Ships under attack in the middle east

[Rroff]

Eh? The Russian Khinzal hypersonic missile is already operational. The US is years behind in missile technology and is trying to catch up. No idea about the Chinese.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal

Carriers are sitting ducks against weapons like that. They are only useful against third world militaries...floating coffins against peer adversaries.

Operational yes but so far doesn't seem to have lived upto the claims - performance at a level that would defeat stuff like Aegis and Aster, etc. platforms doesn't seem to be even close to reliable at this time with the only observed successful tests at considerably lower performance than the headline capabilities.

The only way they are killing a carrier with one any time soon is sticking a nuclear warhead on it.

Iran's current compliment of longer range anti-ship missiles are largely 2.5-3m long and travel at mach 0.8-3 at the fastest phase - well within the capabilities of a Type 45 aslong as they have a plentiful supply of ammo and more than one ship so as to deal with potential saturation attacks.

 

[EvilSooty]

Operational yes but so far doesn't seem to have lived upto the claims - performance at a level that would defeat stuff like Aegis and Aster, etc. platforms doesn't seem to be even close to reliable at this time with the only observed successful tests at considerably lower performance than the headline capabilities.

Yeah, sure. The US doesn't even have hypersonic missiles so how can they defend against them?

The simple fact is that a carrier is a big juicy target containing thousands of men with a limited supply of missiles to defend itself. In the event of a war with a major power it will be a huge target that will have missiles coming at it left right and centre. All it takes is one missile to get through its untested missile shield that has limited ammunition anyway.

They are obsolete. Like battleships going against warplanes in WW2.

'Iran's current compliment of longer range anti-ship missiles are largely 2.5-3m long and travel at mach 0.8-3 at the fastest phase - well within the capabilities of a Type 45 aslong as they have a plentiful supply of ammo and more than one ship so as to deal with potential saturation attacks.'

All it takes is one missle to get through. You are assuming a 100% success rate of interception.

Look at the recent cruise missile attacks in Syria...even with Russian help they only intercepted about 70% of the subsonic ancient Tomahawks and clearly ammo wasn't an issue.

Floating coffins.

 

[Rroff]

Yeah, sure. The US doesn't even have hypersonic missiles so how can they defend against them?

The simple fact is that a carrier is a big juicy target containing thousands of men with a limited supply of missiles to defend itself. In the event of a war with a major power it will be a huge target that will have missiles coming at it left right and centre. All it takes is one missile to get through its untested missile shield that has limited ammunition anyway.

They are obsolete. Like battleships going against warplanes in WW2.

While hypersonic missiles are designed to minimise the reaction time reducing the chance of an intercept you don't need a hypersonic missile to counter a hypersonic missile - if it is coming at you you just need enough time to position an counter into an intercept infront of its position. (Or alternatively make use of directed energy weapons though that is largely experimental at this time).

But again Iran doesn't have these and no one that does seems to have a reliable one at the kind of hypersonic speeds that would be beyond the capabilities of current defences.

 

[EvilSooty]

While hypersonic missiles are designed to minimise the reaction time reducing the chance of an intercept you don't need a hypersonic missile to counter a hypersonic missile - if it is coming at you you just need enough time to position an counter into an intercept infront of its position. (Or alternatively make use of directed energy weapons though that is largely experimental at this time).

But again Iran doesn't have these and no one that does seems to have a reliable one at the kind of hypersonic speeds that would be beyond the capabilities of current defences.

What is the source for them being unreliable? Anonymous US sources by any chance? Well they would say given they are so far behind in missile technology.

The US anti-air systems were designed to counter sub-hypersonic missiles. How on earth can they take out hypersonic missiles which they didn't even anticipate at the design stage?

Here's a US general saying they have no defence against them at present:

https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...e-systems-are-no-match-for-hypersonic-weapons

The US is years behind in hypersonic missiles. No-one disputes this; you can say 'unreliable' all you want, but it's a game-changer that Russia has which the US doesn't.

Iran doesn't need hypersonic missles. Any US ship in the Gulf is a sitting duck vulnerable to a saturation anti-shipping attack. Limited ammo + <100% interception rate = sunk ship.

 

[Rroff]

What is the source for them being unreliable? Anonymous US sources by any chance? Well they would say given they are so far behind in missile technology.

The US anti-air systems were designed to counter sub-hypersonic missiles. How on earth can they take out hypersonic missiles which they didn't even anticipate at the design stage?

Here's a US general saying they have no defence against them at present:

https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...e-systems-are-no-match-for-hypersonic-weapons

The US is years behind in hypersonic missiles. No-one disputes this; you can say 'unreliable' all you want, but it's a game-changer that Russia has which the US doesn't.

Iran doesn't need hypersonic missles. Any US ship in the Gulf is a sitting duck vulnerable to a saturation anti-shipping attack. Limited ammo + <100% interception rate = sunk ship.

Going to concentrate on Iran here as hypersonics aren't likely to be fielded and it needs a long post to cover all the variables and demonstrate from fragmented sources the realities of Russian testing. But anti-ballistic missile platforms like Aegis and Aster aren't precluded by the nature of their original design from being upgraded to deal with these kind of threats and are infact constantly being upgraded to deal with evolving threats - Aster especially was designed from the start to be constantly upgradable.

While the US has been caught napping on the hypersonic front the US lately has gone a different direction and put efforts into directed-energy laser weapons over hypersonic missiles - which is potentially a hard counter to hypersonics in the long run.

Anyhow back to Iran - saturation attacks are a serious problem - but the realities of successfully hitting a target goes both ways and there will be a lot less on target missiles than ones that miss so what is important is the interception of on target ones. Iran's long range ones are largely very easy to deal with by BMDs and CIWS, etc. being relatively big and more limited in supply while their most plentiful missiles rely on launch platforms that have to come well within the range they can be destroyed before they can launch - a carrier would be a bad option here* versus the other options though* - Type 45s for instance have a tiny radar signature and other good defences against missiles even hitting them in the first place including a good combat speed and manoeuvrability.

* Unless they go fully on the assault with the intention of keeping Iran blind so they don't know where the carrier actually is to acquire it as a target in the first place.

 

[RoboCod]

There's no playing involved.

I lolled

The simple fact is that a carrier is a big juicy target containing thousands of men with a limited supply of missiles to defend itself.

Floating coffins.

You seem almost thrilled by the concept.

Israel is a joke.

And the true colours of the anti-semite show. Delightful.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

You are using Iraq as an example of US might? A country with a second-rate military destroyed by genocidal sanctions and whom they backstabbed. What a joke.

They haven't gone against a country that can hit them back since Japan.

I think this guy actually wants a war. He's probably a hard line jihadist or something, believes that the Jihadists will destroy the Romans in the final apocalypse or some crap.

Regardless, the propaganda push is astounding. Bravo.

 

[Rroff]

I think this guy actually wants a war. He's probably a hard line jihadist or something, believes that the Jihadists will destroy the Romans in the final apocalypse or some crap.

Regardless, the propaganda push is astounding. Bravo.

Funny how he/she has a sob story about persecution of people who are anti-war but then comes out with some posts when the West would be the target which are anything but that of an anti-war perspective... then lashes out at other people about parroting the BBC, etc. while largely parroting the likes of RT, etc. with little in the way of original thought.

I'd go a lot easier on their opinion if they didn't purport to take the moral high-ground but then do exactly what they are accusing other people of just the other way around.

Look at the recent cruise missile attacks in Syria...even with Russian help they only intercepted about 70% of the subsonic ancient Tomahawks and clearly ammo wasn't an issue.

Not really comparable though - Russia largely has left their S-400 system switched off while Syria's air defences are relying on more like 50s-70s era anti-aircraft tech more suited to shooting down big slow bombers at medium altitude than low level cruise missiles and operators of very mixed ability, training and experience. To be fair they seem to have had some fairly decent success managing to take out any of the missiles at all with the tech they had to work with.

 

[Malevolence]

Why do you even engage with this person, they're obviously just on wind up.

 

[Rroff]

Why do you even engage with this person, they're obviously just on wind up.

Because if you are persistent enough they usually end up either rage quitting the conversation or one leg in an actual discussion - neither of which was their original intention.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

The US isn’t getting into a serious shooting match and invasion with Iran. Firstly Trump’s base has zero interest in seeing Iraq mk2 happening. Yeah the US could overpower the Iranian military but to take and hold the county would involve dealing with another insurgency. That didn’t work out well last time, it wouldn’t this time either.

 

[RoboCod]

Funny how he/she has a sob story about persecution of people who are anti-war but then comes out with some posts when the West would be the target which are anything but that of an anti-war perspective... then lashes out at other people about parroting the BBC, etc. while largely parroting the likes of RT, etc. with little in the way of original thought.

I'd go a lot easier on their opinion if they didn't call other people out on these things then do exactly the same thing but the other way around.

It's the usual behaviour of the type isn't it though?

There's a tiny chance they have hard-line Islamic roots and some vested interest in the situation. Unlikely though .

There's a much greater chance they're a student activist, hell bent on self deprecation (because that's cool until you grow up) and will seek out any disinformation to confirm their bias. However, I don't think we could even credit them that status. I suspect they're just the usual armchair rant-bot, clutching at whatever populist politics article they can find and get all angry about it for no reason or no relation to their life whatsoever. I bet he's a "top fan" of AAV page lol. You know the type, they'll put a Palestine flag on their Facebook photo and repost spam about how the evil West is plundering the helpless innocent people for oil, all the while they're relishing life in their oil fuelled consumption themselves. Then has the audacity to call others "hypocrite"

Seen these people a thousand times over. They get bored and grow up after a certain age.

 

[Malevolence]

They get bored and grow up after a certain age.

Or join the Labour party and work their up.

 

[Rroff]

It's the usual behaviour of the type isn't it though?

There's a tiny chance they have hard-line Islamic roots and some vested interest in the situation. Unlikely though .

There's a much greater chance they're a student activist, hell bent on self deprecation (because that's cool until you grow up) and will seek out any disinformation to confirm their bias. However, I don't think we could even credit them that status. I suspect they're just the usual armchair rant-bot, clutching at whatever populist politics article they can find and get all angry about it for no reason or no relation to their life whatsoever. I bet he's a "top fan" of AAV page lol. You know the type, they'll put a Palestine flag on their Facebook photo and repost spam about how the evil West is plundering the helpless innocent people for oil, all the while they're relishing life in their oil fuelled consumption themselves. Then has the audacity to call others "hypocrite"

Seen these people a thousand times over. They get bored and grow up after a certain age.

TBH I'll let others work that out I'm just interested in the angles people try to portray as black and white that have shades of grey.

 

[RoboCod]

I'm just interested in the angles people try to portray as black and white that have shades of grey.

When they haven't many places to go in an argument, black and white is all they can usually come back with. It's the problem with opinion based "facts", which is usually the content of the news sources they cite.

...have we had a link to the Syriapropagandamedia.org website posted by them yet?

 

[elmuzzy66.]

What will happen to the crude oil? Can the Gibraltar authorities keep it as ' proceeds of crime'. Luckily enough there is a refinery 5km away from Gibraltar

 

[XeNoN89]

https://news.sky.com/story/boats-try-to-stop-british-tanker-off-iranian-coast-11760714

Looks like Iran just tried and failed to take a British tanker.

 

[dowie]

Good job they bottled it. Their politicians would be getting even more irate if the RN has to step in and sink some small boats.

@EvilSooty I assume you’re going to condemn this piracy attempt by the Iranians?

 

[Malevolence]

Montrose would make mincemeat of any ships/boats that Iran decided to send out, and they know it.

 

[Dis86]

They've clearly taken a leaf out of the Russian PR guide.

'We're going to retaliate, we'll take one of your vessels'

*tries to take vessel and fails*

'Nope, wasn't us, we'd never do that'

 

[Hagar]

They've clearly taken a leaf out of the Russian PR guide.

'We're going to retaliate, we'll take one of your vessels'

*tries to take vessel and fails*

'Nope, wasn't us, we'd never do that'

They were on vacation, a fishing trip, having heard how big these tankers were up close, they were just sailing to have a look: obviously.