LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Kismet wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:43 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:23 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 7:51 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 7:07 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 10:42 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 10:42 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 10:29 am Actually, what I'd want to know is how exactly this drone particular attack evaded air defense of the facility and then include any locations where drones are located or manufactured in any retaliatory strike regardless of whether they are inside Iran or not.

Force protection is job #1 for our military in this region. Was this attack a lucky hit or something bigger than that. If bigger, then that capability must be targeting in any response.

I said this in another thread. We have to be on point 100% of the time every damn day. The bad actors only have to get lucky once. Except was it luck or did they exploit a weakness our people didn't see?

Yep. When you look at the number of attacks on US forces ashore & ships in the ME, it's remarkable that only 1 got through sufficiently to cause 3 deaths, & that due to confusion with a returning US drone. Overall, if accurate, that speaks well for our overall force protection measures & the effectiveness of our ISR & air defenses. I'm particularly impressed with the performance of the Navy's Aegis system compared to what we lived with in my day trying to counter the Soviet anti-ship cruise missile threat. We would have expected hits & losses by this point.

This is strictly a comment on the effectiveness of our air defense systems & their integration into our force protection measures.
It is not a comment on the effectiveness of our strategy of deterrence in the ME against Iran & proxies...which has failed.

My theory OS is when one of our destroyers is positioned correctly it will not be one missile being fired. I believe they will launch many missiles and drones in a coordinated attempt to overwhelm the Aegis defense systems. 40 or 50 threats all approaching at the same time from different directions and different trajectories would be real test for defense radar. I don't know how many incoming threats can realistically be engaged simultaneously. I also don't know if the bad actors have the ability to launch such an attack. I wouldn't underestimate their capabilities. That would be a huge feather in their caps if they could take out an Aegis destroyer. They only have to get lucky once. FTR what about that Phalanx guns? What effective range can they engage targets?

Force protection is paramount. If you don't think the US Navy has simulated your threat you're likely mistaken. What you fail to mention is that US Navy ships have multiple layered protection from other ships with AEGIS capability plus overhead assets from both carrier-based and USAF land-based assets. Report on CBS Evening News last night overview of Naval Operations Center in Bahrain is instructive as to their capabilities.

https://cnreurafcent.cnic.navy.mil/Inst ... A-Bahrain/

That said, just got a lesson in force protection in Jordan on a smaller scale where a confluence of actions adversely affected air defense operations and a drone got through said defense. Not technically a bad guy escalation per se' but military fatalities are escalatory from our POV

Phalanx is uber-short range last line of defense

https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Fil ... stem-ciws/

That Phalanx gun is the weapon system that just the other day shot down an anti ship missile that was missed by that high tech state of the art multi layered defense system. Uber short range yet highly effective. CIWS sure is due some credit.

This is what one would expect from a multi-layered defense system.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:57 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:43 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:23 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 7:51 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 7:07 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 10:42 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 10:42 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 10:29 am Actually, what I'd want to know is how exactly this drone particular attack evaded air defense of the facility and then include any locations where drones are located or manufactured in any retaliatory strike regardless of whether they are inside Iran or not.

Force protection is job #1 for our military in this region. Was this attack a lucky hit or something bigger than that. If bigger, then that capability must be targeting in any response.

I said this in another thread. We have to be on point 100% of the time every damn day. The bad actors only have to get lucky once. Except was it luck or did they exploit a weakness our people didn't see?

Yep. When you look at the number of attacks on US forces ashore & ships in the ME, it's remarkable that only 1 got through sufficiently to cause 3 deaths, & that due to confusion with a returning US drone. Overall, if accurate, that speaks well for our overall force protection measures & the effectiveness of our ISR & air defenses. I'm particularly impressed with the performance of the Navy's Aegis system compared to what we lived with in my day trying to counter the Soviet anti-ship cruise missile threat. We would have expected hits & losses by this point.

This is strictly a comment on the effectiveness of our air defense systems & their integration into our force protection measures.
It is not a comment on the effectiveness of our strategy of deterrence in the ME against Iran & proxies...which has failed.

My theory OS is when one of our destroyers is positioned correctly it will not be one missile being fired. I believe they will launch many missiles and drones in a coordinated attempt to overwhelm the Aegis defense systems. 40 or 50 threats all approaching at the same time from different directions and different trajectories would be real test for defense radar. I don't know how many incoming threats can realistically be engaged simultaneously. I also don't know if the bad actors have the ability to launch such an attack. I wouldn't underestimate their capabilities. That would be a huge feather in their caps if they could take out an Aegis destroyer. They only have to get lucky once. FTR what about that Phalanx guns? What effective range can they engage targets?

Force protection is paramount. If you don't think the US Navy has simulated your threat you're likely mistaken. What you fail to mention is that US Navy ships have multiple layered protection from other ships with AEGIS capability plus overhead assets from both carrier-based and USAF land-based assets. Report on CBS Evening News last night overview of Naval Operations Center in Bahrain is instructive as to their capabilities.

https://cnreurafcent.cnic.navy.mil/Inst ... A-Bahrain/

That said, just got a lesson in force protection in Jordan on a smaller scale where a confluence of actions adversely affected air defense operations and a drone got through said defense. Not technically a bad guy escalation per se' but military fatalities are escalatory from our POV

Phalanx is uber-short range last line of defense

https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Fil ... stem-ciws/

That Phalanx gun is the weapon system that just the other day shot down an anti ship missile that was missed by that high tech state of the art multi layered defense system. Uber short range yet highly effective. CIWS sure is due some credit.

This is what one would expect from a multi-layered defense system.

I agree with you. This incoming round wasn't defeated by the high tech multi layered state of the art Aegis destroyer defense system. It made it all the way to 1 mile of hitting a terrorist home run. It took the last line of defense to shoot it out of the sky while danger close to its intended target. Is that disconcerting to some of you folks out there?? It sure as hell should be.

Kismet wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:39 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:57 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:43 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:23 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 7:51 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 7:07 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 10:42 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 10:42 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 10:29 am Actually, what I'd want to know is how exactly this drone particular attack evaded air defense of the facility and then include any locations where drones are located or manufactured in any retaliatory strike regardless of whether they are inside Iran or not.

Force protection is job #1 for our military in this region. Was this attack a lucky hit or something bigger than that. If bigger, then that capability must be targeting in any response.

I said this in another thread. We have to be on point 100% of the time every damn day. The bad actors only have to get lucky once. Except was it luck or did they exploit a weakness our people didn't see?

Yep. When you look at the number of attacks on US forces ashore & ships in the ME, it's remarkable that only 1 got through sufficiently to cause 3 deaths, & that due to confusion with a returning US drone. Overall, if accurate, that speaks well for our overall force protection measures & the effectiveness of our ISR & air defenses. I'm particularly impressed with the performance of the Navy's Aegis system compared to what we lived with in my day trying to counter the Soviet anti-ship cruise missile threat. We would have expected hits & losses by this point.

This is strictly a comment on the effectiveness of our air defense systems & their integration into our force protection measures.
It is not a comment on the effectiveness of our strategy of deterrence in the ME against Iran & proxies...which has failed.

My theory OS is when one of our destroyers is positioned correctly it will not be one missile being fired. I believe they will launch many missiles and drones in a coordinated attempt to overwhelm the Aegis defense systems. 40 or 50 threats all approaching at the same time from different directions and different trajectories would be real test for defense radar. I don't know how many incoming threats can realistically be engaged simultaneously. I also don't know if the bad actors have the ability to launch such an attack. I wouldn't underestimate their capabilities. That would be a huge feather in their caps if they could take out an Aegis destroyer. They only have to get lucky once. FTR what about that Phalanx guns? What effective range can they engage targets?


Force protection is paramount. If you don't think the US Navy has simulated your threat you're likely mistaken. What you fail to mention is that US Navy ships have multiple layered protection from other ships with AEGIS capability plus overhead assets from both carrier-based and USAF land-based assets. Report on CBS Evening News last night overview of Naval Operations Center in Bahrain is instructive as to their capabilities.

https://cnreurafcent.cnic.navy.mil/Inst ... A-Bahrain/

That said, just got a lesson in force protection in Jordan on a smaller scale where a confluence of actions adversely affected air defense operations and a drone got through said defense. Not technically a bad guy escalation per se' but military fatalities are escalatory from our POV

Phalanx is uber-short range last line of defense

https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Fil ... stem-ciws/

That Phalanx gun is the weapon system that just the other day shot down an anti ship missile that was missed by that high tech state of the art multi layered defense system. Uber short range yet highly effective. CIWS sure is due some credit.

This is what one would expect from a multi-layered defense system.

I agree with you. This incoming round wasn't defeated by the high tech multi layered state of the art Aegis destroyer defense system. It made it all the way to 1 mile of hitting a terrorist home run. It took the last line of defense to shoot it out of the sky while danger close to its intended target. Is that disconcerting to some of you folks out there?? It sure as hell should be.

Apparently, the Navy feels like they have it covered. In addition, to their own defense assets, there are various air and other surveillance
assets that also figure into the force protection umbrella.

So when you have to resort to the last line of defense, that being the CIWS then I have to ask why? This missile was shot out of the sky by the Phalanx gun approximately 1 mile from the destroyer. How did the missile ever get that close?? Apparently some of the Navy people probably tinkled in their pants.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 10:01 am So when you have to resort to the last line of defense, that being the CIWS then I have to ask why? This missile was shot out of the sky by the Phalanx gun approximately 1 mile from the destroyer. How did the missile ever get that close?? Apparently some of the Navy people probably tinkled in their pants.

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:38 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 10:01 am So when you have to resort to the last line of defense, that being the CIWS then I have to ask why? This missile was shot out of the sky by the Phalanx gun approximately 1 mile from the destroyer. How did the missile ever get that close?? Apparently some of the Navy people probably tinkled in their pants.

Yep. That one was too close for comfort. Gravely & Carney are going to need to reload soon, if this keeps up. Good data point for CIWS.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/31/politics ... index.html

Kismet wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 7:04 am

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:38 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 10:01 am So when you have to resort to the last line of defense, that being the CIWS then I have to ask why? This missile was shot out of the sky by the Phalanx gun approximately 1 mile from the destroyer. How did the missile ever get that close?? Apparently some of the Navy people probably tinkled in their pants.

Yep. That one was too close for comfort. Gravely & Carney are going to need to reload soon, if this keeps up. Good data point for CIWS.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/31/politics ... index.html

What good is a last line of defense if you don't use it on occasion? IMO it validates the USN concept of multi-layered defense and it likely provided some data as to why they did not detect the threat sooner. That said it's never 100% as was seen in the Jordanian base attack.

Kismet wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 9:10 am War is, by definition, a risky business.

Some of our elected officials may need a refresher course.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 9:32 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 9:10 am War is, by definition, a risky business.

Some of our elected officials may need a refresher course.

It becomes even riskier when people are shooting at you.

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 7:48 pm Retaliatory strikes began this afternoon right after the three deceased were brought home. 85 targets.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/02/politics ... index.html

Kismet wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:03 am

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 7:48 pm Retaliatory strikes began this afternoon right after the three deceased were brought home. 85 targets.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/02/politics ... index.html

US-Based B-1 bombers says we mean business. How many in-flight refuelings required for the round trip? All active-duty B1 locations are in the Midwest and West.

Appears that the plan is to hit supply routes as well as other targets that keep these militias in Iraq and Syria supplied along Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.

Kismet wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:03 am

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 7:48 pm Retaliatory strikes began this afternoon right after the three deceased were brought home. 85 targets.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/02/politics ... index.html

US-Based B-1 bombers says we mean business. How many in-flight refuelings required for the round trip? All active-duty B1 locations are in the Midwest and West.

Appears that the plan is to hit supply routes as well as other targets that keep these militias in Iraq and Syria supplied along Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 9:03 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:03 am

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 7:48 pm Retaliatory strikes began this afternoon right after the three deceased were brought home. 85 targets.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/02/politics ... index.html

US-Based B-1 bombers says we mean business. How many in-flight refuelings required for the round trip? All active-duty B1 locations are in the Midwest and West.

Appears that the plan is to hit supply routes as well as other targets that keep these militias in Iraq and Syria supplied along Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.

This was a USAF show, no Navy, even in theater. Use of the B-1's may be indicative of a pending shortage of munitions.
The B-1's can haul a lot of 500 lb dumb bombs, made smart with JDAM kits. Loading the bombs on the B-1's in CONUS means you don't have to transport the bombs in C-17's to Europe or the ME to load on F-15's/16's launching from there. It's a permissive air defense environment with little threat to the B-1's. The B-1's & their crews need to fly for proficiency anyway. This was an opportune mission they could perform from CONUS. I would not read too much into the choice of the ordnance delivery platform. It was just 2 x B-1's escorted by F-15E's who could also deliver bombs.

Meanwhile, IKE's F-18's are staying busy in the Red Sea, striking any Houthi drone or missile launcher that shows itself.
They could be in the Red Sea for several more months.
They have to reprovision & rearm at sea, unless they can go back pierside at Souda Bay Crete.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 7:53 am Something is very Hinky with Bombardier Joes bombing campaign. Issue # 1 is you NEVER announce your plans to drop bombs to the people on the receiving end of those bombs. #2 is you don't have to give ANY OTHER country a heads up when, where and why your going to bomb the bad actors. #3 with all of that prior warning how many of you think any of the bad actors and their missiles weren't tucked away safe and sound far away from all of those smart bombs being launched at empty targets? I guess in the new world we live in that political correctness even includes strategic bombing of sensitive targets. Anybody out there in Dreamland think that these attacks on our ships and our soldiers won't start up again in a couple of weeks? After the Iranians and their proxies have had a good laugh at our ineptitude the attacks will begin all over again.

It wasn't a total loss. Those B-1 crews received some decent flight time in a combat environment.

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 12:15 amSo you have no idea what he should do? You're just gonna criticize him no matter who he kills or doesn't kill?

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 1:26 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 7:53 am Something is very Hinky with Bombardier Joes bombing campaign. Issue # 1 is you NEVER announce your plans to drop bombs to the people on the receiving end of those bombs. #2 is you don't have to give ANY OTHER country a heads up when, where and why your going to bomb the bad actors. #3 with all of that prior warning how many of you think any of the bad actors and their missiles weren't tucked away safe and sound far away from all of those smart bombs being launched at empty targets? I guess in the new world we live in that political correctness even includes strategic bombing of sensitive targets. Anybody out there in Dreamland think that these attacks on our ships and our soldiers won't start up again in a couple of weeks? After the Iranians and their proxies have had a good laugh at our ineptitude the attacks will begin all over again.

It wasn't a total loss. Those B-1 crews received some decent flight time in a combat environment.

Who would have guessed you wouldn't like his response no matter what he did?

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 12:15 amSo you have no idea what he should do? You're just gonna criticize him no matter who he kills or doesn't kill?

JFC we didn't tell them where we'd hit them and when. If you were right, why didn't those militias move their weapons warehouses, missile/rocket depots and personnel that we blew up? Our intelligence knows when and where they're moving if they do so.

It's all moot anyway. Do you really think they would sit on their thumbs after attacking US forces, believing we wouldn't retaliate? They've known we're gonna retaliate since they started shooting.

Doesn't seem like you did any real research on it.