Iranian small boats challenge US Navy

[NeilChapman]

Just one non-lethal idea on how to discourage Iranian small boats.

Start at 2:35 mark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgWlm5zrY4w

Perhaps a larger version for a recoilless rifle or a 5" gun.

Any other ideas?

 

[sferrin]

One of these:

 

[Orionblamblam]

Let me sing you the song of my people:

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTT

 

[NeilChapman]

Great ideas!

A2/AD takes on many forms. Missiles are not the only 'denial' mechanism, harassment leading to lethal force is likely what the IRGC is encouraging. Imagine a swarm of fishing boats approaching an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in the South China Sea from all directions simultaneously. A commanders only option cannot be 50 cal, 5' guns, missiles or the phalanx system. Regardless of the 'intent', when someone is killed the International pressure is likely to be against the US.

I perceive a problem in that the USN ships, and more importantly, their commanders and crew have no non-lethal strategy to discourage bad actors from approaching. It is difficult with small ships but will be more complicated with larger fishing boats. Iran's small IRGC boats, Chinese fishing boats and whatever the Russians come up with will continue to harass USN ships and encounters will likely increase and escalate. Hopefully the response of the USN will be multi-faceted. It will definitely need to include the possibility of being surrounded and approached by a swarm of state and non-state actors. Perhaps they would consider including the following.

1. Non-lethal response that discourages small numbers of sea threats at 500-1000 yards. This is the problem we've seen with the IRGC boats. Something like a flexible baton or bean bag round for 5" guns.

2. Small, accurate round to eliminate drones at 500-1000 yards.

3. Non-lethal response that discourages air and sea threats out to out to 3000 yards. Perhaps a solution for the swarm of fishing boats and small drones launched. This might be engaged by something like a phalanx-type system loaded with paint balls.

4. Boarding, search and seizure.

5. Lastly, make it known ahead of time that US response to bad behavior at sea may include all the above and other actions to be determined.

Watching the rise in this threat is disturbing. Leaving commanders 'twisting in the wind' without non-lethal alternatives would be a failure of leadership and very disappointing.

I'd be interested to know how the Navy is planning to deal with these changes in behavior.

 

[sferrin]

Great ideas!

A2/AD takes on many forms. Missiles are not the only 'denial' mechanism, harassment leading to lethal force is likely what the IRGC is encouraging. Imagine a swarm of fishing boats approaching an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in the South China Sea from all directions simultaneously. A commanders only option cannot be 50 cal, 5' guns, missiles or the phalanx system. Regardless of the 'intent', when someone is killed the International pressure is likely to be against the US.

If another country acts in a threatening manner the US (or anybody else) has the right to defend themselves. That a country thinks they should have the ability to surround another country's warship without get shot is insane. Any response to "international pressure" in such a case should include a thousand-foot tall middle finger. "Let's wait until there are 30 "fishing boats" within a hundred yards of us, and shooting" before responding is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Orionblamblam]

"Let's wait until there are 30 "fishing boats" within a hundred yards of us, and shooting" before responding is a recipe for disaster.

"Don't shoot first" is great for Captain Picard because the Enterprise's deflector shields were almost always capable of taking anything thrown at 'em. But US Naval vessel don't have those. The closest the US Navy has to deflector shields are ranged weapons.

Every US Navy Captain should be shown a slideshow of the USS Cole before every deployment.

 

[Rickshaw]

What a shame that USS Cole was attacked by a (nominal) Ally of the US at the time...

 

[TomS]

What a shame that USS Cole was attacked by a (nominal) Ally of the US at the time...

In what world was Al Qaeda a nominal US ally?

Cole was attacked in Yemen, but not by Yemen. Big difference.

 

[NeilChapman]

Great ideas!

A2/AD takes on many forms. Missiles are not the only 'denial' mechanism, harassment leading to lethal force is likely what the IRGC is encouraging. Imagine a swarm of fishing boats approaching an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in the South China Sea from all directions simultaneously. A commanders only option cannot be 50 cal, 5' guns, missiles or the phalanx system. Regardless of the 'intent', when someone is killed the International pressure is likely to be against the US.

If another country acts in a threatening manner the US (or anybody else) has the right to defend themselves. That a country thinks they should have the ability to surround another country's warship without get shot is insane. Any response to "international pressure" in such a case should include a thousand-foot tall middle finger. "Let's wait until there are 30 "fishing boats" within a hundred yards of us, and shooting" before responding is a recipe for disaster.

USN commanders have the duty to eliminate any impending lethal threat any distance from their ships - whether 1000 yds or 100 nmi. The last thing the world needs is for the USN to feel they cannot defend themselves. At the same time, that particular commander will be held responsible for their decisions. This is why I expect leadership to give commanders alternative defensive measures as we see these A2/AD tactics employed. At the same time, live fire solutions should be locked and loaded before any non-lethal alternative is used.

I have no problem with commanders eliminating any threat at any distance that is stupid enough to tangle with military vessels. Invariably, it will be claimed that the ship contained four French nuns and their students out for a fishing exhibition so there are always political ramifications.

My suggestion for a solution out to 3000 yards was for
1. deterring the surrounding of ships by what would be portrayed as non-combatant vessels
2. you cannot have non-lethal solutions designed only to engage close-in threats for exactly the reason you state.
3. It shouldn't be a technological challenge to accomplish
4. If it looks as though '30 fishing boats' are not heeding your radio warnings and you can spray them with 20mm paint balls at 2 mi then I feel confident you'll get their attention.
5. If they don't disengage at 1.5 mi out then you have time to eliminate them.

 

[moonbeamsts]

Isn't there nonlethal sound gunand the microwave gun-it makes you fell if your kin's on fire. The Lrad and ADas sholud be onboard.

 

[NeilChapman]

Isn't there nonlethal sound gunand the microwave gun-it makes you fell if your kin's on fire. The Lrad and ADas sholud be onboard.

That's a good idea. Didn't think of that. I wonder what range is possible.

Of course, on all these ideas one might expect 'turnabout'.

 

[moonbeamsts]

Here is published range from DOD websites. Looks to be out 3000 meters on the Lrad.1000 meters on the ADS