The Middle East War

[RETAC21]

23 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Model aircraft carrier. Not the same thing.

I find that incredibly insulting. Everything in 'Megaforce' was meticulously researched. 

 

 

"A sequel titled "Deeds, Not Words: was considered. It was scrapped due to the poor performance of this film."

Anyway.

Back to the drone carrier, it may seem as a stupid idea, but it enables Iran to move forces abroad unhindered by the need to pander to the locals. It's not something to go against a US carrier but to enable Iran to "intervene" in Yemen or Somalia, for example.

[glenn239]

17 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Not clear what is the practical use of this drone carrier, except it is test/practice ship to start building experience for some hypotetical future use of Iranian Navy. As by now, there is hardly any way big Iranian ships would survive for long in case of conflict with US. 

The navies of the world I think might be slowly waking up to the fact that using civilian vessels as military vessels is a way cheaper way to have a very large and effective navy.  Not like a Zircon missile cares whether it was launched from a battlecruiser or a fishing boat.

[sunday]

15 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The navies of the world I think might be slowly waking up to the fact that using civilian vessels as military vessels is a way cheaper way to have a very large and effective navy.  Not like a Zircon missile cares whether it was launched from a battlecruiser or a fishing boat.

Only when not considering damage control, i.e. the ships are considered as expendable.

[Roman Alymov]

53 minutes ago, sunday said:

Only when not considering damage control, i.e. the ships are considered as expendable.

Ships ARE expendable, at least if they are bult for war, not parades and "Fleet in being".

Another pro-Rus opinion on that https://t.me/dva_majors/64076

[sunday]

46 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Ships ARE expendable, at least if they are bult for war, not parades and "Fleet in being".

Another pro-Rus opinion on that https://t.me/dva_majors/64076

Well, one could say they are expendable, but it could be said also that some are more expendable than others, and when they are carrying lots of expensive equipment, like weapons systems, electronics, and an expensively trained crew, they are less expendable than the common merchantman whose cargo is more expensive than the ship.

Usually naval vessels are equipped with redundancy, such as twin propellers, better compartmentalization, and a generally more sturdy construction.

[Roman Alymov]

9 minutes ago, sunday said:

Usually naval vessels are equipped with redundancy, such as twin propellers, better compartmentalization, and a generally more sturdy construction.

As we see from Houti anti-ship missiles practice, even regular cargo vessels are relatively resiliant.

[sunday]

6 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

As we see from Houti anti-ship missiles practice, even regular cargo vessels are relatively resiliant.

That is a mere skirmish, not actual battle. Do you recall the tanker war during the Iran-Irak war?

Edited to add: there is also the decline on building standards of merchant ships, as it was denounced here:

Quote

But there is more to this book than an old man’s pique. One of the major themes of this story is that things are getting worse, not  better. I will argue that tankship standards have deteriorated  drastically in the last 30 years. Over this period, tankers have  become weaker, less reliable, and far more difficult to maintain.  This is an astonishing result given that over the same period the  perception of a major oil spill has gone from a godawful mess to an environmental catastrophe with the potential for multi-billion dollar claims. I will further argue that under the current system, things will continue to get worse, both with respect to the quality of the ship and the quality of tanker maintenance. Surely such a strange  paradox needs explaining.

 

Edited February 7 by sunday

[RETAC21]

40 minutes ago, sunday said:

That is a mere skirmish, not actual battle. Do you recall the tanker war during the Iran-Irak war?

Edited to add: there is also the decline on building standards of merchant ships, as it was denounced here:

 

Tankers and bulk carriers have become harder to sink since 2006 - in a way, Jack Devaney have has his vindication as the ships are built now with more redundancy but with (sometimes) shittier equipment, so they don't sink but they fail.

Re the Iranian carrier, as a converted containership, it has some stuff that will be useful in terms of staying afloat, like ballast tanks, but it may be vulnerable to fire, which has killed more ships than sinkings have in the last decade.

Roman's view of navies is typically continental, and misses the point that to sink a ship, first you have to find it, which is harder than it appears, as the Arctic Sea case proves.

[TrustMe]

The UK Royal Navy's LPH HMS Oceam was built to civilian standards to save money. I'm not certain this was the way forward 🤔

Edited February 7 by TrustMe

[RETAC21]

46 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

The UK Royal Navy's LPH HMS Oceam was built to civilian standards to save money. I'm not certain this was the way forward 🤔

Not the only one, many of the Western landing ships went for civilian standards, which decrease a bit the damage control capabilities, but are still robust enough. Not that long ago, a bulker took an AS-4 and is still kicking, if damaged:

https://www.vesseltracker.com/en/Ships/Aya-9117868.html

[Mighty_Zuk]

Seems Israel and Syria are silently cooperating vs Hezbollah in the Syria-Lebanon border regions.

https://www.mako.co.il/pzm-soldiers/Article-1169bdb6caee491027.htm

[Mighty_Zuk]

Morocco said to award a $180m contract for 36 of Elbit's ATMOS 2000 SPH systems. It competed against France's Caesar.

The thumbnail shows a EuroPULS, but the contract is for howitzers.

 

[JWB]

https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1889355776679940339

Syrian army barred Russians from entering their naval base in Tartus.

A convoy of 30 vehicles spent 8 hours at the security checkpoint, but eventually had to return to the Khmeimim air base.

This is happening amid the stalled negotiations between Russia and the new Syrian government regarding the continued presence of Russian bases on Syria's soil. Reportedly, Syrians want Moscow to extradite Bashar al-Assad in exchange for any concessions.

[crazyinsane105]

10 hours ago, JWB said:

https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1889355776679940339

Syrian army barred Russians from entering their naval base in Tartus.

A convoy of 30 vehicles spent 8 hours at the security checkpoint, but eventually had to return to the Khmeimim air base.

This is happening amid the stalled negotiations between Russia and the new Syrian government regarding the continued presence of Russian bases on Syria's soil. Reportedly, Syrians want Moscow to extradite Bashar al-Assad in exchange for any concessions.

Assad will probably get thrown out by a window, shot twice in the head, and be declared dead by suicide I’m sure 

[Mighty_Zuk]

IDF reportedly planning a long term stay in southern Syria. That one was actually known for a while, but this announcement comes with a plan to build 9 outposts/bases.

IDF isn't looking for territory per se, as controlling a civilian population is a major burden and a recurring theme is the IDF's manpower crisis. Nor is it going to be precisely the Bravo line. But there are some strategic hills there the IDF is likely to permanently stay on. 

By the way, the highest and largest base in the Israeli Hermon, where I spent most of my time in the field, was excavated and built by Syria. Israel just added its own stuff on top.

 

In another note, also related to Syria, I recently read about Turkey's ballistic missiles development. 

Ground launched BMs for a country like Turkey make little sense as it has a proper air force.

A country with a strong air force may prefer air launched variants. They're cheaper per range class as they may have one less stage, and are an emerging effective weapon for DEAD.

This could be an indicator that Turkey is building a BM arsenal for 2 cases:

1. Contingency plan if it anticipates losing its airpower quickly.

2. Selling to regional allies. 

The 2nd point is particularly worrisome. Syria's new government is cosy with Turkey, and beyond that it also seeks to become the Arab world's sponsor and center of power. Although Syria and Lebanon right now are less hostile than last year, it's still a threat.

Unfortunately this somewhat locks, to an extent, Israel's perception of Turkey as an emerging threat.

It'd be a shame if Iran was just replaced with another adversary without at least a period of calm for the region, but I guess such is our world.

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

Unfortunately this somewhat locks, to an extent, Israel's perception of Turkey as an emerging threat.

 Turkey might be beyond even the level of stupidity that Bibi brings to the table.

[TrustMe]

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

...This could be an indicator that Turkey is building a BM arsenal for 2 cases:

1. Contingency plan if it anticipates losing its airpower quickly.

2. Selling to regional allies. 

The 2nd point is particularly worrisome. Syria's new government is cosy with Turkey, and beyond that it also seeks to become the Arab world's sponsor and center of power. Although Syria and Lebanon right now are less hostile than last year, it's still a threat.

Unfortunately this somewhat locks, to an extent, Israel's perception of Turkey as an emerging threat.

It'd be a shame if Iran was just replaced with another adversary without at least a period of calm for the region, but I guess such is our world....

 

After fighting a 14 year civil war i'm sure that rebuilding the country is more important than buying more arms. Syria will take 10-15 years to recover what was destroyed. 

Edited February 12 by TrustMe

[Mighty_Zuk]

27 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

After fighting a 14 year civil war i'm sure that rebuilding the country is more important than buying more arms. Syria will take 10-15 years to recover what was destroyed. 

Just because they routed the SAA doesn't mean they're in the clear. From the perspective of Syria, a lot of their pre-war territory is still in the hands of multiple other nations, and there is still active fighting going on in Syria.

It's precisely when someone just seized power that they're most vulnerable. They don't get any real boost in power, but they do get a mountain of responsibilities. They haven't stood up on both feet yet, which makes them a fairly easy target.

I remind you of Ukraine 2013-2014. Just after the revolution that removed Russia from power and allowed Ukrainians to self-rule, Russia invaded and took Crimea and Donbas, practically unopposed.

Edited February 12 by Mighty_Zuk

[17thfabn]

2 hours ago, TrustMe said:

 

After fighting a 14 year civil war i'm sure that rebuilding the country is more important than buying more arms. Syria will take 10-15 years to recover what was destroyed. 

Assuming the new government is rational that is true. Hopefully that is true.

If not rebuilding an arsenal to threaten Israel will be more important.

 

[TrustMe]

2 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

Assuming the new government is rational that is true. Hopefully that is true.

If not rebuilding an arsenal to threaten Israel will be more important.

 

 

But who's going to help them financially to by arms? Syria isn't a major oil producing state and the Russians are out of it. Only Turkey has any real influence with them and the Turkish economy isn't that great.

[TrustMe]

5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Just because they routed the SAA doesn't mean they're in the clear. From the perspective of Syria, a lot of their pre-war territory is still in the hands of multiple other nations, and there is still active fighting going on in Syria.

 

I never though about that. Turkey controls some territory and the US has secured some of the oil fields to deny ISIS oil money. Still I can see Syria recapturing territory sooner than later.

[17thfabn]

1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

Who's going to help them financially to buy arms? Syria isn't a major oil producing state and the Russians are out of it. Only Turkey has any real influence with them and the Turkish economy isn't that great.

Unfortunately there always seems to be some group willing to bankroll terrorist. Yemen is dirt poor but its terrorist groups are popping off missiles and drones at Israel and shipping. 

If they think the arms will threaten Israel Iran or some rich Arab will send money.

[17thfabn]

1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

Turkey controls some territory and the US has secured some of the oil fields to deny ISIS oil money. Still I can see Syria recapturing territory sooner than later.

The U.S. will eventually get tired of the mission and will pull out. I have no idea how long Turkey will remain. 

[TrustMe]

12 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

The U.S. will eventually get tired of the mission and will pull out. I have no idea how long Turkey will remain. 

I can see Trump pulling out quite soon.

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

 

I never though about that. Turkey controls some territory and the US has secured some of the oil fields to deny ISIS oil money. Still I can see Syria recapturing territory sooner than later.

I cannot even guess how Syria will get Turkey to withdraw if Turkey positions itself as an ally.

But if you want others to respect your sovereignty, you have to show them you're capable of maintaining it.