Countering Iranian naval tactics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Yimmy 1/8/2008 3:44:37 PM

Just stick a dozen or so cheap pintle mounts down either side of the ship, compatibable as platforms for mounting M2 .50 cal, GPMG and 7.62mm mini-guns already in the army inventory. That is the cheapest solution to dealing with massed small boats - and I would not underestimate the firepower of a dozen machineguns.

Missile teams, using systems such as Starstreak, I imagine would also be highly effective.

The problem with using a ships CIWS, which can engage out to 2-3km's easily, is that you are wasting ammunition which is required to counter more serious threats of ASM's.

Quote Reply

audifan Mini Guns and Accoustics 1/10/2008 7:56:08 PM

Love the 50 cal and mini gun idea. Fun for all involved on deck! For the situation that just happened, it would be great to make the bastards deaf with the accoustic transmitters (voice of God) or heat microwave deals.
That should give them pause.

How about some cluster type of granade launchers that we now have? Or hellfires? Someone should testing these scenarios.

The only thing that makes me concerned is that if the Iranians actually launched an attack, they would expect fire back. They would have the next step ready to go like massive SSM barrage from the shore or hills or bunkers. This seems like an all or nothing deal and would spiral quickly upwards. We could loose 3 ships before air cover arrived so we should be ready for it every time the Strait is navigated.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 1/10/2008 9:49:28 PM

at 200 yards and 30 knots its estimated that the OODA was 12 seconds. The USN assets did actually have guns and air up.

I think whats missed here is that they only got to 200 yards because the gunners and local commander were not trigger happy.

by all accounts, they had the right gear up and ready. the tipping point was the point at which gunners were directed to "fire fire fire". Word seems to be that another second or so would have see a different results.

It would have actually been an ideal candidate for LRAD as an interim layer. Slave LRAD to the FCS and you'd scramble them up well before they got within RPG range...

Quote Reply

B.Smitty 1/11/2008 9:09:55 AM

LRAD or ADS would definitely be nice.

Stabilized RWSs instead of pintle mounts would've helped as well, if it hit the fan.

I, personally, would like to see the USN develop or procure a small-ish patrol boat/corvette (or suite of them) that could be bought in significant numbers and used to escort larger warships through waters such as these. Their primary role would be participating in maritime security operations, but could have secondary ASW, MIW, and SOF roles, perhaps through mission modules.

There are a range of possibilities here, from the 25m Super Dvora patrol boat, through self-deployable coastal corvettes like the Swedish Goteborg or Visby classes.

They would be modern day replacements for the old Ashvilles and Cyclones, and should have the speed and agility to intercept these small boats, sufficient physical presence to intimidate them, (adding gf's FCS cued LRAD or ADS wouldn't hurt), and enough firepower overmatch to make Iranian small boats think twice before tangling with them.

I would resist going large enough to have a helo hanger, as this would add significantly to the price, but having a flight deck and the ability to launch and recover UAVs would be very useful. (I imagine the Visby's retractable hangar could house a Fire Scout. )

I know the Navy has problems with buying small ships such as these, due difficulties in support and sustainment, but if we base them at a Global Fleet Station in Bahrain or the UAE, these craft could sortie directly from their base and not need a tender or support ship.

Quote Reply

ens. jack helos 1/11/2008 9:33:23 AM

Helos is definitely a good idea. Using seahawks with penguin asm's would work well. But using something like a marine corp sea cobra would work better. The only question there is whether or not a destroyer can equip an attack birdor not. if all else fails, retro fit sea hawks with some side guns. Now that would be fun for the gunners.

UAv's could also be useful. A predator can carry two helfires, so thats two boats down, per drone, if laser designated by the ship under attack. Not as cool, but still effective.

Quote Reply

paul1970 1/11/2008 11:31:44 AM

UAv's could also be useful. A predator can carry two helfires, so thats two boats down, per drone, if laser designated by the ship under attack. Not as cool, but still effective.

vtol uav's..... or usv's (protector type of thing????????)

Quote Reply

bob the brit 1/11/2008 12:52:12 PM

...get Moses on your side [for all the anti-Jewish propaganda Iran flouts, I'm sure it wont be too hard to convice him], wait for the opportune moment, part the seas, Iranian vessels fall in, then drown 'em like they were Egyptian [not trying to offend any Egyptians that may be present on SP, just using a little biblical comedy]. PROBLEM SOLVED

Quote Reply

Yimmy 1/11/2008 3:28:02 PM

Stabilized RWSs instead of pintle mounts would've helped as well, if it hit the fan.

I think this whole RWS business everyone is going for is a fad. I don't see any benefits in them.

I can see some value to having them on armoured vehicles, to the extent that they allow the crew to defend the vehicle without risking it by unbuttoning hatches, however even in this role they are of very limited value, through the inability to reload them. 100-200 rounds is 1 minute of fire for a sustained fire machinegun in .30 and .50 Cal respectively. Unless there are RWS which can reload themselves which I don't know about, they are a wasted effort.

On a warship, stabilisation would be nice, however I would suggest placing the gun and crew on a stabilised platform. No man behind a computer screen will be able to operate a machinegun to the same effectiveness of a two-three man gun team behind the weapon.

Quote Reply

doggtag 1/11/2008 8:34:57 PM

Problem with manned helos is,

they are expensive when compared to the targets in question (assault boats),

and they may be too much a risk to both crew and the USN's financial resources when we consider that, quite easily, each terror boat could have half a dozen MANPADS easily within arm's reach of any of their crew: how well will an SH-60 fair against >3 SAMs coming at it at once, not to mention any small arms fire (even 7.62mm-class weapons can bring down an unarmored SH-60)..?

A modern-day Asheville or Cyclone would be nice (Streetfighter all over again, huh?)

but we don't need to over-complicate it as was done with the expensive Pegasus-class hydrofoils.

Something more than a Cyclone, but not so overly complex it becomes a reduced-capacity LCS Jr.

Considering what happened in this incident (minimal closing range to US ship by Iranian boats), heaven forbid that the Iranians manage a similar attack, but with armed torpedo boat equivalents: even at 2 torps per boat, from a 1000m away, a spread of torpedoes stands a very good chance of hitting the US vessel: just like in WW2, at short ranges they need minimal guidance other than gyroscopic to be effective...even if the tactic only ever works once, twice, even 3 times, that's still too many for the USN.

The other situation is Katyusha-type rocket salvoes from a similar range (aerial-bursting fragmenting warheads would be quite lethal against the external electronics and sensors, not to mention crew, of minimally-armored surface combatants),

or even Shkval attacks, if Iran can make smaller ones that can be well-hidden on small boats: at 1000-2000m out, there'd be little time for a USN frigate or destroyer to evade even an unguided 200mph torpedo.

Plus there is the final threat: jihadist suicide boats: several high-speed, small boats each carry a few hundred pounds of explosive could make life difficult for a USN crew not used to that kind of stress all at once.

Even worse if the suicide boats are strafing with MG fire.

Just like in WW2, the only solution to close-in masses of FACs and other raiders is going to be numerous free-mounted (pintles) deck guns firing everything from API MG bullets to cannon shells.

The Phalanx CIWS is at best overkill: it should be reserved for ASMs or even aircraft.

But the slow-firing Mk38 25mm Chain Gun (200rpm) and Mk19 40mm grenade launcher (woeful muzzle velocity versus fast boats), even the 25mm OCSW/ACSW,

would most likely prove minimally adequate if only mounted in minimal numbers.

Perhaps what's needed then is a modern equivalent of the 20mm Oerlikon: explosive shells firing at up to 1000rpm, from easily-trained pintle mounts,

fed by somewhat-easily-changed drum magazines (although this could be remedied with the current linear feed chutes from larger magazines more easily replenished).

It needn't necessarily be 20mm, although that's compatible with Phalanx, but the USN will be adopting 25mm more in the future, both for Mk38s and to support F-35s,

and 30mm will be coming along more also (Mk46 turret on San Antonios).

The M3P variant of the 12.7mm isn't bad, at 1000rpm+/- (used on defunct Avenger Stinger pedestal on Humvees).

We have to face it: ammo conservation becomes a no-no during saturation attacks, and whatever armaments are proposed need to keep in mind that they should be as quickly reloadable as possible, and the vessels in question need to have fairly large magazine capacities for the various calibers.

As much as I'm a proponent of aimed shots vs automatic fire in the general direction of the target,

against 50+knot maneuvering surface craft that's really the best option (wall of lead).

An alternative option might be the equivalent of a command-guided Claymore rocket,

something like a TOW but with a modified warhead,

either a forward-arc claymore type, or even a massive flechette warhead.

Ideally, a nose-mounted camer would allow to gunner to more precisely fly it right into the terror boat,

but the standard flare/beacon tracking that TOW now uses should suffice (except in rough seas where the the launch ship may be pitching too much for the TOW tracker to keep a positive command link with the missile).

Nix on using Javelin, as we'd ideally want to be able to control our outbound missile to the very last second to guarantee we keep positive track on the raider.

But vs saturation attacks, we'd need multiple launchers. Not a problem, as TOW initially was utilized from a tripod (pintle) launcher that could be installed even onto 4x4 M151 ~~Jeeps~~ Mutts, so a ship mounting would work quite easily, providing we have a clear backblast zone.

An optically-guided 2.75inch rocket could be built, but its warhead cross section would be much smaller, and it would still have backblast issues.

As far as utilizing too big a deck gun that fires too slowly to counter fast raiders,

the 57mm gun, or even a 50mm, with command-guided programmable-detonation shells may prove sufficient (warhead kill power), but should definitely be backed up by smaller-caliber weapons.

(50mm seen here in a previous SP thread, providing the links still work...)

(more 50mm development here ,with a large-but-formidable concept turret on pg 14. The 50mm ammo takes up less volume than the 57mm mounting would consume, so it may be a more ideal system for an improved-Cyclone class ~~FAC~~ Patrol Vessel.

The vulnerabilities of manned helos in contested littoral domains may decide more favorably for multiple FireScout-type UAVs, or even the EagleEye tilt rotor.

It may prove beneficial for a helopad capable to handle an OH-6/Hughes 530-sized small helo, if only for emergency crew extraction and such, but small VTOL/helo UAVs would be a more hull-friendly, and economical, solution than requiring the vessel to be SH-60 compatible.

I'd actually favor USV(remote control armed jetski types), or even UUV (an extended range surveillance-equipped DeepFlight-type vessel with small torps, launched from an internal wetwell) support over UAVs.

Something that could remain semi-submerged just beneath the surface in a perimeter defensive curtain around the surface ship, only to pop up at a moment's notice and thwart the terror boats and raiders without risk to USN personnel.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 1/11/2008 10:20:37 PM

LRAD or ADS would definitely be nice.

The advances in LRAD mean that you could whack one onto a helo. Slave it into the FCS and you extend your reach and layered detection/deterrence/protection way beyond ship delimited tertiary response layers....

Quote Reply

RockyMTNClimber Cowboy solution 1/12/2008 12:33:55 AM

How about cluster munitions on their marinas, barracks, and logistical centers. TLAMs for the leadership.

Or am I under analyzing this shipboard armament thing?

Check Six

Rocky

Quote Reply

Arbalest 1/12/2008 1:51:02 AM

There?s something to be said for a poor man?s A-10 (or AC-130): a strengthened Beech King Air with up-rated engines (1250shp gas turbines) and some ceramic armor plates, mounting the weapons turret (7.62mm minigun +40mmGL) and controls recycled from an AH1, and heap plenty sensors.

Add in maybe a .50 and another .30, firing from the sides, and maybe 4 Stingers, just in case. Unfortunately, this leaves no room for 8 or so small (~100lb) napalm weapons; perhaps in the next version

It seems possible to make retractable pontoons (carbon fiber bottom, inflatable top), that fold up under the engine nacelles and work with the existing landing gear, an option. This, plus a crane (a WW2 feature), makes operation from destroyers and frigates a possibility.

Figuring that such a King Air might still be able to cruise (and pull 3G?s) at 250kt (making it hard to hit), hit 350kt (reasonably fast reaction time to remote threats) and still have a 1000+mile range (reach out and touch many people), this makes an interesting, and possibly very cheap, anti-speedboat weapon, with a long range and endurance.

Quote Reply

doggtag 1/12/2008 12:25:53 PM

How about cluster munitions on their marinas, barracks, and logistical centers. TLAMs for the leadership.

Or am I under analyzing this shipboard armament thing?

Check Six

Rocky

Not at all.
But we need to consider: there would have to be considerable provocation by the iranians (or similar adversary in a similar scenario) for the USN to (pre-emptively?) take out the harboring and support areas from whence the raiders and FACs launched.

I think the discussion is more along the lines that, "they've already launched, and are swarming toward us".

So the appropriate defensive element on our behalf is, "how do we respond to (deter or stop altogether) the raiders and FACs?"

Multiple defensive weapons, guns most likely, will be the close-in defense by choice, as unless they are vertically launched, missiles and rockets have a back blast area that means deck space must be clear of personnel manning weapons and performing surveillance or damage control.

But the flaw of missiles is, radar guided variants may be hard-pressed to stay locked onto such small maneuvering vessels that, quite possibly, are at least in part composed of radar-unfriendly fiberglass and other composites, possibly even wood.

IR-guided weapons may have difficulty maintaining a lock also, unless approaching from a high angle so as to more easily discern the target vessel's actual thermal signature against the sun glinting off the water's surface.

So in my opinion, teleguided weapons, ideally under direct human control, have a better almost-guaranteed chance of hitting small threats.

Guns, you can just walk their projectiles into the target, which gets even better if we get to include command-guided shells into the picture.

To me, an SH-60 with Penguin ASMs trying to attack such small FACs is considerable overkill: a roughly 130kg warhead going after a vessel that, most likely, could be dispatched qwuite thoroughly by a 10kg warhead from a Hellfire. Problem is, how well will the Penguin's seeker stay locked onto the raider?

Here, a teleguided Hellfire would be ideal.

But there's still the issue that manned LAMPS-type naval helos are not as survivable to multiple MANPADS shots and small arms fire as are the more armored land battlefield attack helos. So in such a case, a smaller profile (minimal cross section) UAV would be a better littoral aerial launch platform than a full-fledged manned helo.

Quote Reply

YelliChink 1/12/2008 12:30:47 PM

Only small boats?

Station some LPH/LHA big guys in the region as Cobra launch platforms.

Mmmm... Food for cobras, YUMMO!

Quote Reply

Herald12345 For a bogjammer........... 1/12/2008 12:39:43 PM

Mister Oerlikon or some other suitable auto-cannon with an optical tracker assist is sufficient.

For something like a 30 meter P/G boat you might need a 57 mount.

Herald

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

	News As History - December 1, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us