Iran Super Thread- Merged

[Lumber]

If a ship wants to surrender itself to a neutral nation, I suppose that is up to the ship's captain. What would be the RCN policy on giving away a Canadian Frigate for fear of being engaged in combat?

Imagine an HMCS Regina is alongside Suva, Fiji on its way to participate in Op HORIZON. While she is there, the US attacked Canada. Within 2 days we've been decimated. Entire Air force destroyed while still in its hangars/on the tarmac. Ships blown apart while alongside. Key C2 control nodes flattened. And, there's a CSG sitting off the coasts of both Halifax and Victoria. Does that ship run home to Canada to fight the good fight, knowing full well that they'll be sunk well before they can get in range of any USN units?

The earlier noise in this thread, that a warship should be treated as hors de combat because it happens to be far away home ports, is absurd and not required by LOAC. Neither the Battle of the Falkland Islands nor the Battle of the River Plate would have happened if some special maritime LOAC confined war to agreed upon sandboxes. A combatant is a combatant, and is liable to be engaged by an enemy combatant.

I did not say that the sinking of the Dena was illegal in any way shape or form. She was a valid military target as far as I'm concerned. I'm just saying that it was not necessary to sink her. She could have been hailed by a P8 and told to go back to Milan or she'd be sunk. They could have put a single Harpoon or NSM into her instead, which would have basically made her combat ineffective, but not sunk her and not killed so many sailors.

I suppose there is room to argue the legality of the whole US operation against Iran, but lets stop pretending the lives of military sailors are more precious than infantry who don't get the bat of an eye when killed in triple digit quantities.

I would actually make the same argument for soldiers. Imagine that IRAN had a company of soldier in Libya on a advisory/training mission. If the US decided to bomb their camp to oblivion, I'd also be saying "was this really necessary?".

 

[Remius]

U.S. House speaker says country ‘not at war,’ ‘mission nearly accomplished.’ Follow for live updates.

Iran launched a new wave of counterattacks Thursday toward Israel and American bases across the Middle East, as Prime Minister Mark Carney vowed to stand with its allies and didn’t rule out Canadian military involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran.

www.ctvnews.ca

I wonder what that timeline is.

 

[brihard]

U.S. House speaker says country ‘not at war,’ ‘mission nearly accomplished.’ Follow for live updates.

Iran launched a new wave of counterattacks Thursday toward Israel and American bases across the Middle East, as Prime Minister Mark Carney vowed to stand with its allies and didn’t rule out Canadian military involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran.

www.ctvnews.ca

I wonder what that timeline is.

Johnson has never been at risk of being impressive, but the extremely quotable “nearly mission accomplished” will haunt him. If he had any self awareness his internal response should have been like what a Trudeau showed in the seconds after “speaking moistly”.

 

[McG]

Imagine an HMCS Regina is alongside Suva, Fiji on its way to participate in Op HORIZON. While she is there, the US attacked Canada. Within 2 days we've been decimated. Entire Air force destroyed while still in its hangars/on the tarmac. Ships blown apart while alongside. Key C2 control nodes flattened. And, there's a CSG sitting off the coasts of both Halifax and Victoria. Does that ship run home to Canada to fight the good fight, knowing full well that they'll be sunk well before they can get in range of any USN units?

Yes, thank you. You have successfully defended the point that I conceded, though in the process side-stepping the question about what the official RCN position would be on such action.

I would actually make the same argument for soldiers. Imagine that IRAN had a company of soldier in Libya on a advisory/training mission. If the US decided to bomb their camp to oblivion, I'd also be saying "was this really necessary?".

Unlike your imaginary land locked company, the Dena had the means integral to itself to manoeuvre and engage US forces in the Indian Ocean & Arabian Sea. It was roughly halfway between Iran and Diego Garcia.

I did not say that the sinking of the Dena was illegal in any way shape or form. She was a valid military target as far as I'm concerned. I'm just saying that it was not necessary to sink her. She could have been hailed by a P8 and told to go back to Milan or she'd be sunk. They could have put a single Harpoon or NSM into her instead, which would have basically made her combat ineffective, but not sunk her and not killed so many sailors.

In war you kill enemy combatants to achieve aims ... It is a kill or be killed environment, and surrendering the initiative to be polite will get you killed. Morality is measured in proportionality (and this was proportional) not absolute necessity, because waiting for absolute necessity will get friendly troops killed and lead to battlefield defeats.

If you are a lone submarine exposing yourself to invite a frigate to surrender, you are giving the frigate the opportunity to kill you. The frigate and its crew were combatants of Iran, they were not hors de combat, they had not surrendered to anyone, and they were little more than l,000 miles from Diego Garcia. The frigate was a legal and legitimate target. This kill reduced Iranian combat power both physically and physiologically as other Iranian frigates are now running to get out of the water.

Again, if you want to debate the legality of the war as a whole, go ahead. But this kill was above board within the context of a war.

 

[Lumber]

Yes, thank you. You have successfully defended the point that I conceded, though in the process side-stepping the question about what the official RCN position would be on such action.

My apologies, I must have missed your concession somewhere up thread. This threat is growing fast and it's hard to keep up.

In war you kill enemy combatants to achieve aims ...

Not in Naval warfare you don't. The aim (typically, but not always) is to mission kill enemy platforms, not outright sink them, and the killing of actual sailors in that conduct of that action is not a consideration.

If you are a lone submarine exposing yourself to invite a frigate to surrender, you are giving the frigate the opportunity to kill you. The frigate and its crew were combatants of Iran, they were not hors de combat, they had not surrendered to anyone, and they were little more than l,000 miles from Diego Garcia. The frigate was a legal and legitimate target. This kill reduced Iranian combat power both physically and physiologically as other Iranian frigates are now running to get out of the water.

Yea I wouldn't expect a submarine to expose itself. I wouldn't even expect a submarine to render aide after the fact. But the submarine could of trailed it and reported its PCS, and sunk it if it looked like it was actually going to pose a threat.

 

[NavyShooter]

As a sailor - I feel bad for the crew of that ship. She literally had no chance. No real ASW capability - she carried a pair of triple 324mm ASW Torp launchers, but, seems not to have had any Sonar systems to detect a target.

There was a video that opined that the submarine used a 'non-traditional' style of attack. The sub should have fired from further away (she was close based on the periscope imagery - even if zoomed in, it was still close.) The sub should have fired so that the torp went under the center of the ship, under the keel amidships, rather than astern at the props.

The suggestion made was that there were 2 possible reasons for the torp to have attacked from the stern.

1. Cut the connection wire, and the torp reverted to acoustic homing which would have brought it straight up the stern as was shown.

2. Deliberately targeting the stern because there would be less casualties, and some likelihood of there being survivors.

Of the 2 options, I suspect it was actually option 2 selected.

If the torp had hit amidships, it would have broken the back of the vessel, literally snapping it in half, and she'd have sunk VERY quickly, with very few of the crew surviving.

With the hit astern, yes, there was massive damage aft, but the forward part of the ship, the crew messes, the operations room, the bridge crew, all would have had a chance to survive because the shock and damage was localized aft. There were 32 survivors.

If the torp had hit amidships, I'd have expected far less survivors. Like, maybe 3-5 if they were on the upper decks or something.

Some could argue that this was effectively like clubbing a baby seal....and was a massive overmatch. However. As has been pointed out she was less than 24 hours from potential missile range of Diego Garcia. She was an active combatant warship of the belligerent country, and was certainly a valid target.

I suspect that the sub deliberately targeted the stern to attempt to reduce the casualties. I think they succeeded.

 

[Lumber]

As a sailor - I feel bad for the crew of that ship. She literally had no chance. No real ASW capability - she carried a pair of triple 324mm ASW Torp launchers, but, seems not to have had any Sonar systems to detect a target.

There was a video that opined that the submarine used a 'non-traditional' style of attack. The sub should have fired from further away (she was close based on the periscope imagery - even if zoomed in, it was still close.) The sub should have fired so that the torp went under the center of the ship, under the keel amidships, rather than astern at the props.

The suggestion made was that there were 2 possible reasons for the torp to have attacked from the stern.

1. Cut the connection wire, and the torp reverted to acoustic homing which would have brought it straight up the stern as was shown.

2. Deliberately targeting the stern because there would be less casualties, and some likelihood of there being survivors.

Of the 2 options, I suspect it was actually option 2 selected.

If the torp had hit amidships, it would have broken the back of the vessel, literally snapping it in half, and she'd have sunk VERY quickly, with very few of the crew surviving.

With the hit astern, yes, there was massive damage aft, but the forward part of the ship, the crew messes, the operations room, the bridge crew, all would have had a chance to survive because the shock and damage was localized aft. There were 32 survivors.

If the torp had hit amidships, I'd have expected far less survivors. Like, maybe 3-5 if they were on the upper decks or something.

Some could argue that this was effectively like clubbing a baby seal....and was a massive overmatch. However. As has been pointed out she was less than 24 hours from potential missile range of Diego Garcia. She was an active combatant warship of the belligerent country, and was certainly a valid target.

I suspect that the sub deliberately targeted the stern to attempt to reduce the casualties. I think they succeeded.

How do you deliberately target any area of a ship with a Mk48 torpedo? All the Torpedo (or the operator, if being wire guided) sees is an acoustic bearing line.

 

[Good2Golf]

Agree to disagree.
Stopping the first and fourth largest oil reserve countries from selling their oil in non-USD transactions is being done for a reason.

It won’t last forever. Many, myself included, believe the petrodollar is on borrowed time….tik tok…

 

[OldSolduer]

I will give you that. The only thing less expected would be….


@OldSolduer ?

Ummmm ah let’s see shall we?

The Iranian leadership won’t expect it. They’re cooked now

 

[NavyShooter]

How do you deliberately target any area of a ship with a Mk48 torpedo? All the Torpedo (or the operator, if being wire guided) sees is an acoustic bearing line.

I'm fine with being wrong....but this guy seems to give a bit of insight:

His words - "weapons can be this precise"

 

[Fabius]

Canada’s military in talks to defend Gulf states, Israel launches new strikes into Lebanon

As Iran continued to exchange airstrikes with Israel and U.S. bases on Thursday, Canada’s top military commander said its Armed Forces are in talks to possibly help defend Persian Gulf states against bombing from Iran.

www.ctvnews.ca

Canada’s air defence options?

• 6 pack of CF 18s to run CAPs
• Halifax Class to provide point defence of certain costal infrastructure
• Redeploy the VSHORD from Latvia

Ranked in order of most likely?

Probability I would not wager higher than 50/50 that we deploy anything. Likely less than 20% especially if someone else does not go first. I could see us joining the RAF in Qatar as most probable.

 

[Lumber]

Canada’s military in talks to defend Gulf states, Israel launches new strikes into Lebanon

As Iran continued to exchange airstrikes with Israel and U.S. bases on Thursday, Canada’s top military commander said its Armed Forces are in talks to possibly help defend Persian Gulf states against bombing from Iran.

www.ctvnews.ca

Canada’s air defence options?

• 6 pack of CF 18s to run CAPs
• Halifax Class to provide point defence of certain costal infrastructure
• Redeploy the VSHORD from Latvia

Ranked in order of most likely?

Probability I would not wager higher than 50/50 that we deploy anything. Likely less than 20% especially if someone else does not go first. I could see us joining the RAF in Qatar as most probable.

Option D: a Halifax class takes one of the spots in Lincon's screen so that one of the DDGs can go spend more time defending one of the gulf states.

 

[Fabius]

Option D: a Halifax class takes one of the spots in Lincon's screen so that one of the DDGs can go spend more time defending one of the gulf states.

That aligns more to a narrative of direct support for the US operations than a defence of gulf states though.

Militarily it may make sense, politically and diplomatically…. I suspect it’s a non starter.

 

[daftandbarmy]

As a sailor - I feel bad for the crew of that ship. She literally had no chance. No real ASW capability - she carried a pair of triple 324mm ASW Torp launchers, but, seems not to have had any Sonar systems to detect a target.

There was a video that opined that the submarine used a 'non-traditional' style of attack. The sub should have fired from further away (she was close based on the periscope imagery - even if zoomed in, it was still close.) The sub should have fired so that the torp went under the center of the ship, under the keel amidships, rather than astern at the props.

The suggestion made was that there were 2 possible reasons for the torp to have attacked from the stern.

1. Cut the connection wire, and the torp reverted to acoustic homing which would have brought it straight up the stern as was shown.

2. Deliberately targeting the stern because there would be less casualties, and some likelihood of there being survivors.

Of the 2 options, I suspect it was actually option 2 selected.

If the torp had hit amidships, it would have broken the back of the vessel, literally snapping it in half, and she'd have sunk VERY quickly, with very few of the crew surviving.

With the hit astern, yes, there was massive damage aft, but the forward part of the ship, the crew messes, the operations room, the bridge crew, all would have had a chance to survive because the shock and damage was localized aft. There were 32 survivors.

If the torp had hit amidships, I'd have expected far less survivors. Like, maybe 3-5 if they were on the upper decks or something.

Some could argue that this was effectively like clubbing a baby seal....and was a massive overmatch. However. As has been pointed out she was less than 24 hours from potential missile range of Diego Garcia. She was an active combatant warship of the belligerent country, and was certainly a valid target.

I suspect that the sub deliberately targeted the stern to attempt to reduce the casualties. I think they succeeded.

I feel sorry for them like I felt sorry for the Belgrano.

Not.

 

[Furniture]

Imagine an HMCS Regina is alongside Suva, Fiji on its way to participate in Op HORIZON. While she is there, the US attacked Canada. Within 2 days we've been decimated. Entire Air force destroyed while still in its hangars/on the tarmac. Ships blown apart while alongside. Key C2 control nodes flattened. And, there's a CSG sitting off the coasts of both Halifax and Victoria. Does that ship run home to Canada to fight the good fight, knowing full well that they'll be sunk well before they can get in range of any USN units?

If the CO of REG put her to sea the CO is signing the ship's company up for the war. That's why the CO's make the big bucks. If you don't want to make decisions, be a killick and deal with not having a servant wash your cloth napkin...

I did not say that the sinking of the Dena was illegal in any way shape or form. She was a valid military target as far as I'm concerned. I'm just saying that it was not necessary to sink her. She could have been hailed by a P8 and told to go back to Milan or she'd be sunk. They could have put a single Harpoon or NSM into her instead, which would have basically made her combat ineffective, but not sunk her and not killed so many sailors.

It's clear the RCN hasn't been in actual naval combat since WWII by this response... This sort of silliness will see RCN sailors killed, just so some NWO can feel like Nelson while they sit in a life raft.

If you're willing to put a NSM or harpoon into the ship, then you're willing to put a MK48/heavy torpedo into it. War isn't some gentleman's game of fencing/HEMA where first touch is a "win". It's about killing the enemy/removing their ability to kill you. Approaching war with an attitude of anything less is just throwing away the lives of your sailors.

I would actually make the same argument for soldiers. Imagine that IRAN had a company of soldier in Libya on a advisory/training mission. If the US decided to bomb their camp to oblivion, I'd also be saying "was this really necessary?".

You'd be living in a fairyland... If we are at war, we are at war everywhere. If Iran can land a missile in Baltimore, or San Diego, that's fair game. It's a war, not a game of tummy sticks...

 

[brihard]

Canada’s military in talks to defend Gulf states, Israel launches new strikes into Lebanon

As Iran continued to exchange airstrikes with Israel and U.S. bases on Thursday, Canada’s top military commander said its Armed Forces are in talks to possibly help defend Persian Gulf states against bombing from Iran.

www.ctvnews.ca

Canada’s air defence options?

• 6 pack of CF 18s to run CAPs
• Halifax Class to provide point defence of certain costal infrastructure
• Redeploy the VSHORD from Latvia

Ranked in order of most likely?

Probability I would not wager higher than 50/50 that we deploy anything. Likely less than 20% especially if someone else does not go first. I could see us joining the RAF in Qatar as most probable.

Taking an angle of pure pragmatism here: does Canada stand to learn or validate anything by contributing to a collective air defence in the gulf? Is it worth our while to send a six pack of CF-188s to shoot down drones to that our guys and girls can practice doing that and learn some lessons that only come from doing? Maybe we do a fast acquisition of 70mm APKWS?

Low and slow mass produced drones are here to stay. Maybe Canada should take the opportunity to put some RCAF crews in harm’s way and practice killing them before it’s Canadians on the receiving end.

 

[OldSolduer]

And maybe get the bird gunners involved?