semi off topic... of battleships and honey badgers

[JRT]

In thinking about swarmed small boat attacks, battleships and Honey Badgers came to mind.

While being attacked and stung by swarms of African bees, the honey badger wades in, ignores the stinging bees, tears open their hive and feeds on what it finds. The honey badger dominates that battle.

The honey badger hunts and eats the most venemous snakes, absorbs their strikes, and just shrugs that off. The honey badger can continue to fight regardless signficant damage.

A rabbit has two means of defending itself, stealth and speed, but it is not effective in attack. And while a healthy rabbit can run faster than any honey badger, the rabbit is always the prey and the honey badger always the predator.

USN's solution to swarmed boat attack in the Strait of Hormuz should be more like a honey badger and a lot less like a squadron of fast poorly armed rabbits.

[85 gt kid]

Dang that's a great analogy! Now if only they'd make a modernized Iowa to destroy and terrorize those pesky "bees" :D

[desertswo]

There is an axiom in the world of AAW at sea: "To shoot the archer is much more preferable to shooting the arrow."

Of course by that we mean to shoot down the airplane that launches a missile rather than the missile itself. Not that we can't shoot the missile down, but airplanes are a much easier prey . . . sort of like the rabbit above.

Having said that, what is the archer in the case of small boats from Iran? The answer is pretty simple; the port facilities from which these small boats spring, for it is the boat itself that is the arrow. Should war with Iran ever materialize, the waterfront, and any shipping, regardless of size, in places like Bandar Abbas would be reduced to smoking rubble via Tomahawk and carrier air strikes.

Then the boats themselves, which will no longer have a home to run to when the neighborhood bully gives them a bloody nose, will face the gamut of air and surface ship delivered ordnance, much of it of a fragmentary nature. If one has never seen what an air burst of a 5"/54/62 round over a small boat will do, then one really has no appreciation of what these things can do. There's a reason why it's called "fire for effect." Our good friend R2D2 (aka Vulcan-Phalanx) can be aimed in the surface mode these days. It's a regular meat grinder. Then there is the panoply of other shipboard weapons there specifically to deal with this threat. 25MM Bushmaster chain guns, M19 automatic 40MM grenade launchers, M60 or M240 7.62MM machine guns, more M-14s in 7.62MM and M-16s in 5.56MM than you can shake a stick at, and my all time favorite, the venerable "Ma Deuce" aka the Browning M-2 .50 cal machine gun. It will ruin a small boat's whole day. Then come the Army, Marine Corps and Navy Apache, Cobra and MH-60 helicopters respectively, which will shred many of these targets, for that is what the are . . . targets, with 30MM chain guns, Vulcan 20MM Gatling guns, Hydra and Zuni rockets, Hellfire missiles,.50 cal and 7.62MM and machine guns. Then the fast movers show up and do their thing with their Vulcans.

Yeah, it's a concern and a threat, but at the end of the day, I kind of like our chances. Honey Badgers indeed.

[tuna]

You forgot Warthawgs and the GAU-8 30mm. While we still have them anyway...

[Tamara]

............

Having said that, what is the archer in the case of small boats from Iran? The answer is pretty simple; the port facilities from which these small boats spring, for it is the boat itself that is the arrow. Should war with Iran ever materialize, the waterfront, and any shipping, regardless of size, in places like Bandar Abbas would be reduced to smoking rubble via Tomahawk and carrier air strikes.....

One should keep in mind, though, that in war, answers may not be as simple as one wishes.

Take the Falklands, for instance; would not attacking, taking out the mainland airfields and ports, been wise? Tactically, perhaps, but then risks inflaming the will of a people, for attacking their homeland, and they may fight a whole lot more, a whole lot harder, perhaps even laying down mines even if they can't win.............as oppose to the chance of, "Oh, this is costing too much, let them have the damn islands!".

And that's just one reason, one possibility. There can be others to why not to bomb their ports.

Finally first, in relation to Ms. Honey Badger, ask one's self, what would a human have to do, what preps would they have to take, to live off the hive. The answer of "well, I will destroy the hive before I go in." is unacceptable for it will cause one's eventual death since it feeds off the hive it self. So ask yourself, how does the human get past the hive's defenses to obtain the goal?

Finally second, the badger and the hive is an example of an offensive (Badger attacking), defensive (bees responding), defensive (Badger resistance to stings) battle. If an analogy is to be created, is the Naval battle the same in being offensive-defensive-defensive........and who is the first offender?

[Doktor]

Tamara,

It's all nice and dandy, but why go back to Falklands, look at Serbia. Country was smart-bombed to FUBAR state, hence the Kumanovo agreement.
Oh, and the Serbs still hate you for what you've done to them, but should appreciate the fact that it was taken care for the civvies.

No boots on the ground, just pure and simple lobbing. Voila!

[Tamara]

Tamara,

It's all nice and dandy, but why go back to Falklands, look at Serbia. Country was smart-bombed to FUBAR state, hence the Kumanovo agreement.
Oh, and the Serbs still hate you for what you've done to them, but should appreciate the fact that it was taken care for the civvies.

No boots on the ground, just pure and simple lobbing. Voila!

Because I don't know about Serbia and in any event, was that a Naval war?

[Doktor]

Because I don't know about Serbia and in any event, was that a Naval war?

It wasn't a Naval war, it was an air campaign.

The point you raised was once you hit the mainland... naturally, Serbia came to mind.

[Dreadnought]

The problem lies with once the surface targets are eliminated, now one must atone for the attack itself in international waters which means the bases and anchorages they launched from among other selected targets. I'm with Deserts, my money is on the USN and the USMC.

A few ships may take a beating, but the beating they will give in return will be unequaled. And Iran can state they can "close the gulf" but the USN and supporting units CAN close the gulf, they wont threaten with it. They will just do it.

That would pretty much END Iranian oil exports by way of sea.

Given the fact that their oil exports were halfed by UN sanctions, this would nail shut the coffin lid on their economy AND there would be nothing that Russia or China could possibly say or do at the UNSC if Iran attacked a US warship underway in the gulf. They know this.

The buzzing of US warships in the gulf and statements that they can close the gulf is for nothing more then domestic consumption.

Its a fight they dont want to pick in a serious sense.

[tuna]

But our intent wouldn't be to close the gulf, since a LOT more oil than Iranian oil comes through that pass.

Our intent would be to ensure that the gulf stay OPEN, and to do that would be to prevent Iran from closing it. Iran would be closing the gulf with thier small boats via mines and with shore based missiles. Taking out the ports for the small boats to refuel/rearm and taking out the missile sites would keep the gulf open.

Unlike the honey badger, we aren't after honey to tear open the hive that all the bees are swarming out of. Like the honey badger, we don't give a s**t.

We'd be more like a homeowner who discovers a nest of wasps near his garage door. We destroy the nest, and we dont' have to deal with the wasps - a few may sting us, but we'll take that risk to lessen the threat later.

[dundonrl]

Then the boats themselves, which will no longer have a home to run to when the neighborhood bully gives them a bloody nose, will face the gamut of air and surface ship delivered ordnance, much of it of a fragmentary nature. If one has never seen what an air burst of a 5"/54/62 round over a small boat will do, then one really has no appreciation of what these things can do. There's a reason why it's called "fire for effect." Our good friend R2D2 (aka Vulcan-Phalanx) can be aimed in the surface mode these days. It's a regular meat grinder. Then there is the panoply of other shipboard weapons there specifically to deal with this threat. 25MM Bushmaster chain guns, M19 automatic 40MM grenade launchers, M60 or M240 7.62MM machine guns, more M-14s in 7.62MM and M-16s in 5.56MM than you can shake a stick at, and my all time favorite, the venerable "Ma Deuce" aka the Browning M-2 .50 cal machine gun.

the only issue with relying on these weapons is the lack of them on modern warships. My last 2 ships, the Momsen and Halsey had identical weapon suites, 1 five inch gun, 1 CIWS, two Mk-38 Chain guns, and a variety of small arms that require Sailors to man them either in a group of 2, or individually. When you have a swarm of small boats, with suicide jockeys riding them that don't care how many get killed, they are GOING to take out that DDG (and what ever it's protecting). The US Navy, and no modern navy is ready for that type of warfare any more.

[DonBelt]

There is an axiom in the world of AAW at sea: "To shoot the archer is much more preferable to shooting the arrow."

Of course by that we mean to shoot down the airplane that launches a missile rather than the missile itself. Not that we can't shoot the missile down, but airplanes are a much easier prey . . . sort of like the rabbit above.

Having said that, what is the archer in the case of small boats from Iran? The answer is pretty simple; the port facilities from which these small boats spring, for it is the boat itself that is the arrow. Should war with Iran ever materialize, the waterfront, and any shipping, regardless of size, in places like Bandar Abbas would be reduced to smoking rubble via Tomahawk and carrier air strikes.

Then the boats themselves, which will no longer have a home to run to when the neighborhood bully gives them a bloody nose, will face the gamut of air and surface ship delivered ordnance, much of it of a fragmentary nature. If one has never seen what an air burst of a 5"/54/62 round over a small boat will do, then one really has no appreciation of what these things can do. There's a reason why it's called "fire for effect." Our good friend R2D2 (aka Vulcan-Phalanx) can be aimed in the surface mode these days. It's a regular meat grinder. Then there is the panoply of other shipboard weapons there specifically to deal with this threat. 25MM Bushmaster chain guns, M19 automatic 40MM grenade launchers, M60 or M240 7.62MM machine guns, more M-14s in 7.62MM and M-16s in 5.56MM than you can shake a stick at, and my all time favorite, the venerable "Ma Deuce" aka the Browning M-2 .50 cal machine gun. It will ruin a small boat's whole day. Then come the Army, Marine Corps and Navy Apache, Cobra and MH-60 helicopters respectively, which will shred many of these targets, for that is what the are . . . targets, with 30MM chain guns, Vulcan 20MM Gatling guns, Hydra and Zuni rockets, Hellfire missiles,.50 cal and 7.62MM and machine guns. Then the fast movers show up and do their thing with their Vulcans.

Yeah, it's a concern and a threat, but at the end of the day, I kind of like our chances. Honey Badgers indeed.

Don't forget, in 88 we didn't just sit back and wait for the small boats either. OH-58's and MH-6's flew nightly from the flight decks of destroyers attacking and destroying small boats at their moorings. This was conducted regularly apart from the actions in Preying Mantis where their operating and control bases were hit. Like you, I'll take our chances any day of the week.

[zraver]

Just a note, rabbits can often control the information battle. By constantly using the same inter-connected trails, sent hunters like weasels are nearly useless against rabbits. By staying near fence lines and under cover they often are very hard targets for raptors as well, both to detect and to actually get at. They also have exceptional directional hearing and outstanding olfactory abilities to supplement a herbivores naturally defensive side mounted eyes. A rabbits eyes don't focus real good but they can detect movement through about 270 degrees level and up. This combination of tactics and information management/control plus the natural agility and speed of the rabbit means despite the number of predators that feed on rabbits, rabbits are in no danger of extinction.

Offensively, rabbits can bite straight through a leather work glove... But razor sharp incisors are not really useful when grabbed from behind by a land predator or raptor.

[DonBelt]

some of the other "arrows" Iran possesses are ASM's. The archer here could be a little trickier. Installations that are fixed and on islands in and around the straits could be hit and taken out, the targeting and control systems taken out. Ships and aircraft that are launching platforms will also be taken out. But some of Iran's newer asm's (the qader/noor) can be launched by TELs which are disguised as civilian trucking. This could pose some difficulties as we try to avoid civilian casualties. The upside is that you force them to use inland launch sites and the range of the missiles limits their usefulness. Other arrows? proxy warfare/terrorism. With the situation in Syria is Iran still able to launch a proxy war against Israel with HAMAS? What is the archer here and how do you deal with it? Egypt seems to be tightening up its border with respect to weapons smuggling, would weapons going thru Syria make it into the hands of Hamas or would they end up used in that conflict?

[Albany Rifles]

Still traying to figure out what Tyrann Mathieu has to do with this thread.

I didn't even realize he was in the Navy!