Gulf of Oman incidents

[98elise]

glazbagun said:

Has anyone ever put a modern-ish frigate/destroyer up against a swarm of armed speedboats? I do wonder how effective a couple of destroyers can be opposite the actual coast of a rival country.

I remember that in the battle of Jutland the Germans use of MTB's discouraged Jellicoe from pursuing the fleet south.

There was also an American wargame around the millennium where the US General in charge of "Iran" decimated a US carrier group and resigned in protest when the rules were changed to provide easy victory for the Americans. It's worth a read if you fancy a laugh:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challen...

Edited by glazbagun on Sunday 4th August 16:08

That's an odd article. It reads like the author thinks live weapons are used in an exercise.

The proximity of civilian aircraft and ships doesn't prevent you from using any of your defence systems.

Also it refers to a salvo of cruise missiles overwhelming sensors. That's just gibberish. A single Close in Weapons System can track and assess a huge number of targets (3 digits) using it's own radar alone. That's without any of the other defence layers.

I'll have to read up on the exercise though. I'd be interested to see what the reality was.

[glazbagun]

From what I've read, team blue were much closer to shore than they'd be IRL because of shipping lanes, and the test was to see how their new technologies and strategies would work against the expected weapons systems.

Team Reds general seems to have viewed the exercise as too similar to pre-vietnam doctrines which came undone when a technologically inferior force fought asymmetrically rather than be slaughtered.

[andy_s]

A few UK firms pull their security from shipping going through that area. Well, they changed the UK guys with other nationalities anyway...

[NRS]

98elise said:

That's an odd article. It reads like the author thinks live weapons are used in an exercise.

The proximity of civilian aircraft and ships doesn't prevent you from using any of your defence systems.

You are probably a lot more careful using them when there is collateral damage around you though.

[egor110]

andy_s said:

A few UK firms pull their security from shipping going through that area. Well, they changed the UK guys with other nationalities anyway...

I know a few ex marines who have done that sort of thing but they all stopped years ago because they were being undercut by south african's and eastern europeans .

[98elise]

NRS said:

98elise said:

That's an odd article. It reads like the author thinks live weapons are used in an exercise.

The proximity of civilian aircraft and ships doesn't prevent you from using any of your defence systems.

You are probably a lot more careful using them when there is collateral damage around you though.

Opposing sides ae NOT shooting anything at each other during an exercise. Attacks are simulated and targets are tracked but not fired on. You wouldn't even have live missiles/rounds loaded (for obvious safety reasons).

Even automated defence systems can be set to track, assess, aim but not shoot.

[NRS]

98elise said:

Opposing sides ae NOT shooting anything at each other during an exercise. Attacks are simulated and targets are tracked but not fired on. You wouldn't even have live missiles/rounds loaded (for obvious safety reasons).

Even automated defence systems can be set to track, assess, aim but not shoot.

Obviously. But it's a bit pointless to have an exercise where you're simulating real life scenarios, and ignore that you end up accidentally "taking out" say 3 civilian ships and 1 aircraft in the fight and causing a massive diplomatic headache. The point presumably is to see if in that situation you're getting everything right, and not accidentally putting a big hole through a nearby cruise liner in all the chaos, which belongs to a friendly country.

[98elise]

NRS said:

98elise said:

Opposing sides ae NOT shooting anything at each other during an exercise. Attacks are simulated and targets are tracked but not fired on. You wouldn't even have live missiles/rounds loaded (for obvious safety reasons).

Even automated defence systems can be set to track, assess, aim but not shoot.

Obviously. But it's a bit pointless to have an exercise where you're simulating real life scenarios, and ignore that you end up accidentally "taking out" say 3 civilian ships and 1 aircraft in the fight and causing a massive diplomatic headache. The point presumably is to see if in that situation you're getting everything right, and not accidentally putting a big hole through a nearby cruise liner in all the chaos, which belongs to a friendly country.

It would depend entirely on what the exercise was simulating. They don't normally occur where you expect to be in conflict, so local shipping and aircraft are not part of it. You don't get many cruise ships in war zones.

Either way it would have no impact on the defence systems. If you fly an unrecognised aircraft at a warship in a warzone you are going to get shot down, civilian or not.

[andy_s]

egor110 said:

andy_s said:

A few UK firms pull their security from shipping going through that area. Well, they changed the UK guys with other nationalities anyway...

I know a few ex marines who have done that sort of thing but they all stopped years ago because they were being undercut by south african's and eastern europeans .

Yeah - same happened in Afghan/Iraq.

[NRS]

98elise said:

It would depend entirely on what the exercise was simulating. They don't normally occur where you expect to be in conflict, so local shipping and aircraft are not part of it. You don't get many cruise ships in war zones.

Either way it would have no impact on the defence systems. If you fly an unrecognised aircraft at a warship in a warzone you are going to get shot down, civilian or not.

I presume it would be for example perhaps a similar situation to now. One country protecting the shipping lanes next to a threat. Therefore if it suddenly kicks off you'd expect to have some civilian stuff in the area. And then that is the point - if it is in the area then it stands a chance of being hit as collateral damage, creating a diplomatic situation etc. Same as you can't just go around shelling random houses during a war, unless you've generally tried to show you took precautions to see it was enemy fighters. Or it could be considered a war crime.

[IanH755]

98elise said:

That's an odd article. It reads like the author thinks live weapons are used in an exercise.

The proximity of civilian aircraft and ships doesn't prevent you from using any of your defence systems.

Also it refers to a salvo of cruise missiles overwhelming sensors. That's just gibberish. A single Close in Weapons System can track and assess a huge number of targets (3 digits) using it's own radar alone. That's without any of the other defence layers.

I'll have to read up on the exercise though. I'd be interested to see what the reality was.

glazbagun said:

From what I've read, team blue were much closer to shore than they'd be IRL because of shipping lanes, and the test was to see how their new technologies and strategies would work against the expected weapons systems.

Team Reds general seems to have viewed the exercise as too similar to pre-vietnam doctrines which came undone when a technologically inferior force fought asymmetrically rather than be slaughtered.

The simulation program was badly broken and that fact was used by the Red Team to artificially "cheat" by having planes/ships carrying missiles which weighed more than the boat/plane itself (Cessna carrying a 5 ton missile and speed boats carried 3 of them etc), the same planes/ships had no targetting ability etc and in one case they had "messengers on bike" transfer messages at the speed of light so while it the Red team "won" it wasn't worth anything as the game was rigged, so they started again.

Swamped - As the exercise mixed "real" ships with simulated enemies, when the simulated forces were spawned in the program they appeared at point blank range to the Real ships (IIRC less than 5nm for ships and 15nm for planes) and were already targetting/firing at the Real ships within seconds of spawning. So the Real ships had no chance to "build up" as the threat approached which is how a real situation would occur, instead they suddenly had a massive amount of missiles (from ships and planes which can't carry the missiles) just appear less than a minute from impact.

So while the war-game was a bit of a waste, one thing the Red General really tried hard to push (sadly unsuccessfully) was trying to squash that US military un-shakable belief that "We're No 1 Hoo-Raah MasterChief" so instead of a painless change of attitude from the military leadership, it took thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan to really wake the US military up and get their leaders to see how destructive that Hoo-Raah attitude really was.

Edited by IanH755 on Saturday 10th August 17:47

[DAVEVO9]

Wonder if the US will seize it now

[Fundoreen]

Where would they take it? Do they own europe now? Which country will they sail it to?
Does anyone want a tanker moored up because the US keeps playing childish games?

[Dr Jekyll]

Fundoreen said:

Where would they take it? Do they own europe now? Which country will they sail it to?
Does anyone want a tanker moored up because the US keeps playing childish games?

Huh?

[slartibartfast]

The USA will track it via satellite and when it docks near Syria will surely say "I told you so"

[MikeyC]

slartibartfast said:

The USA will track it via satellite and when it docks near Syria will surely say "I told you so"

Well, it's changed its name to ADRIAN DARYA 1 - position here

After leaving Gib, was going to Greece, but then more recently to Mersin (Turkey) which, is a stones throw from - you guessed it - Syria

Destination now is: 'FOR ORDER' ???
ETA is 31st Aug

Would be interesting to know what Iran gave UK as to what the destination was...

[ecsrobin]

Maybe they’ve allowed us to not repay the money owed from the chieftain tanks?

[Burwood]

MikeyC said:

slartibartfast said:

The USA will track it via satellite and when it docks near Syria will surely say "I told you so"

Well, it's changed its name to ADRIAN DARYA 1 - position here

After leaving Gib, was going to Greece, but then more recently to Mersin (Turkey) which, is a stones throw from - you guessed it - Syria

Destination now is: 'FOR ORDER' ???
ETA is 31st Aug

Would be interesting to know what Iran gave UK as to what the destination was...

spot on-photographed 2 miles off the Syrian coast. Lying liar pants on fire

[ecsrobin]

Burwood said:

spot on-photographed 2 miles off the Syrian coast. Lying liar pants on fire

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/07/disputed-iranian-tanker-adrian-darya-1-photographed-syrian-port/

[milkround]

Caveat - I know very little about this stuff.

But what right do we or the Americans have to dictate what other countries do with other countries when it comes to something as trivial as oil/fuel?

We sell arms to some of the most disgusting and horrific regimes around. We keep company with Saudi even after they brutally tortured and murdered a journalist in a foreign embassy. Rather than saying how other nations interact with other nations should we not get our own house in order?

We even turned an eye and helped the Americans when they were spiriting away people for torture, even when they were british citizens.