts for F-14s and F-4s anywhere on the market now.


  • 0

#80 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,291 posts

Posted 01 August 2019 - 0648 AM

 

 

Last I heard it was something like 22 flyable, which doesnt mean fully operational. They lost one not long ago in a crash.

 

The locally build Phoenix isnt a patch on the original, but a 60nm range Sparrow equivalent still has a lot to commend it.

 

The AIM-54C was a completely different animal and far more capable than its predecessors. It would be interesting (from a purely academic standpoint) to discover which AIM-54 the Iranians had and how good a job they did at reverse-engineering it.

 

 

Since the AIM-54C didn't come out until the 80's, presumably the Iranians had all 'A's.

As for total numbers, the Wikki entry lists over a dozen squadrons of various types of aircraft, of which the MiG-29 is comfortably the most modern. I believe those MiGs were ex Iraqi machines that flew over during ODS. The material condition of all of those aircraft is very suspect. Even Iran's civilian aircraft are very accident prone due to the sanctions making spare parts difficult to find, plus I imagine it is just hard to find parts for F-14s and F-4s anywhere on the market now.

 

 

 

They did, but as said, they were upgraded, I dont know what to. Perhaps they could have built C's from the upgrade kit?

 

From what ive read from the Tom Cooper book, they actually asked for more upgrade kits than they needed, presumably so they could make missiles themselves. The Americans only gave them a fraction of what they requested.

 

The USN, to ensure the Iranians didnt get anything, shredded any F14's that didnt get in museums to ensure no parts would leak out. Even some of those in museums have had all the instruments stripped out. Happily there seems to be a few that escaped the wanton vandalism. But not many.

 

Thats why im hoping Iran collapses soon. We could do with a few F-14's on the airshow circuit. :D


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 01 August 2019 - 0649 AM.

  • 0