Iran's flying boats!!!

Originally posted by Tifozi
Yes, but most people do seem to be living in MW2 (or 3).

And I'm not saying this is the plane that is going to bring the US/Allies to it's knee's. Unless they find a way to make that engine silent and put some serious weaponry on that thing, that will be as useful as any other scout plane.

But I'm just sick and tired of people falling in their safety and confort clouds, and dismissing possible threats with the philosophy "my *chicken* is bigger than yours".

That's the sort of mentality that makes wars like Vietnam happen. And from all people, you should know what I mean.

I know exactly what you mean and agree 100%.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
The US could counter with these!!!

Or poo on a stick.

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by LeoStarchild

 

I'm in NATO, currently. Have been for 10 years. I think I do know what are the US capabilities since I actually work with them. I was placed in places you may know, like Afghanistan and Iraq. Don't know if those names ring a bell to you...

Anyway, you keep falling on the same mistake. Assuming that technology will prevent anything from happening.

And again, I have to remember you of History. It's not me, it's not my knowledge. It's history who tries to teach you all, and you keep failing in learning how to view enemies and their attempts.

Let me remind you of one name: USS Cole.

It's "just" a US Navy Destroyer (in case you don't know, Destroyers are supposed to be the best defense ship in the Navy, and most of their duties are set around protecting the other vessels) with all those defense mechanisms you keep talking about (except the F-18, those would be in a land base or near-by carrier if was the case)... And guess what happened...

The USS Cole Bombing, or the USS Cole Incident, was a suicide attack against the United States Navy destroyer USS Cole (DDG-67) on October 12, 2000 while it was harbored and refueled in the Yemeni port of Aden. Seventeen American sailors were killed, and 39 were injured. This event was the deadliest attack against a United States Naval vessel since 1987.

And you know HOW?

On the morning of Thursday, October 12, 2000, USS Cole, under the command of Commander Kirk Lippold, set in to Aden harbor for a routine fuel stop. Cole completed mooring at 09:30. Refueling started at 10:30. Around 11:18 local time (08:18 UTC), a small craft approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, putting a 40-by-40-foot gash in the ship's port side (...)

And you know what craft that was? A freaking rubber boat floating peacefully until it was within reach to bomb the USS Cole.

A RUBBER BOAT! Not a plane, or a jet, or anything like that... A rubber boat.

Which links what I've said earlier... Nobody, at any time, should dismiss his enemies as stupid or weak. Technology can't save you from everything, only attitude of self-preservation.

Fine, I see your point.

But wasnt the ship docked? The element of suprise defeated that ship. Not direct conflict.

It all depends upon whether or not they are capable of carrying a Sunburn, Yakhonts-M, Exocet, or similar anti-ship missile.

Twenty such craft would definitely wreak havoc: yes they would all be lost, most likely, but so what? The damage would be done. In their shoes, I'd happily trade a hundred such for a carrier or two.

www.missilethreat.com...

www.softwar.net...

www.softwar.net...

lmao where do you get "stealth" in any of that, them boats are so loud you deserve to be shot by them if you couldn't hear them coming a mile away with that loud propeller get serious that thing does as much good as Swamp People loading up their boats with guns

reply to post by LeoStarchild


Yeah... The element of surprise, which is something that these flying boats can accomplish (I still call them flying boats because they are that. Too small to be considered seaplanes) was also something used by the Blitzkrieg by the Germans, and it's obvious how well that worked.

It's exactly my point. The element of surprise.

One of the main issues with Iran is nuclear weaponry, being the fears true or propaganda, it's a scenario we have to admit. But it's easily dismissed since Iran doesn't hold any missiles capable of delivering the nukes, if you consider the US a target, and not Israel or closer allies.

But lets make a imagination exercise.

Imagine that Iran pays a certain captain to take 5, 6 or 10 of these things in his cargo ship. Since these tiny things are so easily built and easy to carry around, they could effectively put them inside a cargo ship, assemble them in international waters, or even during the night in a calm non-surveilled area, without even being detected.

Now imagine, that one of those things has enough power (assuming Iran is smart enough to buy some proper engines for the planes, since those sound like crap) to fly with a nuke in it, and it might not even be a heavy one, just a out-of-the-stock nuke.

...Imagine, that he flies close to the water line, undetected by US radars (like so many drug smugglers do from South America), and flies enough into mainland to drop that somewhere like... Miami.

Within seconds, a harmless flying boat, that can do not dent at all in the US mighty, can bring huge devastation to the US, INSIDE it's borders...

Which leaves a scary thought in your mind. It's not about IF Iran can pull it off, but if they WANT to...

And mind you, I'm not either a genius or a paid officer to come up with ideas like this, I'm not receiving a 10,000$ paycheck every month to come up with new ideas on how to attack. I'm just a guy with a little of imagination and I don't consider technology to be the holy solution for every single problem.

And let's remember, it's not even the first time something like this would happen. The Russians had the same problem (attacking the US) and they solved it by sending cargo ships to an allied country (Cuba) and setting missile bases there. If it wasn't for the CORRECT use of the technology at the time, things could have unfolded very different from the Cuban Missile Crisis...

Technology is just a tool, and it can be decisive in the battlefield, but it can also be irrelevant. During a riot in a Afghan prison, several (80 I think) talibans barricaded them-selfs inside the basement of the prison. They had previously got hold of the armory in the prison, so they were a threat. Although the soldiers in the are advised to the contrary, US airforce bombed the complex 3 times, and they were even using laser-guided missiles, aimed by special forces on the ground. The first bomb missed, the second also missed, and the third landed in allied forces lap, killing several allied soldiers.

And that's my point, people should admit every scenario and be prepared, instead of dismissing them as easy or casual to handle.. It's better to acknowledge this "toys", and keep them in the back of your head, than to simply dismiss them as being weak, and then being butt-rapped by one in the near future. It has happened in the past, and it can and will happen in the future.

The US has grown so powerful, that the only way to bring it down, or make a dent in it, is to use your brain and come up with tactics that play against the (sadly) many US weaknesses and flaws.

reply to post by Tifozi


The problem is that those things can't carry enough of a payload to do any real damage.

Scouting, patrolling or harassing un-armed merchant ships is about all they would be good for. I'll take that back, add search and rescue to the list.

The ones in the video have 4 cylinder opposed engines mounted on a pylon. When you consider the weight of the pilot, a passenger and fuel, you don't have too much left for a payload.

There's no way they could carry an anti-ship missile. Since I can see no hardpoints on top of the wing, the missile would have to be submerged for take off.

Looks like a top speed of maybe 100 to 150 mph. If they go much faster they would need an enclosed cockpit. I'm not underestemating them, I'm making a realistic assessment of their capabilities.

reply to post by Tifozi


Do you know anything about the USS Cole bombing? Obviously not...

THE sailors guarding the American destroyer Cole when it was attacked by suicide bombers in Aden last month had instructions not to fire on suspicious craft and were carrying unloaded guns on the orders of their captain.

source

The destroyer's rules of engagement, as approved by the Pentagon, kept its guards from firing upon the small boat (unknowingly loaded with explosives) as it neared them without first obtaining permission from the Cole's captain or another officer.

source

The only reason the USS Cole was touched was because of their R.O.E.. The sailors saw the boat coming, they knew the boat was there. They were just not allowed to shoot at the boat...

Originally posted by Tifozi
A RUBBER BOAT! Not a plane, or a jet, or anything like that... A rubber boat.

Your example is a major fail, and you just defeated your own argument. The USS Cole was able to detect A RUBBER BOAT! They can detect planes, jets, AND rubber boats! It just a matter of having the order to shoot at it.

reply to post by K1771gnorance

Your example is a major fail, and you just defeated your own argument. The USS Cole was able to detect A RUBBER BOAT! They can detect planes, jets, AND rubber boats! It just a matter of having the order to shoot at it.

Your ability to think is a major fail... I never said the USS Cole wasn't able to detect the rubber boat. I would like you to quote me where I said the USS Cole didn't detect the rubber boat, because I'm pretty sure I didn't say such thing.

The reason why that attack was effective was because of the lack of preparation on the US side to such an attack. They had ROE's specific for that harbor, which meant they shouldn't trigger any situations that could escalate into diplomatic conflicts, thus the not firing rule.

What you fail to understand is that the ingenuity of Al-Qaeda took the better hand on the americans. I never said they couldn't detect it. I'm aware of the work that world coalitions against piracy do, specifically tracking down really tiny boats of somali pirates in high-seas.

The fact that you only need a rubber boat, some ingenuity and a plan that works against your enemies strengths, proves my argument, doesn't defuse it.

reply to post by K1771gnorance


You hit the nail on the head. In June 1986 my ship was in Naples Italy and I was assigned Shore Patrol duty for my first duty day. We had several incidents at this time including a bomb in a building at one of the NATO bases nearby. I was assigned to be security for a bus that travelled between Fleet Landing, AF South and NSA Naples. I was told to report to the Master at Arms office to be issued a weapon. My weapon was a .45 cal pistol with the magazine welded into the butt. It was a paperweight. I thought "to hell with this" and went to the armory and retrieved my 9mm Browning. Thankfully nothing happened during my watch, but, I was a little bit ticked off with what they chose to give me as a weapon to protect that bus with.

That was representative of the Navy at that time. My second duty day I was assigned to man a .50 cal machine gun for ship security, but, all of the ammunition was locked up and we didn't have a key. Those were the conditions that the USS Cole was operating under when she was attacked.

These days things have changed.

That looks like an Ekranoplan. Like the old 'Caspian Sea Monster' but on a much smaller scale.

en.wikipedia.org...

The idea is sound enough. The execution is not. Not yet anyway.

A jet powered stealthy version carrying modern anti-ship missiles just might be dangerous.

reply to post by JIMC5499

Those were the conditions that the USS Cole was operating under when she was attacked.

So, let's just make a brief statement of that:

Although the USS Cole has the technological capability to sustain such an attack, they suffered it, and people got killed. Why? Because people dismissed small, non-technological things as harmless and a non-threat. Add to that the risks of letting life-death decisions fall on one single person (operative officer), and you are vulnerable, even with all the technology, even using such a simple thing like a rubber boat.

And today, a rubber boat can't get within 100m of a US Navy Vessel without getting attack with non-lethal weaponry, and within 50m they are smoked...

...until the next guy remembers to use the US weakness in another way and another attack occurs.

Again, this proves my argument, not the opposite.

With that engine, these ground effect vehicles have approx 120-160 km/h speed - on water and land. And canopy is purposeful. Gives protection against wind, but minimizes radar reflection.

However, this is an effective weapon due to following aspects:
- hard to detect and target from naval vessels (too close to sea surface, low radar reflection from vehicle itself vs reflections from surface / waves; impossible for thermal)
- hard to target from air; basically they melt in the surrounding thermal image
- you could target on certain angles due to engine blades making thermal "chopping" image, but even that is hard, due to their small size. Typically this sort of targeting is suitable for chopper size blades, while where we have 80-100 cm's only.

So, this makes these hard target for thermal and radar targeting, and thus primary targeting measure would be through visual. For this, they again, are fast enough, to have similar protection as WW2 fighters against conventional anti-aircraft.

They do not have large payload capacity, max 500 kg, but enough though to carry a single naval / land strike missile. They could carry multiple land strike missiles (e.g. anti-tank).

Due to ability to fly over land equally as over water, piloting through minimal training, this is an effective - and cheap - weapon. Cost per unit is in the range of 150k USD.

reply to post by Tifozi


US Navy has a history of doing that. Pearl Harbor comes to mind, as does the USS Stark and then the USS Cole. What I am trying to say here is that was then and this is now. The ROE has changed. I do not believe that what happened to the USS Cole could be repeated now. That boat would have been blown out of the water. As I said before, I understand your point and agree with it, I just don't believe that these flying boats are the threat that some believe that they are. I am being specific, based on the topic of this thread. If these were 2 man submarines, then my opinion would be different. Look up the British x-craft and the Tirpitz.

Originally posted by Tifozi
Your ability to think is a major fail... I never said the USS Cole wasn't able to detect the rubber boat. I would like you to quote me where I said the USS Cole didn't detect the rubber boat, because I'm pretty sure I didn't say such thing.

When you replied to a comment about the USS Cole being attacked using the "element of surprise"...

Originally posted by Tifozi
It's exactly my point. The element of surprise.

...you implied that there actually was an "element of surprise" regarding the USS Cole, as if the boat was undetected, when in fact there was no surprise and the boat was detected.

Originally posted by Tifozi
The reason why that attack was effective was because of the lack of preparation on the US side to such an attack. They had ROE's specific for that harbor, which meant they shouldn't trigger any situations that could escalate into diplomatic conflicts, thus the not firing rule.

Oh really, what happened to your "element of surprise" argument? Oh right, it was destroyed. Now you are claiming "lack of preparation". I'm sorry, but there was no "lack or preparation". The USS Cole was fully prepared to kill any threat it needed to... it was a matter of having the order to do so.

Originally posted by Tifozi
What you fail to understand is that the ingenuity of Al-Qaeda took the better hand on the americans. ...

The fact that you only need a rubber boat, some ingenuity and a plan that works against your enemies strengths, proves my argument, doesn't defuse it.

Ingenuity?? Now your argument is that they were "genius" enough to not only know the R.O.E. of the USS Cole, but also to predict that the USS Cole would actually follow the R.O.E., and not get permission to send them to the bottom of the sea. That is not ingenuity, it is a group of people with no resources, no hope, a death-wish, and a stroke of luck.

Your argument is amorphous. It is routinely defeated, so you are forced to make a new one.

Reply to post by DrNotforhire

A Final Fantasy reference....nice. Now I can call it a day. Good post OP.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by JIMC5499


Pearl Harbor is the perfect example actually. The incoming forces were detected but were dismissed as being friendly/unknown.

Again, technology fails and the loss is greater than what people would like to endure.

And yes, things like the USS Cole won't happen again very soon, at least not in the same way. I think most USS destroyers that are in foreign waters are equiped with those LRA "cannons" that are non-lethal and have a very good stopping capability, especially in cases like light boats.

But like I said, my point still stands, and we both agree. This might not be a super-weapon, nor even a plane capable of striking US forces in conventional therms, but if there is the will, there is a way. And Pearl Harbor happened, and the USS Cole incident happened, and 9/11 happened, and other attacks have happened despite the US having the best and biggest military force on the planet.

People should get genuinely worried about aircrafts like these, not because they are unbeatable or capable of causing WW3, but because they can kill people if used with the right amount of imagination. And people should take note when a country like Iran (that although I don't agree is the boogeyman of modern days, it might do the wrong moves that can kill people, innocent people) starts dedicating it's efforts into making crap like that this that isn't standard or very common to happen.

To me, this attitude shows that Iran is seeking new ways of attacking it's enemies, and trying to get an strategical advantage over it's possible targets.

This thing's can pose as harmless fishing boats with the right amount of effort ffs... They CAN be dangerous.

I just don't agree with people's mindset of mocking this sort of thing (not talking about you, personally) and dismissing it to oblivion. It's that sort of mindset that makes you say things like "who would imagined that they would use civilian aircrafts as bombs"...

And a man with a match can burn a city. Scenario's are just that and can be made up for any point or whim to fit one's perception but once used its harder to achieve again without great risk.

But this isn't about the USS Cole and rubber boats its about Iranian flying boats. Below is a snippet on the NATO AWACS in Libra and what they are capable of in look down technology just one of many defense tools.

Libya:

But then, zero hour arrives. The AWACS plane becomes the coordinator of the raids. Thirty planes, eight of which are Italian, are in action. No one pays much attention to the many small spots on the monitor. "A guy gets in a car in Libya in the middle of the night? We immediately know it," says one of the men.


Around 1 a.m. a pilot sees something in a southern suburb of Tripoli and sounds the alarm. On the monitor we see a Predator spy plane moving around the possible target, which looks like a military base. It takes pictures and sends video. Two F-16 jets arrive. The pilots check for any reactions. Nothing. The AWACS double-checks with the control base. No one wants to risk collateral damage. The data from satellite and from planes are For tonight, it is enough. We head back to Trapani. The AWACS planes have been on almost 250 missions over Libya from the beginning of the military campaign, and have flown for more than 2,100 hours. Almost every minute that Gaddafi and his men look up at the sky, someone is looking down.


source: www.time.com...


someone familiar with NATO would be familiar with this site:

www.e3a.nato.int...

One or more of those flying boats "might" get through once, but I lay odds it will end in a bad way for the rest of the flying boats. and as far as a nuke attack off the coast of the US with one of those, well I don't think Iran cares much about the mutual assured destruction that would rain down on them for such an offense.

Click here for more information.

double post.