Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Iran Attacks Mock Us Aircraft Carrier In Large Scale Military Drills

Recommended Posts

What a highly accurate and successful simulation, if you ignore the vast fleet of ships that accompany a US aircraft carrier, plus the 80 odd highly advanced aircraft and helicopters, all of which would make mincemeat of that lot before they got within 200 miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/snip

I'm reminded of Billy Mitchell's (then) celebrated sinking of the Ostfriesland, where he demonstrated that if you drop enough bombs in the general direction of a unmanned capital ship that's not moving or firing back eventually you might sink it.

I'm also reminded of Marine General Paul K. Riper's embarrassing (for the USN) performance during Millennium Challenge 2002 when he commanded an Iranian-flavoured 'Red' force...

...At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed; this was later justified by General Peter Pace as follows: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?"[2] After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action. This was done to achieve the real goals of the exercise and experiment which was to stimulate command and control systems which determine the outcome of the scenario.[3]

After the wargame was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This, or something like it, is very possibly how carriers will die...

wiki: DF-21

The US Department of Defense stated in 2010 that China has developed and reached initial operating capability[12] of a conventionally armed[13] high hypersonic[14] land-based anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21. This would be its first ASBM and weapon system capable of targeting a moving aircraft carrier strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers.

United States Naval Institute in 2009 stated that such a warhead would be large enough to destroy an aircraft carrier in one hit and that there was "currently ... no defense against it" if it worked as theorized.

Carriers currently have a similar status to battleships in the 1930s. They're widely depicted as expensive symbols of a country's status. However, there's a distinct possibility that they'll be as useful as a chocolate teapot if they're ever in a situation where someone is seriously firing back at them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best quote from utoob:

Like North Korea it's just a show. I'm Iranian and very proud of my country but this is a joke!
Without a doubt US has the most sophisticated army in the world. Iran, not even in its wildest dream can sink a US aircraft carrier. I believe the time has come for both countries to settle down and put away their differences. Both US and Iran can be very good friends but the hardliners from both sides want to prevent it from happening! Rohani and Obama face great challenges ahead. 

Nothing to do with the little people, we get along just fine. Just the idiots at the top with nothing else to fill their time. Either in collaboration as a play, a game or they really do hate each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our carriers are so superb that it is not even considered a possibility that the Iranians might have been using this as a practice for blowing one of ours up.

Sea trials coming soon ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best quote from utoob:

Nothing to do with the little people, we get along just fine. Just the idiots at the top with nothing else to fill their time. Either in collaboration as a play, a game or they really do hate each other.

I liked the background music in the video though. Very inspiring..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a highly accurate and successful simulation, if you ignore the vast fleet of ships that accompany a US aircraft carrier, plus the 80 odd highly advanced aircraft and helicopters, all of which would make mincemeat of that lot before they got within 200 miles.

Underestimate people at your peril. This excerpt from the wikipedia page covering a much publicised war game that took place in 2002. The 'Red' team were basically Iran:

Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that destroyed sixteen warships while the JSAF simulator operators sat and watched without responding defensively or offensively. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected

And lol:

At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed; this was later justified by General Peter Pace as follows: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Underestimate people at your peril. This excerpt from the wikipedia page covering a much publicised war game that took place in 2002. The 'Red' team were basically Iran:

You missed an important paragraph in your post:

At approximately the same time that Red had located Blue forces, operators of the Blue naval simulation were directed incorrectly to turn off all self-defense capabilities by a senior Naval Officer who was not in command of the simulated forces nor current in the scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed an important paragraph in your post:

At approximately the same time that Red had located Blue forces, operators of the Blue naval simulation were directed incorrectly to turn off all self-defense capabilities by a senior Naval Officer who was not in command of the simulated forces nor current in the scenario.

I missed out several paragraphs, both positive and negative.

I pasted enough to whet the appetite and a link to a preliminary source, unlike that paragraph which apparently is in need of a citation.

Read around, the exercise apparently collapsed into a farce. That's not to say that the Iranians, or a comparable potential opponent, are capable of fielding commanders like General Riper and the forces he had at his disposal.

Personally, in a world filled with lots of fast moving small things, I'd rather not be sitting in the big slow thing.

Edit: my bad, you were quoting Errol, same difference, it was still a Fail as exercises go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed an important paragraph in your post:

At approximately the same time that Red had located Blue forces, operators of the Blue naval simulation were directed incorrectly to turn off all self-defense capabilities by a senior Naval Officer who was not in command of the simulated forces nor current in the scenario.

In other words, even the world's mightiest forces can make a fatal communicationc c*ck-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, even the world's mightiest forces can make a fatal communicationc c*ck-up.

With the exception of numerous (alleged) instances on 7/12/1941 and 11/9/2001 I can think of no real world examples which support such an outrageous suggestion.

edit: well, ok, maybe a few

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed out several paragraphs, both positive and negative.

I pasted enough to whet the appetite and a link to a preliminary source, unlike that paragraph which apparently is in need of a citation.

Edit: my bad, you were quoting Errol, same difference, it was still a Fail as exercises go

Errol conveniently skipped over the important qualification, which is that the catastrophe was a result of an action by one individual that seemingly would not have been replicated in the real world.

Read around, the exercise apparently collapsed into a farce. That's not to say that the Iranians, or a comparable potential opponent, are capable of fielding commanders like General Riper and the forces he had at his disposal.

Probably, although it does depend what the game was intended to test and achive. Van Rippen certainly thought it was a farce but others have defended it (perhaps not totally convincingly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, even the world's mightiest forces can make a fatal communicationc c*ck-up.

http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/

NASA lost a $125 million Mars orbiter because a Lockheed Martin engineering team used English units of measurement while the agency's team used the more conventional metric system for a key spacecraft operation, according to a review finding released Thursday.

The units mismatch prevented navigation information from transferring between the Mars Climate Orbiter spacecraft team in at Lockheed Martin in Denver and the flight team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

Lockheed Martin helped build, develop and operate the spacecraft for NASA. Its engineers provided navigation commands for Climate Orbiter's thrusters in English units although NASA has been using the metric system predominantly since at least 1990.

No one is pointing fingers at Lockheed Martin, said Tom Gavin, the JPL administrator to whom all project managers report.

"This is an end-to-end process problem," he said. "A single error like this should not have caused the loss of Climate Orbiter. Something went wrong in our system processes in checks and balances that we have that should have caught this and fixed it."

It's not just the military that can have impressive communication cockups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point stands. Underestimating the enemy is a fatal error for any General to make.

Modern weapons can cause massive damage very quickly. Only 1 missile needs to get through - even if it only gets through as a result of a human error (errors happen ALL THE TIME in combat situations - even in special forces combat units who are more highly trained than 'normal' units). Nearly all the major engagements in history have been lost at least partially due to human error - eg. misunderstanding orders, disobedience, panic, freezing, idiocy, etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point stands. Underestimating the enemy is a fatal error for any General to make.

Modern weapons can cause massive damage very quickly. Only 1 missile needs to get through - even if it only gets through as a result of a human error (errors happen ALL THE TIME in combat situations - even in special forces combat units who are more highly trained than 'normal' units). Nearly all the major engagements in history have been lost at least partially due to human error - eg. misunderstanding orders, disobedience, panic, freezing, idiocy, etc etc.

Midway is probably one of the best examples of how luck can swing a major battle.

http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodlive.mil/2012/05/03/explaining-the-miracle-at-midway/

Gordon Prange (and his co-authors Donald Goldstein and Katherine Dillon, who completed his manuscript after his death in 1980) provided the most detailed analysis to date of the causes and outcomes of the battle, but broadly followed similar lines to Morison, Fuchida, Okumiya, and Lord in assigning primacy to Japan’s loss to a host of tactical missteps by Nagumo and the ever-present “Victory Disease,” while crediting U.S. victory to intelligence, the leadership of Nimitz, Rear Adm. Frank Jack Fletcher, and Rear Adm. Raymond Spruance, and the bravery of the men who fought the battle.12 For all of Nagumo’s faults and wrong turns, however, fate dealt him a blow that was beyond his control. “The final debacle was due to a stroke of good luck on the United States side—the uncoordinated coordination of the dive bombers hitting three carriers at once while the torpedo strikes were still in progress,” wrote Prange. “Except for those six short minutes, Nagumo would have been the victor, and all his decisions would have been accounted to him for righteousness.”13

..

The late Dallas Isom, a former Oregon law professor, brings a lawyer’s attention to detail to the study of the battle in Midway Inquest. He focuses on the Kido Butai’s actions on the morning of 4 June, specifically the “crucial period” between 0715 and 1025, during which time a second strike on Midway was contemplated, part of the American fleet was identified, the first Midway strike returned, and a series of decisions about which targets to strike were made by Nagumo. At the heart of Isom’s analysis is the study of torpedo handling and loading procedures—for if the Kido Butai was to attack the American ships spotted that morning by the cruiser Tone’s search plane, it would need its Nakajima B5N Kate bombers loaded with the deadly Type 91 torpedo. The Type 91 was the most powerful ship-killing weapon in the Japanese arsenal, so it is unlikely they would have launched a strike without their torpedo aircraft being ready. Switching between bomb loads (for land targets) and torpedo loads (for ship targets) or back again took time, and it is the issue of time (both when orders for rearming were given and how long those orders took to carry out) that is at the heart of Isom’s analysis. His key claim is that because of a series of factors—the timing of the search plane’s contact with Task Force 17, the multiple attacks by land- and carrier-based U.S. aircraft, and the physical time necessary to rearm the torpedo planes—Nagumo was not ready to launch a strike against the American carriers at 1020 when the SDB Dauntlesses from Enterprise and Yorktown appeared above the Kido Butai.14

In Shattered Sword, Parshall and Tully provide an alternate time sequence and explanation of the events on the morning of 4 June, claiming that because of the nearly constant attacks by American aircraft and the necessity of retrieving combat air patrol (CAP) aircraft, it was the maneuvering of the Japanese carriers that hindered rearming operations and the spotting of the strike force aircraft.15 The two books’ tactical explanations for Nagumo’s inability to launch a strike against the American carriers that morning differ, but the overall conclusion of both books is that Nagumo was nowhere near being ready for such a strike—and hence the miraculous coincidence of Fuchida’s “fatal five minutes” is greatly diminished. Photographic evidence taken of the carriers maneuvering to avoid early morning air attacks clearly shows empty flight decks, except for a handful of CAP fighters.16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Midway is probably one of the best examples of how luck can swing a major battle.

http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodlive.mil/2012/05/03/explaining-the-miracle-at-midway/

Spare a thought for the unfortunate captain* of the tiny, and otherwise insignificant, Arashi. Without his vital contribution to the battle the Dauntlesses which were low on fuel would have missed the Japanese carriers, leaving enough time for a second Japanese strike which probably would have finished the American carriers off...

The Japanese Task force changed course while the Arashi continued its attack on the Nautilus. Having kept Nautilus down long enough that she no longer was a threat, the captain of the Arashi finally broke off the attack and steamed north to rejoin the carrier group. As two squadrons of dive bombers from Enterprise searched above for the Japanese Task Force, the Arashi was spotted making great speed to the north. The ship's speed created a long wake, which acted as a direction arrow to the American aviators, guiding them to the Japanese carriers. Meanwhile, Japanese fighter aircraft protecting the carriers had been pulled away as they all attempted to engage an incoming torpedo attack from Hornet '​s VT-8 torpedo squad. At the moment of decision, the Japanese carriers were essentially without high air cover. This made for an uncontested approach for the American dive bombers. The Enterprise dive bombers happened to arrive over the Japanese carriers Kaga and Akagi unimpeded, scoring multiple hits on Kaga and a single hit on Akagi that doomed both ships.

* Actually, if you read how his crew treated a captured US airman that day, f**k him. Not a good day to be flying in a US torpedo bomber all round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   210 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.