The Iranians are at it again...

[GeneralLee]

Two Iranian patrol boats buzzed a civilian vessel on a US Nay contract in international waters. Unfortunately it seems to have bee a little more heavily armed than usual and they withdrew after warning shots from a 50 cal. .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7367675.stm

Im starting to suspect this is going to end in tears when the Iranians have some of their boats are accidentally destroyed by some spooked captain.

[Nick_Since_1985]

Im starting to suspect this is going to end in tears when the Iranians have some of their boats are accidentally destroyed by some spooked captain.

I hope so, all I hear on the news is Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears ...

[Surgeon]

Good, we need some new scandal to liven up the daily news.

Though I heard Iranians do this pretty often, it's just that not every incident is reported. Perhaps they don't harass civilian vessels quite as often.

[Farnan]

I want it to be a Swiss flagged freighter that destroys the Iranian speed boat. The irony of it all will kill me.

[bushbush]

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran

[Blau&Gruen]

... too much fun ...

[Captain Jin]

Just a little country trying to flex it's muscle.

[Erik]

Two Iranian patrol boats buzzed a civilian vessel on a US Nay contract in international waters. Unfortunately it seems to have bee a little more heavily armed than usual and they withdrew after warning shots from a 50 cal. .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7367675.stm

Im starting to suspect this is going to end in tears when the Iranians have some of their boats are accidentally destroyed by some spooked captain.

Mercenaries = civilians now?

[Farnan]

Mercenaries = civilians now?

Where do you get mercenaries?

Its a civilian freighter that was contracted to deliver something.

[Каие]

Seriously lads, what can a speedboat do to a huge gunship?

[Caelius]

Seriously lads, what can a speedboat do to a huge gunship?

Blow it up maybe? Just a thought....

You've heard of the USS Cole haven't you?

We've been over this.

[Nick_Since_1985]

Blow it up maybe? Just a thought...

I would like to see Iran pull that off and get away with it. That would be cool, all in the name of science ofcourse...

[Caelius]

USS Cole?
Wasn't that blown up by a bomb on a boat?

As opposed to a bunch of little guys on a speedboat with guns?

What's the difference?

One's a small boat, and the other is...a small boat.

Did I mention that speedboats are probably worse since they could drop mines in the path of other ships?

Seems like your denial of things has no bounds.

[Spartacus the Irish]

Seriously lads, what can a speedboat do to a huge gunship?

In the Millenium Challenge '02 war games, Gen. Paul van Ripen destroyed most of the US fleet in the Persian Gulf with speedboats packed with explosives.

A speedboat can do plenty to a huge gunship - in the war games, the US fleet lost the USS Constellation. A bloody carrier.

[Nick_Since_1985]

In the Millenium Challenge '02 war games, Gen. Paul van Ripen destroyed most of the US fleet in the Persian Gulf with speedboats packed with explosives.

A speedboat can do plenty to a huge gunship - in the war games, the US fleet lost the USS Constellation. A bloody carrier.

God I hope this would happen...

[The Alcotroll]

God I hope this would happen...

What, do dead sailors give you a rock-on?

[Nick_Since_1985]

What, do dead sailors give you a rock-on?

No but Iran and the US getting ed upp does...

EDIT: Yust imagine Iran taking out a US carrier with a little speed boat, owned...

[MadBurgerMaker]

In the Millenium Challenge '02 war games, Gen. Paul van Ripen destroyed most of the US fleet in the Persian Gulf with speedboats packed with explosives.

A speedboat can do plenty to a huge gunship - in the war games, the US fleet lost the USS Constellation. A bloody carrier.

Why do these ridiculous war games always come up in these discussions? Speed boats with god mode, no clipping, and multiple lives don't exist.

Speed boats do present a certain type of threat, but van Riper is a douche who desperately needs to be slapped for that . War games aren't necessarily meant to be won or lost, they're there for training purposes first and foremost, and something like that costs a shitton of money to get going. When you have some screwing things up like that, then throwing a temper tantrum and taking his ball and going home when he gets told to stop being an asshat, it doesn't do anyone any good. But hey...at least his retarded "motorcycle messengers" and the idea that his hordes of boats and "sank" a carrier look good for him on the wikipedia page.

You know...It's probably good that the Navy doesn't really mention to the public how often they sink their own carriers in these games and exercises. Joe Sixpack would probably ignore the part about the submarine parking under it and killing it everytime it's...respawned...and focus on things like the "15 CARRIERS SUNK!" headline. Panic!

No but Iran and the US getting ed upp does...

EDIT: Yust imagine Iran taking out a US carrier with a little speed boat, owned...

LOLZ DAT WULD B PRETY FUNY UR RITE!1 3000 DED GUYZ MAKS ME FELL ALL FUNY INSIDE1 INEED A KLEENEX BRB

[Spartacus the Irish]

EDIT: Yust imagine Iran taking out a US carrier with a little speed boat, owned...

It would take more than one speedboat to do such.It involved light civilian planes packed with explosive too.

Why do these ridiculous war games always come up in these discussions? Speed boats with god mode, no clipping, and multiple lives don't exist.

I didn't say they were invulnerable. Van Ripen sent in hundreds of boats and light planes which weren't packed with explosives, in order to use up the plane munitions and fuel, and the ammunition in the CIWS; once that was accomplished, the second wave of explosive suicide boats and planes was sent in - the sheer number overwhelming the US fleet's defenses.

Speed boats do present a certain type of threat, but van Riper is a douche who desperately needs to be slapped for that .

From what I've read about the man, I'd agree there.

War games aren't necessarily meant to be won or lost, they're there for training purposes first and foremost, and something like that costs a shitton of money to get going. When you have some screwing things up like that, then throwing a temper tantrum and taking his ball and going home when he gets told to stop being an asshat, it doesn't do anyone any good. But hey...at least his retarded "motorcycle messengers" and the idea that his hordes of boats and "sank" a carrier look good for him on the wikipedia page.

Just because they are for training purposes, doesn't mean that such situations should not arise. NATO wargamed a Warsaw Pact conventional invasion of Western Europe many times from the 1950's onwards - and found out that without tactical nuclear weapons, NATO would, and did, have it's ass kicked in every war game. Thus the concentration upon tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, a much cheaper alternative than attempting to close the conventional force gap between NATO and the Warsaw Pact forces.

But the US 'warmaster' forces in the war-game immediately ruled that the carrier was 're-floated'. I know it was probably to allow the task force to continue war-gaming the situation as intended, but shouldn't the point of war-games be to game a war situation? A US carrier could well be sunk in a war situation - and the task force can't 'refloat' it then. Shouldn't that wargame have carried on in the face of such losses in order to see how effective (or not) such a task force would be in the confined area of the eastern Med with the loss of a carrier?

You know...It's probably good that the Navy doesn't really mention to the public how often they sink their own carriers in these games and exercises. Joe Sixpack would probably ignore the part about the submarine parking under it and killing it everytime it's...respawned...and focus on things like the "15 CARRIERS SUNK!" headline. Panic!

Of course. The military shouldn't let the public know when it is defeated. That would be absurd. (I'm only half being sarcastic here - the military really shouldn't. For example, the British carrier 'Lusty' (HMS Illustrious to the uninitiated) was photographed unawares by the periscope camera of an American sub. Now, I'm no expert of naval warfare, but I'm pretty sure that if a sub is in a position to photograph a carrier, it's in a position to sink the damn thing. The sub was a friendly American one, but that doesn't change the fact that a submarine managed to get within killing range of the Illustrious without here noticing. I for one would not like that splashed across the tabloid headlines - most of the population have little faith in our fast dwindling armed forces as it is.

[MadBurgerMaker]

I didn't say they were invulnerable. Van Ripen sent in hundreds of boats and light planes which weren't packed with explosives, in order to use up the plane munitions and fuel, and the ammunition in the CIWS; once that was accomplished, the second wave of explosive suicide boats and planes was sent in - the sheer number overwhelming the US fleet's defenses.

We've talked about these games before here, and I really really wish, once again, I could find the info about what actually went on there (it's covered with a flood of breathless, alarmist garbage..the information doesn't come from an "official" source, of course, but someone who was involved in the thing), but all sorts of cheating and stupid went on with this guy van Ripen's "forces." IIRC, there were boats and such showing up suddenly in absolutely perfect position (no clipping), missile sites that he decided were just fine and could still shoot even after being vaporized by things like air strikes, etcetcetc. God mode. Things like that. The whole thing turned into a big cluster after he decided to start getting cute and bending/outright breaking the rules (there are rules in wargames for everyone involved) and so on, so forth, etc, blahblah.

Long story short, they're not going to let someone be a dickweed and ruin a quarter billion dollar exercise involving thousands of people all over the world simply because he has a grudge against various people.

Just because they are for training purposes, doesn't mean that such situations should not arise. NATO wargamed a Warsaw Pact conventional invasion of Western Europe many times from the 1950's onwards - and found out that without tactical nuclear weapons, NATO would, and did, have it's ass kicked in every war game. Thus the concentration upon tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, a much cheaper alternative than attempting to close the conventional force gap between NATO and the Warsaw Pact forces.

It depends. If it's something that would make the training a useful evolution for everyone involved, then they should go on with it. If it just screws everything up, makes it counterproductive and a big waste of everyone's time (and money), like this situation, it shouldn't be done.

If that counterproductive crap is going on, sooner or later they're going to get tired of it and shut it down. Basically, they'll do what they did to van Riper, and just tell him what to do with his forces.

But the US 'warmaster' forces in the war-game immediately ruled that the carrier was 're-floated'. I know it was probably to allow the task force to continue war-gaming the situation as intended, but shouldn't the point of war-games be to game a war situation? A US carrier could well be sunk in a war situation - and the task force can't 'refloat' it then. Shouldn't that wargame have carried on in the face of such losses in order to see how effective (or not) such a task force would be in the confined area of the eastern Med with the loss of a carrier?

No. You don't simply stop with the training of the crew of a ship simply because they were "sunk" in a wargame. They get refloated and carry on with the exercise. If the purpose of the exercise is to train the crews, etc, in how to operate their carrier along with other ships, that's what they need to be doing. If they get sunk, they don't just sail away, they need to basically try again. Other training takes place that doesn't involve carriers, which is when they can go around doing their thing without them.

The fact that this guy was whining about the ships showing back up means he needs to be slapped even more.

Of course. The military shouldn't let the public know when it is defeated. That would be absurd. (I'm only half being sarcastic here - the military really shouldn't. For example, the British carrier 'Lusty' (HMS Illustrious to the uninitiated) was photographed unawares by the periscope camera of an American sub. Now, I'm no expert of naval warfare, but I'm pretty sure that if a sub is in a position to photograph a carrier, it's in a position to sink the damn thing. The sub was a friendly American one, but that doesn't change the fact that a submarine managed to get within killing range of the Illustrious without here noticing. I for one would not like that splashed across the tabloid headlines - most of the population have little faith in our fast dwindling armed forces as it is.

Yeah, announcing that stuff is a bad idea.

This has taken way too long to type out. Watching the draft.