JonesySteve will find these interesting, Towed Array Sonar development
http://www.drdo.com/pub/techfocus/oct2000/sonar%20technology.htm
http://drdo.nic.in/pub/nl/novdec2003/personnel.htmhttp://mod.nic.in/reports/MOD-English2004.pdf
says that the NAGAN is already in production
Extremely interesting information Harry sincerest thanks for posting it.
The sonar stuff is very good news from an engineering standpoint. Looks like DRDO has taken the time to get the basic materials technology and DSP capability right before attempting anything revolutionary. I find that very impressive given what must have been strong temptation to try and jump straight to spherical arrays and low-frequency active sonar.
One question on the deployment of towed-arrays in the IN though. The stern images I’ve seen of the new Talwars show no provision for a line handling system of any size. Are there any plans to modify the design to accept NAGAN or will the array be limited to those vessels currently capable of TA deployment?
JonesySrbin
yes, but you also have some other Navies that don’t have aircraft carriers, yet have good navies with good AAW capabilities. Look at the French, British, Spanish, Italian, German, and other powerful navies where sometimes even a shorter ranged subsonic sea skimmer will not be enough.
If you look at the AAW assets that those European navies are inducting though you are looking at systems like APAR and PAAMS directing ESSM/Standard and Aster weapons. Systems especially optimised to deal with supersonic diving and sea-skimming threats.
Given that the target vessels in those navies you list are deploying systems capable of neutralising the specific threat Yakhont and Moskit pose then evaluating the success of an attack, using those weapons, becomes a calculation that boils down to the number of weapons that can be fired simultaneously.
You ALWAYS want to stay a step ahead of your enemy. Acquiring something like Alfas or Yakhonts will ensure you are that one step ahead of them.
Why will they though?. Naturally I agree that any service requires weapons that exploit the weaknesses in an adversaries defensive systems, but, I dont see how Yakhont or Moskit do this?. Both of those systems have been countered by precisely the AAW capability you state that they are required to defeat!. The 3M54E variant of Klub is a different story of course, but, as we dscussed earlier there remains little public source information on the weapons service status and operational reliability.
I would rather obviously choose to have a Club on any of my subs than a Uran, no matter if I am facing the North Korean or the French navy. Yes, the Club might be more expensive and I wouldn’t be able to put it on my helicopters, small patrol boats or even coastal batteries, but if I can put it on any submarine or decent sized ship,
If the requirement is for an offensive system and strictly limited to major surface combattants and submarines only and my choices are Uran, Harpoon, Exocet, Otomat, RBS15 or Klub (with guarantees of 3M54E’s performance) I would agree with you. Klub looks like a very smart capability package offering, as it does, standoff ASW, land-attack and antiship in a standard VLS. For me the IN needs to look at a second Talwar batch with an additional 8/16 Klub VLS cells replacing the RBU-6000 for LACM/ASW missiles.
If I had access to NSM though I could standardise the weapon across ALL platforms in my naval service from the smallest missile boat to the largest surface combattant to every ships helicopter flight. I could standardise the type through my airforce across helicopter, light and heavy tactical fighters and low or high end MPA’s. Further I could use it to introduce a ‘Storm Shadow-lite’ standoff precision strike capability for my airforce in a completely non-maritime role.
Klub is versatile and efficient there is no doubt about that. NSM is just even more so.
I will want it when I can target my enemies some 100kms longer than with the Uran despite it being almost 1.5 tones heavier.These would be my frontline assets for tackling my enemy’s navy.
Question is though when you can acquire the ability to achieve reliable targetting at that extra 100km standoff from target? Otherwise that range advantage over a Uran sized weapon is a useless asset.
Jonesy, do you have access to ACIG?
I used to be quite involved with ACIG. At one stage I was extremely honoured to be asked to look after the NCIG component of the site. Owing to a lack of time I had to let that slip a bit to concentrate on this site. I think in the process I let Tom Cooper and Eric Palmer down quite badly which is something I sincerely regret as both are good lads in every respect. Now I’m unsure of the reception I would get there so I tend to stay away.
JonesyFarbod,
Good point thanks for the correction. In my defence I was concentrating more on the missiles than the geography, but, sloppiness detracts from clarity and it seems I have enough problems making myself clear as it stands!.
By the term ‘Arabian Gulf’ I was loosely trying to define the stretch of water at the mouth of the Persian Gulf where the Arabian Sea flows into the Gulf of Oman.
JonesySrbin,
Depends what kind of jobs, the NSM is a great all around missile like the Uran, Harpoon and Exocet, however thats all West has to offer, and thats light subsonic sea skimmers.
Now you’re getting there – it depends on what kinds of jobs. What kind of job does the Brazillian Navy need to do with its AShM’s, what job does the Portguese Navy, Italian Navy, Greek Navy, Egyptian Navy, Saudi Navy, Malaysian Navy, South Korean Navy, Australian Navy, South African Navy etc, etc need their antiship missiles to do?.
Sink carriers?. No not one of them.
Switch it round – which navies ARE likely to need more capability than that offered by volume NSM attack?. China, India, North Korea and Iran. Of these China and India have adopted supersonics, hit up against the targetting barrier, and are now pushing the development of ISTAR assets and a netcentric backend to try and use them properly. North Korea hasnt the need for them owing to a developed submarine capability and perfect waters for them and mine warfare. Iran is in a similar position – it has deeper open water to worry about in the arabian gulf. Most of its coastline, though, is north of a chokepoint that they can close with available assets.
So in the first case, give or take, we are looking at two or three nations that have supersonics, but, cant employ them reliably at their advertised extended ranges. In the second case we are looking at potentially dozens of services that could find a use for NSM and need nothing more than the assets they already have to employ them and get a much improved capability than they had with Exocet, Otomat, Harpoon, Sea Eagle or any of the other current generation active-radar homers.
What weapon does Russia build that offers all that?.
Essentially Indian1973 hit this one square on target in the fourth post of the thread. A spread of Type65 torpedoes is the only reliable, non-nuclear, way to sink a CVN. Missiles, of whatever size and speed, just chip bits off a ship of that mass.
JonesyYF,
Hmm, Jonesy, do you happen to be Stuart Slade on Warships1.com? Because much of what you say conforms to an excellent aricle written by him.
I remember Stuart, and his ‘Gong Shows’ (a particuarly amusing way of dealing with board trolls), from Warships1 going back about 5 years. He is, or was, a Defence Analyst in the Washington Beltway then and a certifiable guru!.
Needless to say I am not him I’m afraid. For one thing he was even more right-wing than me!.
I got a bit fed up with Warships back in about ’99, just after the time Stuart Slade, Andy Pico, Joe Frye and few of the other ‘originals’ dropped off the scope and I’ve not been back much since!. I hadnt seen that article either but the contents dont surprise me!. That chap has forgotten more about defensive AAW than I know!.
Garry,
Or they could do what the Iraqis did with Scud reload missiles and mount them in School busses. Or they could design their own launchers that can be submerged in shallow water… with a few dummy submerged launchers set to explode if tampeed with as a nice anti SEAL feature. Their range of options are as wide as their imaginations.
Cool. How does that change the situation regarding saturation fire though?. You know the volume that the Soviets determined was necessary to penetrate a carrier screen. A convoy of 40 school buses heading for identified potential firing sites might just be a bit of a giveaway as to what was really going on. Plus it is hardly addressing the initial point of the thread is it?. Srbin stated that Russian antiship missiles are the best. Shore based Granit doesnt exist.
And camouflage and misinformation have stood still and are always defeated by technology rather than improved by it. The ability of NATO to find targets in Kosovo shows there is always room for improvement.
I dont know in what ways deception technology may have advanced. In fact things like GPS and advanced radar jammers would seem to be retrograde steps in terms of concealment. The terrain cover is dependent on havig suitable terrain in the first place – the south western corner of Iran is hardly that found in the former Yugoslavia!. The whole point of these high endurance ISTAR UAV’s is to counter defensive movements an opponent may attempt to make by having wide area surveillance up over a threat zone as near to permanently as possible.
Look at a map… if it is old put a few stars and stripes all over Iraq and then work out how much the US will need Turkish bases to attack Iran.
Public opinion in Turkey restricted the availability of bases that were vital to the operational plan. You asked what value public opinion had – well theres a good example.
Yes, I am suggesting that they are intending world conquest by developing a defencive system to stop the US from bombing them… Everyone who resists the US is a threat to world security… Admit it Jonesy… you ARE GWB!!!!
My command of English is that bad?!. Thanks very much Garry!. I dont know about resisting the US but there would be a lot of countries, particularly in the Far East, who might be looking for a ‘coalition of the very willing’ should Iran start launching indiscriminate antishipping attacks in the gulf!.
If Iran introduced any new weapons it is seen as a threat to stability and peace in the region according to the US State department… unless it is american companies selling the equipment of course. The US will assume the worst no matter what, so why base your own defence purchases on the opinion of an enemy? Did the Americans decide not to introduce nuclear armed cruise missiles or Nimitz class carriers because such an introduction might increase tensions during the cold war?
Tortured logic there!. I’ve not seen any scare stories about Iranian development of Chinese chopper launched AShMs. Likewise I’ve not seen much said, apart from in the evangelical right wing American press, about Iranian adoption of heavier Chinese C-80x antiship missiles?. Lots of people inside and outside the US would be concerned about the intent behind an Iranian P-700 purchase though.
You criticise the Granit for being unselective yet you mention Mines as an alternative? And it is something they have used in the past, so such measures have a history in the region.
Not all mines are simple moored jobbies with contact horn exploders Garry. There are combined influence models out there, cheaply available, that are capable of selecting a target based on combined accoustic and magnetic signature (very difficult to decoy) and can even count hulls to detonate after MCM or escort vessels have passed to catch ‘heavies’. Selectivity isnt necessarily a problem.
You are assuming Granits have even been offered to them. All I am saying is that the Granits were designed to take on carriers and that the Iranians have been threatened and are under threat today by US carrier.
I’m assuming that, if they wanted them, they wouldn’t have waited for them to be offered. I appreciate what your saying about the Iranians facing a potential carrier threat, but, you have to appreciate that they dont have the assets to co-ordinate a long-range antiship missile strike in a cluttered environment. This obviating any possible advantage they might get with a very long range weapon.
So the Norwegian Navy which doesn’t have the NSM in service yet either is the worlds best armed navy whenit comes to AShMs? Anyone with a decent carrier with fighters that can outrange 150km could kick their butts even if they had NSM in widespread service. That would include the Yak-38M!!!!
The missile is successfully tested and is scheduled for service entry next year!. As to the ‘anyone with a decent carrier’ comment your well off the mark Garry. I can conceive a number of tactical situations that could give an advantage to a defender over an attacking force with a single CVA.
The fact that the Granit has extensive future growth potential is actually a positive thing. They already have sub surface and sea surface launchers. They have vehicle launchers developed for everything from URANs and MOSKITs through to TOPOLs… I doubt Granit would be a problem.
What if it never gets developed any further Garry, isnt that equally likely?. They have an opportunity to give the weapon GLONASS precision guidance, turn it into the mother of all JDAM’s and give their Oscars a meaningful role – they havent done so according to anything I’ve seen or read. Why?. They have no real requirement for it, they have no global foreign policy aims that justify the expenditure. If they wanted to withdraw the Oscars and maintain a vestige of coastal anti-carrier defence I could understand the development of shore battery versions, the money they’d save on the Oscars would make it finiancially sensible. They arent doing that either though.
What they are doing is fighting a nightmare in Chechnya and investing in the maintenance of their strategic nuclear capability to preserve their territorial integrity. Hell of a sensible approach when the pockets aren’t that deep.
Ummm… yes… you seem to think we are talking about finding the best individual missile in the world and then declaring the maker of that missile the best defended in the world.
I’m not interested in the best defended country. I’m talking about finding the best all round antiship missile in the world.
The Granit is a specialised weapon and one of many different types the Soviets and Russians developed. The Norwegians have a few missile designs but they lack more than a few types that the Russians have. Even a Harpoon type is lacking indigenous to the Norwegian Navy. The Russians have many types with many different features and advantages and disadvantages. The important thing is that they have a tool for every job. That is not to say every tool they have is perfect. But together they present the most formidible set of tools for the job when used together.
I agree, to an extent, but we are debating whether the Russians have the best antiship missiles in the world. The simple answer to that is no they dont. Most nations who operate modest navies on a budget cant afford to have half a dozen different types of missile just for antiship duties in addition to all the other types they have to support. Malaysia is case in point operating MM38, MM40 and Otomat and wishing to standardise on a single type for efficiency. This is the kind of real-world advantage that I rate so much higher in a weapon than supersonic this or amoured that.
JonesyYourFather
Just to clarify, but am I right to say that , gathering from your back posts, in your opinion the NSM is just as capable as Russian missiles when both are launched from 160km, if not more capable? And that the Russian missiles are not capable/not worth the expense because they cannot be reliably targeted from beyond a range of around 160km anyway? Thanks.
Essentially yes that is a major aspect of it. The other aspects are the advantages of the IIR/TRA seeker and the fact that the larger weapons offer greater, more detectable, targets to defending systems.
Oh, yes, does the story you’re referring to about the E-2C providing targeting for the TASM somehow end with the E-2C targeting their own warship or something like that? Please share the story with us
Something like that yes!. The story was told to me by an ex-USN Cdr in 1998 and dates back to the mid 80’s IIRC. The short version is that his E-2 was tasked with range overwatch on an autonomous long range TASM shot. BGM-109B/TASM employed a passive/active seeker and a 3D ‘snake’ profile flightpath to localise a target with a passive radar seeker then switch to a J-band active seeker in the endgame. The weapon could be mid course guided using the Outlaw Hunter system, a targetting/comms package fitted to P-3C’s, unfortunately though his E-2 wasnt so fitted.
Picture the scene as the missile is fired towards its simulated target several hundred kilometres away, it drops into its flight plan and commences maneovres initiating its passive RF detection phase. On the E-2 screen the missile is noticed to be gradually banking away from the bearing to the simulated target and settles on bearing to a distant surface contact. Picture the even merrier scene when that distant target resolves as being the Fleet UNREP vessel coming out to re-store the carrier the Cdr had earlier launched from and it was determined that the UNREP ship was just within range of the TASM!. This was reported to the range officer with all deliberate haste who promptly failed that test launch and, IIRC, self-destructed the missile via radio relay from the E-2.
Proves, for me, that its one thing to list a weapons range in a Janes book or on a slick website, but, its quite another to have a proven deployable capability with it!
Garry,
Will look at your post tomorrow. No time right now!.
JonesySo far Gray Area I’ve not been able to find an official comment, from the USMC, that says anything other than the below:
Major Doug Powell, a spokesman for the Marine Corps in Washington, told The Independent: “It’s being investigated – I can’t say much more than that. It’s being investigated for possible law of war violations. A naval criminal investigation team is looking into it.”
Which is entirely appropriate given the situation.
Kevin Sites, the NBC correspondant said: “The prisoner did not appear to be armed or threatening in any way”. He also states that other Iraqi’s were killed in that mosque at the same time. Something the camera appears to miss.
The only other report I’ve found is that below as the official usmc.mil site appears to be unreachable at present!
A spokesman at Marine Corps headquarters in the Pentagon, Major Doug Powell, said the incident was “being investigated.” He had no further details.
The US military today that the Marines are investigating an allegation of the unlawful use of force in the death of an enemy combatant.
The Marine has been withdrawn from the battlefield pending the results of the investigation,.
“We follow the law of armed conflict and hold ourselves to a high standard of accountability,” said Lieutenant General John Sattler, commanding general of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. “The facts of this case will be thoroughly pursued to make an informed decision and to protect the rights of all persons involved.”
The International Committee of the Red Cross, which is mandated to uphold the Geneva Conventions on warfare, was trying to contact representatives in Iraq to find out what they had been able to determine about the case.
The Third Geneva Convention, the section of the 1949 treaty that applies to prisoners of war, says “persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat (out of combat) by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.”
It adds that “the wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.”
The judge advocate general heading the investigation, Lieutenant Colonel Bob Miller, said that depending on the evidence, it could be reasonable to conclude the Marine was acting in self-defence.
“The policy of the rules of engagement authorise the Marines to use force when presented with a hostile act or hostile intent,” Miller said. “So they would have to be using force in self-defence, yes.”
“Any wounded – in this case insurgents – who don’t pose a threat would not be considered hostile,” said Miller.
Charles Heyman, a senior defence analyst with Jane’s Consultancy Group in Britain, defended the Marine’s actions, saying it was possible the wounded man was concealing a firearm or grenade.
“You can hear the tension in those Marines’ voices. One is showing, ‘He’s faking it. He’s faking it,”’ Heyman said. “In a combat infantry soldier’s training, he is always taught that his enemy is at his most dangerous when he is severely wounded.”
If the injured man makes even the slightest move, “in my estimation they would be justified in shooting him.”
JonesyThe thing about the NSM is that it’s too short ranged. Now matter how stealthy, low observable and etc, it’s 160km range is just too short to attack a CARRIER group. At 160kms, your launch platforms like Helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, surface vessels and etc will probably be detected before then, even if you use these and launch them from lower altitude. You need something longer ranged at least 250kms to kind of stay out of Carrier defences. If you get too close, you’ll really have to tangle with E-2Cs and F-18E/Fs(which is a rather poor interceptor)
250km stand off is no safety from a carrier group. Plus, again, not many services count, amongst their taskings, the requirement to sink a carrier. What use is an anti-carrier missile to those navies?. What use is a missile that only a few could ever plan on trying to use.
NSM is more relevant, more useful and more efficient.
JonesyIf it’s a choice between what the USMC have determined and what a few right-wing numpties on this forum who know no better think, my money will be on the USMC every single time.
Any of you wannabe neocons care to argue with that? Bearing in mind that by doing so you will be dissing one of the finest bodies of men and women on this or, indeed, any other planet?
Amazing, given your posting name, that you see things so black and white?. Is the name ironic perhaps?
JonesyDamien,
You seem to want to put words into my mouth and ignore pertinent facts, which is a poor debating tactic to say the least.
I, sincerely, can’t see that as fair comment. I have asked questions and answered all those I felt required it. I have clarified my views where it seemed that I needed to from what you wrote. Where have I tried to put words in your mouth and which facts have I not covered?.
You talk in that last post of war crimes and morality as if they were somehow isolated from the environment that exists there. Ask yourself this question honestly – do you think that that soldier would walk up to a person lying prone and semi-conscious on a street in anytown, USA and shoot him dead?. If you have anywhere near a belief that the answer to that would be ‘no’ then you MUST accept that the combat experience he has had in Iraq resulted in his action.
Seeings as neither you or I have had that experience neither of us is in a position to determine whether he intended to murder that guy, constituing a war crime, or whether he perceived a threat and acted as his experience taught him to, which is not a war crime. Is it possible he wanted to go out and slot a terrorist so that he could brag about it – yes. If that was the case he is a criminal and should be dealt with. The way he shouted in the video footage though seemed to indicate that he was reacting to something and that doesnt appear to support a premeditated intent to kill.
The difference between us is that I am willing to give that soldier a chance to be heard because of where he is and what he’s been doing. I want to know more about what that soldier saw in that mosque and the engagements he was involved in during his tour before I accuse him of anything. You have him already convicted as a murderer and a war criminal on the basis of politicised media reports and video footage that shows a shooting and little more.
I am just puzzled as to why you seem to think execution of unconscious wounded prisoners is acceptable, and frankly disappointed that an ex-member of HM armed forces believes war crimes are an understandable or acceptable means of waging war.
I am, in turn, suprised at any servicemen or ex-servicemen who would be willing to condemn a soldier on operations, particularly somewhere like that under those conditions, without a lot more information than we have seen. Civvies I can understand it from as they operate in a world where all the boundaries are rigid and clearly defined all the time. I dont have to agree with them though.
JonesyYour joking Indian!. They just bumped the total system price up $200 million on the RN!.
Same old story with French weapons it seems!
JonesyAre you now saying that US forces did not abuse prisoners? Because they took photos while they were doing it and some of them have been banged up for it as a result.
Of course not but you seemed to be insinuating that there were hundreds of proven instances of American wanton brutality. I didnt realise you were only referring to Abu Graib and a few interviews. Hardly proof of a widespread problem is it?.
I would agree with you on that but if that was your point it was entirely unclear in your previous posts which read like some FPS addict’s mindless defence of US forces regardless of what evils they are self-evidently getting up to.
I thought I made my point clearly and concisely. I often get accused of excessive verbosity on many of my posts so if, in my attempt at brevity, I’ve been unclear I apologise. You certain you weren’t reading what you were expecting me to write instead of what I actually did?. Have been guilty of that myself every now and again!.
As per what the USMC have said. Are you arguing against what the USMC say about this incident? They have admitted they were prisoners from a previous engagement. Which makes it even worse – no medical care other than first aid, no registration, etc.
Yes, put simply, I have a hard time accepting that a prisoner is someone who has not been secured and under guard whoever says it.
On the issue of the abandonment of wounded I am glad someone has recognised that. For me THAT is the the crime of this situation that the media hype has absolutely buried. I cannot comprehend why these wounded guys were left as they were. Not only is it a poor reflection on the USMC on humanitarian grounds, but, no-one I’ve spoken to can understand why they would be left in a situation where another combat team would have to go back and face a potential threat in that mosque once it had already been ‘cleared’.
These badly wounded prisoners clearly were not booby trapped. By your logic are we to let our forces go wild and kill anyone and everyone who is asleep, lying down or just looks vaguely dodgy?
How was the fact that they were not booby trapped clear?. The USMC team were in that room for what 1 minute, perhaps 2, and the ‘prisoners’ were covered by blankets. If suicide-bombers can walk up to checkpoints in broad daylight with pounds of semtex concealed on themselves then that blanket could have concealed anything.
My ‘logic’ states that if an identified combattant doesnt demonstrate his harmlessness in short order and could, even potentially, be able to detonate an explosive device that threatens you and your team then shooting him is not unreasonable!. I dont think equivalates to ‘going wild’ and killing everyone around.
‘Asleep’?. If a dozen hairy-arsed Marines came charging into your room shouting and screaming how long would you stay in the land of nod for?. This guy was wounded and semi-conscious and, if he was ‘innocent’ (as only a poor Iraqi terrorist can be of course), that is unlucky for him. If his comrades use tactics that make bodies suspect then he’s not got much cause to complain about being shot as suspect has he. Its simplistic but no less truthful for it.
If the cameraman with the unit was aware they were prisoners from the previous day’s fighting, it is no stretch to suggest that perhaps the soldiers in the unit were also aware or bloody well should have been.
If they had been left unguarded since being wounded anyone could have been in to re-arm them or give them explosives to detonate or whatever. The video shows US Marines going in to that mosque alert for trouble. Not the usual approach for dealing with secured prisoners is it really?
What has this got to do with anything? He executed an unconscious and wounded prisoner. What kind of soldier – hell, what kind of man could do that? A sorry excuse for a man, and a sorry excuse for a soldier.
Are you suggesting that combat experience should have no place in a soldiers decision making process?. If the soldier percieved that prone figure as a threat, let it go and it ended up in an explosion killing him and several of his mates what kind of soldier is he?. What kind of man could do that? A man who felt his life was in danger presumably.
Executing of unconscious and wounded prisoners does not need to be overinflated – I mean, how could it be worse?
Perhaps video footage of a booby-trapped body killing a cameraman, a squad of marines and the remaining wounded ‘prisoners’ in the building would be worse. You must at least feel something for the innocent cameraman and those poor ‘prisoners surely?. Or would you then be condemning the USMC for the ineptness of its troops for walking into the trap?. Heads you lose tails you lose eh Damien?
Do what you like – your bizarre defence of the execution of prisoners does not reflect very well on your own training or lack thereof, and in your position I don’t think I’d continue with such an obviously foolhardy line of posts.
RN fieldcraft training didnt cover clearing buildings oddly enough. A couple of mates have said the same thing as Snapper about how FIBUA training dictates you check a body, theyre of the opinion that the yank screwed up to, I asked one of what exactly he would do if the body happened to explode while his mate was checking it. He grinned and said that he’d call a medic. Get the message?.
I believe so. Remind us which one of us claims to have experience in being herded about in identical garb while being told what to do?
Told what to do. Not what to think. I know which is worse!.
JonesyBut this is not an isolated incident. There have now been several incidents where US forces have killed unarmed civvies, abused prisoners, etc.
You know every pertinent fact on every incident that has been judged as iffy do you Damien?. Look I know better than the next guy what training deficiencies exist in the US Army and Marine Corps. Enough of my mates came back from Boz with stories of dozens of John Wayne clones swaggering through town expecting to be treated like they were the liberators of Bastogne. I’ve been told in very abrupt anglo-saxon what some US troops are like.
The point I am making is that it is a poor reflection on a persons intelligence to take a single issue, like this shooting, and use it as a root cause for a condemnation of US foreign policy.
I’m struggling to think of a situation where the execution of an unconscious prisoner is a reasonable reaction.
Interesting use of ‘prisoner’. Prisoner implying incarceration of some sort – a prison? At least some form of guard?. These guys had neither – they were wounded left in a mosque after a firefight what criteria did they meet to be termed prisoners?.
It shows us other guys lying down in a mosque. After being shot, the camera shows us the dead body, also lying down. He hasn’t magically sprouted weapons or bombs – you really think the USMC wouldn’t be crowing to the world about it if they had found any?
You would dispute the fact that dead insurgents bodies have been booby trapped?. Did these bodies ‘magically’ arise from the dead and booby trap themselves?. Just because no explosives were found on this body doesnt diminish the fact that the tactic has been employed or the concern it creates in the minds of those facing it.
Oh, just anybody with any sense in their heads. The cameraman himself says they are prisoners.
Ahh these were prisoners because the bloody cameraman said they were!!?. Like I said were these guys under guard?. They certainly weren’t secured in any way?. What makes them ‘prisoners’ in any recognised description of the term?.
The USMC themselves have stated these were unarmed, badly wounded prisoners from the previous day’s fighting. And that one of their soldiers executed at least one of them. And that soldier is under arrest.
Ah, of course, had they said that this soldier took a split-second decision based on hs recent combat experience and elected to shoot someone he perceived as a threat then the media would accept that and draw a line under the story would they?. You know as well as I do there would be screams of a cover-up and it would be held up as an example of ongoing evidence of US heavy handedness. The USMC is in a lose-lose situation and are choosing the least damaging option until the inquest is finished – int that obvious?.
You are defending the indefensible – why?
Because I remember the PC witchhunts that followed the British Army border shootings in NI where individual soldiers expended rounds were counted – I had mates over there too. I remember them being terrified because they were trapped in a situation where they could be killed by the IRA if they didnt shoot and jailed if they did shoot but offended the sensibilities of the clueless suburban masses. I see exactly the same thing here and, IMO, it stinks!
Because I am disgusted at how this incident is being overinflated by a media seeking to support itself and the vast majority are too naieve to recognise the fact.
Want me to continue?.
Indeed they are. Still, at least you’ve got that nice wooly coat to keep you warm this winter eh
Interesting perspective. One of us is swallowing everything the media is spoon-feeding out, complete with their own condiments of course, and one of us is going by his own interpretation of events and referencing that with a knowledge of recent history and the views of those with actual experience. Just checking Damien, but, aren’t Sheep herd animals?.
Steve,
That strikes me as incredibly ironic: isn’t that exactly why you signed-up, Jonesy?
Well I cant argue that one I guess. I certainly took issue with Tom Kings ‘Options for Change’ but no-one listened to me!. All I will say is that HM forces haven’t managed to control the way its people think or the opinions they hold yet!
Not much room for free-thinking individuals in HM’s services that I took a look at via a pre-RCB and three years on a UAS
Commission eh?. Have spent a bit of time at Cranwell, been riotously drunk in ‘The Bowl’ several times and even got to spend a few nights in the one of the girls non-commissioned blocks (a story to be told another time!). For a crabs base its not too bad!. The little Italian place just over from the main guardhouse aint that bad either!.
Jonesy1) French people don’t desicrate the graves: a couple a stupid did. Some of them have been arrested so far.
It’s exactly as stupid as pretending that everyone in the US abuse and rape in the prisons.
This is the problem though Hand. Flood especially, but others as well, are trying to extrapolate the actions of one US Marine, who’s motivations we have no idea about, as being indicative of the whole US presence in Iraq and of the bullishness of US foreign policy in general. One US Marine!.
There was a thread a while back about US Immigration policy towards journalists that went exactly the same way. Flood, and many of those who back his views, have repeatedly proved that they are not concerned in any way about the singular issue of the day. They are simply capitalising on another tenuous opportunity to vent at the current occupant of the White House.
As to the issue here, personally, I think you are quite correct Hand. The media hasn’t shown us enough to judge whether the Marine in question over-reacted or not. The camera angle didnt show us what he saw just before he fired.
On the media issue you have to ask yourself one question. Had that tape been shown without any press voiceover, just the video audio, how many would have thought there was anything seriously untoward?. At very least there would be a reasonable doubt as to what had transpired. The media commentry set the scene for the interpretation of those images and that commentry was subjective to put it mildly. What still could be at worst the over-reaction of one Marine under mitigating circumstances has now been portrayed as a US policy of routinely slaughtering unarmed prisoners.
As always, it seems, some sheep are easily herded I suppose.
JonesyGarry
No, they’d welcome a US attack with open arms because the US is on such good terms with iran it would never bomb them or interfere with their political system… again.
What? I said Iran isnt Russia and it isnt!. The strategic situation facing Iran, the geographical constraints on an attacker and the military infrastructure available for their defence are all completely different. The defensive strategy will reflect that. How is that hard to misunderstand?.
It would keep a US CVSG 500km offshore, which would limit its ability to come in close to extend the range of any strike aircraft launched from it.
It will keep a US CVBG 500km off shore if these, still non-existant, P-700 TELs are parked on the beach right next to the Iranian/Pakistan border. Seeings that may make them a bit easy to find one would presume that they would be deployed in the high-ground a bit further inland in the same area.
They probably won’t even camouflage them… just sit them out in the open like the iraqis did with their Scuds. How many scuds did the US get by the way?
Dont let your sarcasm mask your intelligence Garry. You do yourself a dis-service. You know full well that US ISTAR capability has moved on a long way in the 13 years since Desert Storm and is developing new high endurance capabilities to address just the kind of threat system you are talking about. Global Hawk, A-160 Hummingbird etc, etc
And if it was 50% stronger what exact difference will that make? “World” condemnation seems to get US presidents extra votes.
…but denied the use of Turkish bases for Iraqi Freedom didnt it?.
And they have never done that before… I agree they don’t seem to have any ambitions of hurting their neighbours, but when defending oneself who knows what they are capable of? Human wave attacks to stop the Iraqis springs to mind…A major effect on the world economy will hurt the US rather more than you suggest, and the threat of such a reprisal might make an attack unthinkable.
You seem to think that Iran is more threatening to world security than I do!. Interesting. Theres an oddity!. You do realise that the Iranians inducting a weapon like P-700 – that it can pretty much only use as an indiscriminate ‘terror’ weapon – might make it MORE likely to be subject to attack than it would otherwise?.
Good job they are a bit smarter than that isnt it!. They have the capability to slam the Hormuz Strait shut at will with submarines and mine warfare already. Why attract more attention by adopting a weapon system they have no strategic or tactical need for?. As I’ve said, several times, the weapons they are acquiring make sense for their environment and are within their budget. They seem absolutely oblivious to all the virtues that a P700 could offer them, don’t they Garry, how remiss of them!. :rolleyes:
BTW your map shows Granits could engage anything in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman and a significant distance out into the Arabian sea. A land attack version with the seeker and guidance system beng developed for the Yakhont-M giving land attack capability would make it a very capable system for targeting ports in Saudi and Iraq and Oman.
So a missile thats not developed yet (surface launch Granit) could use a seeker thats, afaik, not developed yet to become a fearsome land-attack weapon. This is your argument to support Srbin’s assertion that Russian antiship missiles are the best in the world is it Garry?. Not being funny pal, but, I don’t think you’re helping his case much do you?.
Ink,
Could an NSM-style seeker turn P-700 into a useful weapons system?. Honestly I dont know – the pro’s and con’s seem to balance each other out a bit.
Pros – Missile is more employable. Targetting would be a very much lesser problem and the flight profile could potentially be modified to provide a high-altitude higher-endurance passive area-search attack option. Against a target fleet under EMCON such an attack, from an emission-silent heavy weapon diving down at speed from altitude, could well be successful. Especially if you consider the relative immunity from countermeasures that such a weapon would posses.
Cons – Its still a big ole missile!. Its a big radar target and a big IR target. Its seaskimming profile is limited to about 100ft and its not all THAT fast on the deck!. This means if it IS detected by a vessel with a decent radar/area SAM combination then it stands a fair chance of being tracked and intercepted. Plus it would still need a big naval platform or a new ground launcher to be developed to employ it.
Bottom line though Ink is that its all hypothetical. This weapon hasnt been adapted for ground launch and hasnt been developed with an IIR seeker. This development isnt real likely either as there is no requirement for it from any client state and the Russians aren’t really in the carrier-killing game anymore because the Americans arent in the SIOP game anymore!.
Its an interesting theoretical exercise, but, that isnt the same as a demonstrated capability like that NSM has.
BTW I’ve not forgotten about the question you raised about terminal-guided ballistic RV’s. I did read something a couple of years back about that kind of weapon, but, cant find anything beyond the Pershing II RADAG system at the moment. RADAG not being applicable to naval targetting. I’ll keep looking and get back to you when I find something ok?
Sign In
