US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
MwRYum
Major
That said, as in international incident it was over very quickly and, unusually in any US-Iran case, cleanly, and obviously both sides wanted to downplay it.
But I can expect in the weeks and months towards the primaries, this incident will be used as ammo for muck-slinging by candidates and talk show hosts (no way that Donald Trump ain't gonna exploit this!), unless something else popped up and people will forget about this all too quickly...but then again, by that time it's American-only problem.
This excuse that they somehow strayed over 50 miles off course into Iranian waters is just more utter nonsense. They are backing away from the mechanical failure reason and now throwing this against the wall to see if it will stick.
On these missions, the planning is in depth. Each vessel has multiple GPS devices and a charted course.
I have a close friend who is a former Lt. Cmdr. in the US Navy SEALs,, he posted the following to his own Facebook page and has given me permission to post the following.
"I rarely pull out my dusty old trident, but in this case, here goes. I was a Navy SEAL officer in the 1980s, and this kind of operation (transiting small boats in foreign waters) was our bread and butter. Today, these boats both not only have radar, but multiple GPS devices, including chart plotters that place your boat's icon right on the chart. The claim by Iran that the USN boats "strayed into Iranian waters" is complete bull$#it.
"For an open-water transit between nations, the course is studied and planned in advance by the leaders of the Riverine Squadron, with specific attention given to staying wide and clear of any hostile nation's claimed territorial waters. The boats are given a complete mechanical check before departure, and they have sufficient fuel to accomplish their mission plus extra. If, for some unexplainable and rare circumstance one boat broke down, the other would tow it, that's why two boats go on these trips and not one! It's called "self-rescue" and it's SOP.
"This entire situation is in my area of expertise. I can state with complete confidence that both Iran and our own State Department are lying. The boats did not enter Iranian waters. They were overtaken in international waters by Iranian patrol boats that were so superior in both speed and firepower that it became a "hands up!" situation, with automatic cannons in the 40mm to 76mm range pointed at them point-blank. Surrender, hands up, or be blown out of the water. I assume that the Iranians had an English speaker on a loudspeaker to make the demand. This takedown was no accident or coincidence, it was a planned slap across America's face.
"Just watch. The released sailors will be ordered not to say a word about the incident, and the Iranians will have taken every GPS device, chart-plotter etc off the boats, so that we will not be able to prove where our boats were taken."
The "strayed into Iranian waters" story being put out by Iran and our groveling and appeasing State Dept. is utter and complete BS from one end to the other." - Former Lt. Cmdr, US Navy SEALs
Like Benghazi, the actual story will slowly leak out over time and have no impact on Obama (thanks to the complicity of the MSM).
On a different note, Raytheon has apparently repackaged Excalibur so it can be used with standard 5" caliber naval guns. I'm not sure how this "triples the maximum effective range" unless they define effective as hitting the target. Also, attacking Fast Attack Craft that are actually going fast implies continuous GPS target updates. This is something the current Excalibur doesn't do (I think?).
"Raytheon successfully fired its new Excalibur N5 projectile during a live guided flight test at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz. A company-funded initiative, Excalibur N5 is a 5-inch/127 mm naval variant of the combat-proven Excalibur precision projectile used by the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marine Corps and several international armies. It is expected to more than triple the maximum effective range of conventional naval gun munitions and deliver the same pinpoint accuracy of the Excalibur Ib, which is in production today. Excalibur N5 can be used to support several critical mission areas including Naval Surface Fire Support, Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW) and countering Fast Attack Craft (FAC)."
On a different note, Raytheon has apparently repackaged Excalibur so it can be used with standard 5" caliber naval guns. I'm not sure how this "triples the maximum effective range" unless they define effective as hitting the target. Also, attacking Fast Attack Craft that are actually going fast implies continuous GPS target updates. This is something the current Excalibur doesn't do (I think?).
"Raytheon successfully fired its new Excalibur N5 projectile during a live guided flight test at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz. A company-funded initiative, Excalibur N5 is a 5-inch/127 mm naval variant of the combat-proven Excalibur precision projectile used by the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marine Corps and several international armies. It is expected to more than triple the maximum effective range of conventional naval gun munitions and deliver the same pinpoint accuracy of the Excalibur Ib, which is in production today. Excalibur N5 can be used to support several critical mission areas including Naval Surface Fire Support, Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW) and countering Fast Attack Craft (FAC)."
The mentioned it in passing. No really detailed discussion of it.I didn't watch the GOP candidate debate last night, but was this incident ever mention at all between the candidates? I was just curious.
MwRYum
Major
While this version debunks the "technical glitch" reasons that both governments feed the world, it still doesn't explain one thing: if the primary purpose of this venture is to rub it on Uncle Sam's face, then why'd this got over in less than 48 hours? And why not the Iranians just keep the boats as trophies outright then? Even by picking a lightly armed prey on transit routine, the effort those IRGC Navy went into this would've demand keeping those 2 boats as spoils of war, tied to a dock, have a IRGC Navy Captain give the states TV crew a walking tour, anti-USA slogan and banners hung everywhere, if not thrown in a few more footages of the detained sailors in even more humiliating conditions (instead of sitting on rugs, unrestrained, and have a bit of snacks)... which, for us older generations, would find it as "typical Iranian style", if there's such a thing.
Also, IRGC Navy operates small FACs, with guns nothing bigger than 25mm caliber, only the regular Iranian Navy have bigger boats that mount 76mm cannon, but they're slower than the CB90-class by 4-to-10 knots (CB90-class can go for it at 40 knots, with them on lightly loaded blue milk run mode such as this, the boat captain should be able to punch it easily); IRGC Navy's FACs can dash at up to 50+ knots, but anything above 40 the ride would be bumpy enough to make warning shots ended up being "hit the hull" instead...
Besides, even if the USN boat captains couldn't fire out a distress call for whatever reason, all they've to do is to bolt south and won't be long to reach friendly waters, shake off the hunters...why didn't they?
There are perfectly good reasons.
The Iranians are wanting their billions of dollars, they took the opportunity to do two things.
1) Spit in Uncle Sam's and the US Navy's eye for political/propaganda purposes.
2) Be completely magnanimous and give everything back to ensure they get their money.
As far as other things...well, Communications, GPS, etc. can all be jammed.
If they were jammed, and if they surprised the US Boats, then they could do what this individual says. He did not go into detail on that because he was not there. But he did speak from his very real operational and hands on experience.
He is basically saying that the missions are planned very well. He is also saying that the only way he sees US personnel giving up like this is if the situation ended up being so overwhelming that they either gave up or all died.
None of us know exactly what happened with the capture...but I simply do not believe either:
1) Both boats malfunctioned together.
2) The US personnel were 50 miles off course due to a simple navigation error.
Something else happened. We simply do not know what it is.
But we have a former Navy SEAL officer saying that these guys plan these things in detail. That they have the equipment, training, and plans to alleviate a simple navigation error. That the second boat would have, according to SOP, towed a disabled craft away. And that the personnel would not fight unless it would have been suicide to do so. He is saying all of that from years of hands on experience with exactly these types of missions.
Other than that...we simply do not know what happened and how it ended up going down.
We do know that US Officials are saying things that fly in the face of this hands on knowledge and SOP. So...IMHO something else happened. We just do not know what.
Bernard
Junior Member
Possible expansion to the arsenal ship idea? Maybe arsenal/ missile defense ship based on the San Antonio hull. Park one of these in the U.S 7th Fleet.
Build a high-tech version of the 'San Antonio' class
January 15, 2016 Dave Majumdar
The U.S. Navy has been in discussions with shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls about the possibility of building a missile defense variant of the San Antonio-class...
The U.S. Navy has been in discussions with shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls about the possibility of building a missile defense variant of the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock (LPD-17). The new vessel could eventually be equipped with new radars, railguns and lasers.
The massive 25,000-ton troop carrier has the size and weight margins for the mission, according to industry officials. “You can put a lot of additional weight on the ship and you can put … some modern technologies like ballistic missile defense radars ,” Huntington Ingalls vice president Brian Cuccias told reporters at the Surface Navy Association symposium this week, according to National Defense Magazine.
Deleting the ship’s well deck would greatly add to the vessel’s weight and stability margins. That, in turn, would allow the LPD-17 hull form to accommodate the enormous weight of a next generation ballistic missile defense radar — which are usually very large and extremely heavy.
In fact, the LPD-17 hull form would allow designers to mount the radar high on the vessel’s superstructure to give it the widest possible field of regard. “When you close in the well deck of the LPD ship you expand that capability to take a lot of weight, and the stability on LPD is such you can actually put weight up high,” Cuccias told National Defense.
Indeed, the suggests that a dedicated ballistic missile defense version of the LPD-17 could feature a 30-35 foot, multi-faced, S-band radar. Such a radar would provide much greater coverage than either the current SPY-1 radars found on current Aegis warships or the next generation Advanced Missile Defense Radar planned for DDG-51 Flight III destroyers.
Above — the amphibious transport docks USS San Antonio and New York. At top — the San Antonio. U.S. Navy photos
Closing the well deck would also afford the service the space onboard to host high-powered laser weapons and electromagnetic rail guns as those advanced systems become available over the next decade or two. It would also free up space to host many more missile tubes than would be possible on a destroyer or cruiser. Estimates vary as to how many more exactly, but some sources suggest that an LPD hull might be able double the missile capacity of an Aegis cruiser.
However, while the space and weight margins would be available, Huntington Ingalls and the Navy would have to figure out a way to generate enough power and cooling for such a large radar and the other directed energy weapons the sea service hopes to add to the ship.
“You can put a pretty significant power generation plant or plants on the platform and you could put pretty significant cooling capabilities on that platform,” Cuccias said. “And the platform, because of its internal volume and … because of its stability, can handle it without radical changes to the ship.”
While this is the first time that industry officials have confirmed that they have discussed building a ballistic missile defense ship out of the LPD-17 hull form, the idea is not new. Nonetheless, Huntington Ingalls is skittish about the details of its discussions with the Navy. “We’re talking about it and so there is some interest, but that’s as far as I really want to go,” Cuccias said.
Many analysts and retired service officials have suggested building a ballistic missile defense ship using the San Antonio’s hull — which could accommodate a huge number of missile tubes in addition to the lasers and railguns.
Nor would the ship necessarily need to be solely dedicated to the missile defense mission — with its massive hull, the ship could be used for everything from humanitarian and disaster relief, to command and control, to hosting special operations forces in addition to having the firepower of a major surface combatant.
If built, it would be the largest surface combatant built for the U.S. Navy since the Second World War.