What's new

Iran Develops Ballistic Missiles to Hit Moving Naval Targets

Better option would be to use stealth drones like Rq 170 class patrolling suspected areas with a radar-ir sensor to detect and track the ships. Another option is using underwater gliders which are slow but are hard to be detected and have pretty long ranges like several 1000s kms. They can act as sensors to detect and track ships continiously to guide the missile attack.

The AN/SPY-1D(V) alone can track golf ball-sized targets at ranges in excess of 165 KM.
For perspective: golf ball-size metallic sphere RCS = 0.0025 m^2 at 3.3 GHz.

American warships such Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers are equipped with an assortment of powerful sensor systems which are known to work together to create a fused picture of the threat environment:

DDG106eleplus9-2.jpg


These ships can also take cues from each other and other assets to create a better picture of threat environment (the CEC factor).



Iranian Shahed class UAVs are decent for regional conflicts but they will be detected and taken out by the USN grid in wartime situation. This is something that Americans will never state in the open until it happens.

For underwater gliders:

hull_mounted_sonar_22_July_2021.60f8321ad4363.png


"The AN/SQQ-89A(V)15 is an undersea combat system that uses active and passive sonar to enable Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers to search for, detect, classify, localize, and track underwater contacts; and to attack or avoid enemy submarines, floating, tethered, or bottom-attacked mines, and torpedoes. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy and Australia."


Escalation options can vary depending on the attack and threat level. It is possible to disable the carrier by damaging the runway with a cluster munition warhead instead of taking out huge chunk of it with the personnel inside which would be a higher escalatory response. Ashbm generally has active radar seeker. It can also be used in anti radar mode(coupled with radar mode as it is eady to use decoys) to target aegis seekers again with cluster ammunition to disable its sensors. The response can change with the planned escalation level you dont need to go all in with full destructive option but if it is required it can be the option as well.

If it reach the ship.
 
The AN/SPY-1D(V) alone can track golf ball-sized targets at ranges in excess of 165 KM.
For perspective: golf ball-size metallic sphere RCS = 0.0025 m^2 at 3.3 GHz.

American warships such Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers are equipped with an assortment of powerful sensor systems which are known to work together to create a fused picture of the threat environment:

DDG106eleplus9-2.jpg


These ships can also take cues from each other and other assets to create a better picture of threat environment (the CEC factor).



Iranian Shahed class UAVs are decent for regional conflicts but they will be detected and taken out by the USN grid in wartime situation. This is something that Americans will never state in the open until it happens.

For underwater gliders:

hull_mounted_sonar_22_July_2021.60f8321ad4363.png


"The AN/SQQ-89A(V)15 is an undersea combat system that uses active and passive sonar to enable Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers to search for, detect, classify, localize, and track underwater contacts; and to attack or avoid enemy submarines, floating, tethered, or bottom-attacked mines, and torpedoes. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy and Australia."




If it reach the ship.
If Shaheed 171 191 class has about golf ball size rcs and if it can detect aegis carriers and similar large rcs targets like about 200km then it can maintain that distance without getting closer and queue the bms for the targets. It does not need to get close to the ships. But installing a radar sensor with that power for that range inside the body of these drones would be difficult. An external stealth shape radar+ir sensor pod attached under the belly of shaheed 191 series can be an option similar to external stealthy enclosed weapons bay concept. Also passive elint-sigint sensors are another option which are smaller and can be put inside the body of uav to locate powerful aegis radars from several 100kms.

Torpedo defense of destroyers would be effective for detecting underwater gliders from close ranges but from longer ranges passive sonar would detect the ships first as the large ships are noisy and uw gliders have no engine unlike torpedoes. They use bouyancy of water to travel such high distances although somewhat slower. I think solar recharge etc can even increase this range further. A swarm of them can be somewhat effective. Also the shape can be designed like wing body to reflect the destroyers ships sonar waves away like the one below.


Bmd of aegis is another issue but no matter how effective it is there is high risk of not intercepting all of the missiles+decoys. Exoatmosheric hit has much smaller time envelope than icbms and endo atmospheric hit is a different game altogether.
 
Last edited:
If Shaheed 171 191 class has about golf ball size rcs and if it can detect aegis carriers and similar large rcs targets like about 200km then it can maintain that distance without getting closer and queue the bms for the targets. It does not need to get close to the ships. But installing a radar sensor with that power for that range inside the body of these drones would be difficult. An external stealth shape radar+ir sensor pod attached under the belly of shaheed 191 series can be an option similar to external stealthy enclosed weapons bay concept. Also passive elint-sigint sensors are another option which are smaller and can be put inside the body of uav to locate powerful aegis radars from several 100kms.

Torpedo defense of destroyers would be effective for detecting underwater gliders from close ranges but from longer ranges passive sonar would detect the ships first as the large ships are noisy and uw gliders have no engine unlike torpedoes. They use bouyancy of water to travel such high distances although somewhat slower. I think solar recharge etc can even increase this range further. A swarm of them can be somewhat effective. Also the shape can be designed like wing body to reflect the destroyers ships sonar waves away like the one below.


Bmd of aegis is another issue but no matter how effective it is there is high risk of not intercepting all of the missiles+decoys. Exoatmosheric hit has much smaller time envelope than icbms and endo atmospheric hit is a different game altogether.
The UAV/AUV would not have to do all the „guidance work“ since the RV of the ASBM has its own terminal guidance system (i.e. ARH seeker). A drone or underwater glider would likely not have to get so close to the target that it gets intercepted before having fulfilled its purpose. The general location of the CBG should suffice for the ASBM to reach an area close enough to the target. At high altitude, covering a large area, the RV would then activate its own ARH seeker to detect and home onto the target.
 
If Shaheed 171 191 class has about golf ball size rcs and if it can detect aegis carriers and similar large rcs targets like about 200km then it can maintain that distance without getting closer and queue the bms for the targets. It does not need to get close to the ships. But installing a radar sensor with that power for that range inside the body of these drones would be difficult. An external stealth shape radar+ir sensor pod attached under the belly of shaheed 191 series can be an option similar to external stealthy enclosed weapons bay concept. Also passive elint-sigint sensors are another option which are smaller and can be put inside the body of uav to locate powerful aegis radars from several 100kms.

Nothing suggest that any Shahed series UAV has an RCS that small.

The S-191 is powered by a micro turbojet engine which Iranian media claim is capable of pushing the UAV up to 300 km/h at 25000 ft, with an endurance of 4.5 hours and a combat radius of 450 km. The UAV can mount an EO/IR (Electro-Optical/InfraRed) turret under the nose that however seemed to miss in the photos from the exercise (but a closer look still shows a panel for mounting the turret). According to the Iranian media, the drone can also carry a Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) turret instead of the EO/IR turret. It is interesting to note that both turrets have a heat sink that protrudes from the upper part of the fuselage, just in front of the engine’s air intake.

Instead of using a normal landing gear, the S-191 uses two retractable skids, but it also has a parachute to be used when a runway is not available. The takeoff is performed by using a rail installed in the back of a pickup truck, which then speed up on a runway until the UAV lifts off. Some earlier versions of the S-191 missed the two elevated fairings on the sides of the air intake.

The weapons are installed in two internal bays (which sometimes lack their doors, remaining open for the entire flight and thus nullifying the drone’s claimed “stealthiness”), each capable of holding a Sadid-342 guided glide bomb with fragmentation warhead, which is also extremely similar to the Sadid-1 anti-tank missile, so much so that often is difficult to discern one from the other in the photos (the same difficulties are also valid when identifying the S-171 and S-191 UAVs, with the only external differences being the size and the different landing gear). According to some analysts, the weapon could use “man in the loop” guidance.



Come on now.

Only US, and to lesser extent, China can develop can aircraft with such low RCS in the present.

Shahed 191 is equipped with a radar system? What are its specifications?

Also, do your understand benefits of CEC?

l8R51bA.png


Sorry bro, I do not see your theory working. It fails on 3 counts.

1. Unknown RCS
2. Unknown radar system
3. USN CEC

Case closed.

Torpedo defense of destroyers would be effective for detecting underwater gliders from close ranges but from longer ranges passive sonar would detect the ships first as the large ships are noisy and uw gliders have no engine unlike torpedoes. They use bouyancy of water to travel such high distances although somewhat slower. I think solar recharge etc can even increase this range further. A swarm of them can be somewhat effective. Also the shape can be designed like wing body to reflect the destroyers ships sonar waves away like the one below.


content_dam_mae_online_articles_2014_05_mfta_20_may_2014.png



"The TB-37U MFTA
is an active and passive sonar. It can remain silent and simply listen for the sounds of enemy submarines, or it can ping active to bounce sound off the hulls of submarines in the area."


"The AN/SQR-19B(V)1 is a passive sonar array towed about a mile behind the destroyer, isolating it from the ship’s own noise and thus improving performance. It is essentially a cable with numerous microphones attached, which allows for tracking and detection of any noise-generating contact at considerable range."


"The Sonar Set AN/SQS-53C is a computer-controlled surface-ship sonar that has both active and passive operating capabilities providing precise information for ASW weapons control and guidance. The AN/SQS-53C is designed to perform direct path ASW search, detection, localization, and tracking from a hull mounted transducer array. The AN/SQS-53C retains the transducer assembly from either the AN/SQS-53A or 53B. The AN/SQS-53C provides greater range and detection capability with only half of the electronics footprint and less weight than earlier versions. The AN/SQS-53C is equipped with high source level, fully stabilized beams, and wide convergence zone annuli coupled with computer-aided detection and automatic contact management. Implemented in standard electronic modules, the AN/SQS-53C is an all digital system with stable performance, on-line reconfiguration in the event of a component failure, and performance monitoring/fault location software to quickly isolate failures. The AN/SQS-53C provides apparent range, bearing, and true bearing of contacts when employing active sonar and provides true bearing of contacts detected by passive means."

UUV counter is considered:

"Detecting and tracking the presence of a UUV through passive sonar in a realistic environment was accomplished through energy detection thresholding, spectral filtering, and beamforming."


US does its homework, always.

Bmd of aegis is another issue but no matter how effective it is there is high risk of not intercepting all of the missiles+decoys. Exoatmosheric hit has much smaller time envelope than icbms and endo atmospheric hit is a different game altogether.

You are assuming a scenario in which an aircraft carrier is detected and stationary for an entire volley of ASBM to reach it. This is unlikely unless it is stationed very close to Iran which is unlikely as well in wartime situation.

USN freedom of navigation movements do not reflect its wartime ship deployment tactics.
 
Nothing suggest that any Shahed series UAV has an RCS that small.

The S-191 is powered by a micro turbojet engine which Iranian media claim is capable of pushing the UAV up to 300 km/h at 25000 ft, with an endurance of 4.5 hours and a combat radius of 450 km. The UAV can mount an EO/IR (Electro-Optical/InfraRed) turret under the nose that however seemed to miss in the photos from the exercise (but a closer look still shows a panel for mounting the turret). According to the Iranian media, the drone can also carry a Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) turret instead of the EO/IR turret. It is interesting to note that both turrets have a heat sink that protrudes from the upper part of the fuselage, just in front of the engine’s air intake.

Instead of using a normal landing gear, the S-191 uses two retractable skids, but it also has a parachute to be used when a runway is not available. The takeoff is performed by using a rail installed in the back of a pickup truck, which then speed up on a runway until the UAV lifts off. Some earlier versions of the S-191 missed the two elevated fairings on the sides of the air intake.

The weapons are installed in two internal bays (which sometimes lack their doors, remaining open for the entire flight and thus nullifying the drone’s claimed “stealthiness”), each capable of holding a Sadid-342 guided glide bomb with fragmentation warhead, which is also extremely similar to the Sadid-1 anti-tank missile, so much so that often is difficult to discern one from the other in the photos (the same difficulties are also valid when identifying the S-171 and S-191 UAVs, with the only external differences being the size and the different landing gear). According to some analysts, the weapon could use “man in the loop” guidance.



Come on now.

Only US, and to lesser extent, China can develop can aircraft with such low RCS in the present.

Shahed 191 is equipped with a radar system? What are its specifications?

Also, do your understand benefits of CEC?

l8R51bA.png


Sorry bro, I do not see your theory working. It fails on 3 counts.

1. Unknown RCS
2. Unknown radar system
3. USN CEC

Case closed.



content_dam_mae_online_articles_2014_05_mfta_20_may_2014.png



"The TB-37U MFTA is an active and passive sonar. It can remain silent and simply listen for the sounds of enemy submarines, or it can ping active to bounce sound off the hulls of submarines in the area."


"The AN/SQR-19B(V)1 is a passive sonar array towed about a mile behind the destroyer, isolating it from the ship’s own noise and thus improving performance. It is essentially a cable with numerous microphones attached, which allows for tracking and detection of any noise-generating contact at considerable range."


"The Sonar Set AN/SQS-53C is a computer-controlled surface-ship sonar that has both active and passive operating capabilities providing precise information for ASW weapons control and guidance. The AN/SQS-53C is designed to perform direct path ASW search, detection, localization, and tracking from a hull mounted transducer array. The AN/SQS-53C retains the transducer assembly from either the AN/SQS-53A or 53B. The AN/SQS-53C provides greater range and detection capability with only half of the electronics footprint and less weight than earlier versions. The AN/SQS-53C is equipped with high source level, fully stabilized beams, and wide convergence zone annuli coupled with computer-aided detection and automatic contact management. Implemented in standard electronic modules, the AN/SQS-53C is an all digital system with stable performance, on-line reconfiguration in the event of a component failure, and performance monitoring/fault location software to quickly isolate failures. The AN/SQS-53C provides apparent range, bearing, and true bearing of contacts when employing active sonar and provides true bearing of contacts detected by passive means."

UUV counter is considered:

"Detecting and tracking the presence of a UUV through passive sonar in a realistic environment was accomplished through energy detection thresholding, spectral filtering, and beamforming."


US does its homework, always.



You are assuming a scenario in which an aircraft carrier is detected and stationary for an entire volley of ASBM to reach it. This is unlikely unless it is stationed very close to Iran which is unlikely as well in wartime situation.

USN freedom of navigation movements do not reflect its wartime ship deployment tactics.
In its current condition I agree it has some flaws like range is not enough. But it doesnt mean that these problems cant be overcome in future variants. The survaillance version needs to have a better engine be more stealthy with no weapons bays but more fuel tanks inside a larger body to increase its range. An aesa radar can be developed maybe jointly with China who also plans similar tactics. Cec is a planning issue awacs and other ships are not stealthy at all so a route can be planned away from them(route can be changed as they are detected as well) and the opposing ships awacs need to be always closer than the main target to the ground stations making them more vulnurable. Only if stealth planes are used Cec would be more problematic but then it would require continious air survaillance closer to the shore risking the opposing planes. I disagree with giving up on stealth uavs or uuvs because they have a future and many nations are already developing them and especially those older ships and carriers with huge rcs cannot be hidden easily no matter the Usa military budget. It depends on who detects first and we cant argue without valid data about it as both sides have classifiied means to detect the other. Same goes for uuv detection. It depends on the geometry and silence of the uuv and who detects first. They seem to have a future unless Us comes up with much more stealthier and much less noisy ships instead of those older modernised ships. Also the costs of uavs and uuvs are always lower than the ships giving them quantitative advantage.
 
Last edited:
Do you think that US fleet is composed of defense barges?

There is a lot more to targeting moving ships in an open oceanic environment then controlled experiments seem to show.

American warships such as destroyers and cruisers are stacked with an assortment of rapid-firing hard-kill, soft-kill, and EW solutions and an array of sophisticated sensor systems that allow detection and tracking of various types of threats to engage and defeat them in timely fashion. These are very expensive and capable warships shaped by decades of operational experience in open seas and in response to perceived threats emanating from around the world.

If a bunch of third world countries could neuter kinetic options of a superpower, the world would have been a different place.

All I see in this thread is Cold War era stuff getting new paint jobs for boasting in Public domains. Just check those older American and Soviet rocket manuals.

Conventional war is complex business. It isn't remotely simple like a game where you see an object and simply click on it to kill it.
I’m still trying to understand the nuclear option with Israel/Palestine. I think a lot of users here forget hypothetically if Iran and Israel ever get into a nuclear war, which I highly doubt because no one wants that, millions of Muslims and many holy sites would be destroyed with Israel/Palestine not being habitable for many years. Point is no one wins in a nuclear war, great movie to watch War Games with Matthew Broderick and you will understand no one wins with the nuclear option millions of Iranians die as well .
 
Last edited:
Yes,
Big example is Japan was not ready to end the war,
Yes, Drop Bombs, War Ended.

Will you fight with Pistols, Rifles if Rvial country is nuking you?
If you have nukes, Highly chances War will not start.

Russia is attacking on Ukraine, but not France, or UK
If they were not NATO member, Russia will not attack.

US attacked N. Korea in Past, when they get NUKES, US does not dare to attack on N. Korea.
you are wrong on that , japan was ready to surrender since 6 month before the bombs . USA just was not ready to end it until their tested their bomb on civilians
 
In its current condition I agree it has some flaws like range is not enough. But it doesnt mean that these problems cant be overcome in future variants. The survaillance version needs to have a better engine be more stealthy with no weapons bays but more fuel tanks inside a larger body to increase its range. An aesa radar can be developed maybe jointly with China who also plans similar tactics.

Do you think that RCS of an aircraft can be reduced to 0.0025 m^2 mark in S band easily? This is F-35 level stealth, bro. This is a benchmark that China could not achieve with its J-20 design and is working on new designs to see if any clicks, and Chinese R&D capability is on another level in comparison to Iran.

What were you thinking?

Developing a true VLO aircraft is one of the most challenging and expensive undertakings for any country even with a treasure trove of information on hand. Relevant tooling infrastructure needs to be built beforehand. Iran has an RQ-170 variant in its possession since 2011, but it has not managed to produce a UAV that can match its performance thus far - 11 years later in the present. US has produced not only more advanced RQ-170 variants in time, but much more advanced and stealthy aircraft in comparison. Iran is not even remotely close to developing a true VLO aircraft, not anytime soon.

Let's not work with theoretical that are far off for Iran in this discussion.

Cec is a planning issue awacs and other ships are not stealthy at all so a route can be planned away from them(route can be changed as they are detected as well) and the opposing ships awacs need to be always closer than the main target to the ground stations making them more vulnurable. Only if stealth planes are used Cec would be more problematic but then it would require continious air survaillance closer to the shore risking the opposing planes. I disagree with giving up on stealth uavs or uuvs because they have a future and many nations are already developing them and especially those older ships and carriers with huge rcs cannot be hidden easily no matter the Usa military budget. It depends on who detects first and we cant argue without valid data about it as both sides have classifiied means to detect the other.

You might want to take a look at surveillance apparatus of US for a change, it is a topic in itself. You can expect from US to have mapped Iranian defenses and come up with a suitable conventional war-fighting plan accordingly, this process is repeated from time-to-time to inform and/or update an existing war-fighting plan. Not just for Iran but for any country that is deemed hostile to American interests.

Based on historical track record of American conventional war-fighting applications, US-led forces will open up on Iranian defenses with a massive barrage of Tomahawk class TLAM (Block IV and later) in conjunction with B-2A bombers in [dark conditions] from substantial distances, to degrade Iran's conventional war-fighting capacity. Let's take a look at some facts and figures in this respect.

B-2A factor

B-2A can come from Diego Garcia, and even from US mainland, range is not an issue for this aircraft. More importantly, its stealthy characteristics are unmatched to this day.


Geometric shaping of B-2A is a nearly perfect radar waves deflecting mechanism and VLO in true sense of the word because even the fuselage and tail fins are eliminated altogether. B-2A also features substantial amount of radar waves absorbing materials within the frame. Even the engines are completely buried within the frame and exhaust systems are located on the top. Sheer size of the aircraft provided sufficient room to accommodate incredible stealthy characteristics. B-2A ticks all the boxes of frustrating detection possibilities with a radar system (or even a network of radar systems) across a number of bands including VHF because its returns are weak even in the Mie or Rayleigh region where resonance effects are more pronounced. The upcoming B-21 Raider expands on this incredible design yet further, and to what extent would be an understatement.

----

Lessons from Yugoslavia

Yugoslavia is mentioned because it was up against a significant onslaught of American stealthy combat aircraft in Operation Allied Force, and it is the only country in the world to have shot down a stealthy combat aircraft in a war and its technologies and tactics are/were instructive in this regard.

F-117-shot-down-how.png

Source: Clean Bombs and Dirty Wars: Air Power in Kosovo and Libya

Soviet P-18 Spoon Rest (or Russian 1RL131 Terek) operates in the VHF band and its Chinese derivative is called YLC-8A. Yugoslavians networked P-18 Spoon Rest with additional Russian-origin radar systems operating across I/D/G/H/VHF bands as a collective to create an IMAD setup more complex than in the 2nd photo shared by you.

But

During Allied Force, the air war over Serbia, six B-2s conducted 45 sorties out of 9,211 Air Force fighter and bomber sorties in the entire war—less than a half of one percent—but they struck 33 percent of the targets in the first eight weeks of combat.

Yugoslavian air defenses were modeled to counter stealthy aircraft in view of Operation Desert Storm but B-2A degraded them to the point of being utterly useless - Yugoslavian air defenses were able to shoot down only 2 aircraft in the entire war (F-117 = 1; F-16 = 1). B-2A delivered significant blows to Yugoslavian air defenses in opening phase of the war and made it much safer for the other aircraft to operate over the country by extension.

How Yugoslavian IMAD setups fared against different types of stealthy combat aircraft in real-time conditions? Let us see.

F-117 (Sortie – Engaged – Loss) ratio over Yugoslavia in 1999 = 743 – 2 – 1

F-117 = 2nd generation stealthy bomber in American terms with limited sensor systems and without EW capabilities

B-2A (Sortie – Engaged – Loss) ratio over Yugoslavia in 1999 = 49 – 0 – 0

B-2A = 4th generation stealthy bomber in American terms with significant sensor systems and EW capabilities

B-2A was never detected and completed every sortie on its own merits.

B-2A is capable of penetrating sophisticated A2/AD arrangements, it produces following effect on an IMAD setup while passing through:

Conventional-vs-Stealth.png

Source: The Radar Game: Understanding Stealth and Aircraft Survivability.

As you can see, not all stealthy combat aircraft are created equal.

B-2A cost 2 billion USD per piece.

----

Iran has developed deeply buried military complexes, but these facilities also have opening points such as silos, exhaust vents, and tunnels.


Look at the accuracy of GBU-57 bomb (7:18 - 7:50), first GBU-57 opens up the ground made up of concrete all the way down to a deeply buried target. The second GBU-57 follows through the opened pathway and destroys whatever is left inside.

Nothing built on land is beyond the reach and capacity of American war-machine to exploit if necessary.

USN numbers game

On any given day, up to (100 - 110) ships of the USN are found to be patrolling the oceans around the world. A total of 105 ships were active around the world as on 22-12-22 for instance; 50 were involved in various tasks while 55 were on patrol.

In case of hostilities with Iran, most of the active ships might be directed to the conflict zone. Assuming a mix of frigates, destroyers, cruisers, and aircraft carriers, up to 5000 VLS might be onboard and loaded, with Tomahawk Block IV + Block V as 50% of the load-out. USN also has resupply-purpose ships to help refill VLS on as needed basis.

Now add sophisticated submarines to the equation.

US-Navy-Ohio-Class-Submarine-Cutaway-1-scaled.jpg



Ohio class submarine is nuclear-powered and can arrive in any region without warning. There is no need for this submarine class to operate near Iranian shores either, it can unleash its firepower on potential targets from hundreds of KM away as well.

---

Tomahawk class TLAM have managed to breach any type of threat environment where they were used including in Syria where Russians were boasting about protecting high value Syrian infrastructure with their assets.


Operational range = 2400 KM

Tomahawk Block IV can mask itself very well in ground clutter, is found to be very difficult to jam (rare admission from Russians in here), and can be programmed to bypass threat zones in its pathway to reach desired target. It can also be instructed to change course or to loiter for a while. The window of opportunity to detect and intercept this cruise missile becomes very small, and a volley is virtually impossible to stop in any case.

The image below shows older Block III capability:

TomahawkBlockIIIKillChain.png


Russians hinted about developing the capability to jam satnav receiver but Americans solved this problem in Block V:

With the modification Block V, Tomahawk has increased capabilities, which integrate new seeker, hitting the surface targets, more than 1000 miles range, greater penetrating power, less susceptible to jamming of its seeker and communication and navigation striking the target under the GPS taken down conditions.

---

Tomahawk class TLAM is but a part of strike package that USN can bring on the table. Want me to expand on other options as well?

Speaking of survivability of USN in near-shore environments:


Incident 1: Two sea-skimming cruise missiles failed to engage USS Mason / defeated
Incident 2: One sea-skimming cruise missile failed to engage USS Mason / defeated
Incident 3: Five sea-skimming cruise missiles failed to engage USS Mason / defeated

An Arleigh Burke class destroyer proved its mettle in a near-shore high threat environment back in 2016 when other ships were getting knocked out in same waters. Sea-skimming cruise missiles can approach a ship without much warning in advance and the window of opportunity to intercept them is very small in a near-shore high threat environment. Aegis Combat System was the key factor in neutralizing this type of threat in a near-shore high threat environment.

The assumption that USN cannot operate in a near-shore high threat environment is UTTERLY MISPLACED. American naval commanders have asserted that USN has the capability to operate in Chinese First Island chain environment in "wartime conditions," let alone in other environments.

American war-machine is designed to fight and defeat near-peer adversaries like Russian and China in a conventional war, let alone regional powers like Iran and Pakistan. If US really wants to destroy and/or eliminate a country in a war, it can do this in a matter of minutes [assuming all manner of kinetic options are brought to the table and utilized to do the needful]. All the effort to rebooting political system of a country like in the case of Iraq and attempts to rebuild a backward country like in the case of Afghanistan are "completely unnecessary." Understand this much.

Same goes for uuv detection. It depends on the geometry and silence of the uuv and who detects first. They seem to have a future unless Us comes up with much more stealthier and much less noisy ships instead of those older modernised ships. Also the costs of uavs and uuvs are always lower than the ships giving them quantitative advantage.

Any country will equip itself with any type of weapon system that can help it fight a war "in theory." This does not prove anything vis-à-vis US in a conventional warfare scenario.

For perspective, Pakistan Army has fielded the type of MBTs that are suitable for fighting Indian MBTs. However, Pakistani MBTs cannot survive in Ukrainian threat environment.

----

I have utmost respect for Iranian scientific achievements.
I recognize Iran as a capable regional power and player.
I recognize Iranian battlefield achievements in its war with Iraq.
I recognize Iran's role in defeating ISIL movement in the Middle East proper.

However, I don't buy rhetoric of (any) country vis-à-vis US in conventional war-fighting aspects unless it really has what it takes to back it up in this regime. Not even in the case of China. This rhetoric stem from the need to create deterrence effect from political circles of any country.

But I am a realist.

I emphasize use of common sense in discussions for a change.
 
Back
Top Bottom