Lethal Naval commandos, Iran choice?

[jawwal]

This is from Carlton Meyer's new book: The Spectrum of Future Warfare

Powerful, lightweight, precision munitions now allow naval commandos to destroy billion-dollar warships operating close to shore. In past wars, commandos had to sneak up and attach explosives directly to warships. The Italians were particularly successful with such tactics during World War II. They severely damaged two British battleships docked in Alexandria. Even today, Italy maintains one of the world's only naval commando units that trains to attack ships. Most naval commandos units operate as marines and attack targets ashore. A little known naval commando attack occurred in 1964 when a Vietnamese underwater demolition team sunk the old escort carrier USS Card while she was in shallow water in the Saigon River.

No Navy has fully grasped the value of anti-ship commandos in modern warfare. In previous wars, anti-ship weapons like 5-inch guns and torpedoes weighed thousands of pounds and could not be moved by small groups of men. However, modern, lightweight munitions allow small teams to sink ships from thousands of meters offshore. They can covertly land near strategic naval straits by boat, submarine, or aircraft to provide intelligence and attack warships. Although blue water navies prefer to avoid coastal areas, there are many ocean straits where this is impossible. As a result, commandos can lie in wait on tiny islands, oil platforms, and waterways near ship homeports, to employ precision munitions and sink modern warships. Naval commandos can also provide valuable naval intelligence, similar to that of World War II "coast watchers."

Naval commandos can operate from fishing boats, pleasure yachts, and coastal barges. There are thousands of such craft afloat around the world today. If commandos wish to be official, they can fly their national flag from the craft, something a distant warship will ignore. The Germans used a similar tactic in World War II when they hid deck guns on merchant ships to operate as "surface raiders." When British warships pulled alongside to seize the ship, they were quickly sunk.

An ideal weapon is the MK-44 lightweight homing torpedo, which weighs 432 lbs and has a range of 5000 meters. This was designed as an air-launched anti-submarine torpedo, but could be reprogrammed to attack ships. This torpedo can be carried in a plastic firing tube with inflatable pontoons so it can float near shore until fired. Commandos can muscle these into position and launch them to hit an unsuspecting ship with a 75 lb high-explosive warhead below the waterline. Commandos can also use the newer MK-46 torpedo, which weighs 518 lbs and delivers a 98 lb warhead. These torpedoes can also be air dropped from small seaplanes or fired from fishing boats or pleasure craft outfitted with torpedo tubes.

Another anti-ship weapon is the versatile Hellfire laser-guided missile, which is now mounted on a tripod by the Norwegian military after successful tests. (right) This 100 lb supersonic missile can hit targets over 5000 meters away. Commandos can fire several missiles in a few minutes and cause major damage, especially if they explode missiles stored in a ship's box launchers. Commandos can also release sea mines in ship lanes and port entrances. The explosion of just one mine may shut down all ship activity until minesweepers can check the area. However, unarmed minesweepers are easy targets for commandos as well, so frigates must escort them, which become targets themselves.

Warships rely heavily on expensive helicopters to search for submarines and coastal threats. Therefore, commando teams may carry shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles like the Stinger system (below). Large .50 caliber rifles like the Barrett M82A1 have a range of 1800 meters and are useful against helicopters and ships. A small bullet hole will not sink a ship, but the semi-automatic Barrett can quickly punch dozens of holes in a ship and cause fires with incendiary rounds.

Ideally, naval commandos employ several weapons at once from different locations. These "ship ambushes" may involve up to a hundred men attacking several ships. In most cases, the commandos will scatter and hide after an ambush, especially when firing from neutral waterways. Inserting teams with heavy gear will take practice, and commandos must train in the employment of these weapons.

Small seaplanes are an ideal weapon for naval commandos. They can drop off and resupply commandos, or conduct attacks themselves. Even tiny seaplanes can carry and launch a 1000 lb Harpoon missile or lightweight torpedo. These can hide along shore and dash out and launch a weapon within a minute before any aircraft can intercept them or a ship engage them. If the attack is dangerous, the pilot can land immediately after launching his weapon and jump off and swim to shore. These cheap seaplanes are expendable, cheaper than the missile they launch and cheaper than anti-aircraft missiles fired at them.

Another role for naval commandos is to serve as anti-naval commandos. After decades of plotting and executing attacks on ships, they will be experts on how to hunt enemy naval commandos. If a friendly destroyer is ambushed and sunk in the straits of Malacca by commandos operating from a neutral nation, diplomats will urge that nation to take action. Meanwhile, clandestine steps may be desired to hunt down and kill the team of enemy naval commandos before they sink another ship. In such cases, naval commandos may be dispatched to hunt down their contemporaries lurking near maritime chokepoints or harbor entrances.

©2007 www.G2mil.com

http://www.g2mil.com/commandos.htm

[Bosnian]

Looks little bit confused text, what is the point of these pictures?

[jawwal]

These types of weapons and resources that would make up the shore defenses..Small land based systems, minor aircrafts for small drop forces and so on...Low cost defense for small elite units specialized to hunt expensive targets.
It might seem strange and not realistic but if done right could create a tough hard to find defense.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

That with torpedo and missile boats is a good ace.

[jawwal]

That with torpedo and missile boats is a good ace.

Definitely they would play a big role in any small and large operations, they are part of iran major tactics to repel any attack..

[froggy]

Small seaplanes are an ideal weapon for naval commandos. They can drop off and resupply commandos, or conduct attacks themselves. Even tiny seaplanes can carry and launch a 1000 lb Harpoon missile or lightweight torpedo. These can hide along shore and dash out and launch a weapon within a minute before any aircraft can intercept them or a ship engage them. If the attack is dangerous, the pilot can land immediately after launching his weapon and jump off and swim to shore. These cheap seaplanes are expendable, cheaper than the missile they launch and cheaper than anti-aircraft missiles fired at them.

Although I am not so keen with war and weaponary, nevertheless this is very interesting sight. The above seaplane is very interesting idea - because the price and the not that complex to learn to control it, plus the load it can carry.

It would be good idea if this little plane is remote controlled giving up an extra 70kg of pilot weight. Swimming lesson is not necessary for the pilot, I can't swim myself.

Btw, how much this plane cost can you tell if you know, thanks.

[jawwal]

Although I am not so keen with war and weaponary, nevertheless this is very interesting sight. The above seaplane is very interesting idea - because the price and the not that complex to learn to control it, plus the load it can carry.

It would be good idea if this little plane is remote controlled giving up an extra 70kg of pilot weight. Swimming lesson is not necessary for the pilot, I can't swim myself.

Btw, how much this plane cost can you tell if you know, thanks.

It is less than one hundred thousand dollars, it would be ideal for such tasks, low flying and quick to make a drop.

[Gonjeeshk]

It is less than one hundred thousand dollars, it would be ideal for such tasks, low flying and quick to make a drop.

And quick to be detected on radar and shot down, especially by modern ships like AEGIS cruisers. A nice idea but very vulnerable. At the low altitude needed, it would be vulnerable to AA guns.

Much of this is not exactly new. It's old ideas that are the basics of what "naval commandos" (naval special forces) are about. The Hellfire missile is a particularly good one, if fitted with an anti-ship warhead. It could be combined with cheap, wire-guided anti-tank guided missiles or simple rockets.

The real strength of this would be a combined surface and sub-surface special forces attack, with combat swimmers, mines and swimmer delivery vehicles armed with torpedoes. Seems Iran is already developing this type of defence, with the mini-subs bought from north Korea.

[Gonjeeshk]

There is not much information on Iranian naval special forces. Anyone have any good information?

[jawwal]

And quick to be detected on radar and shot down, especially by modern ships like AEGIS cruisers. A nice idea but very vulnerable. At the low altitude needed, it would be vulnerable to AA guns.

Much of this is not exactly new. It's old ideas that are the basics of what "naval commandos" (naval special forces) are about. The Hellfire missile is a particularly good one, if fitted with an anti-ship warhead. It could be combined with cheap, wire-guided anti-tank guided missiles or simple rockets.

The real strength of this would be a combined surface and sub-surface special forces attack, with combat swimmers, mines and swimmer delivery vehicles armed with torpedoes. Seems Iran is already developing this type of defence, with the mini-subs bought from north Korea.

True such aircrafts would be vulnerable, but it could take off from anywhere almost short distance flights low level altitudes in friendly areas to make the drops, it is only an example, in iran situation most likely small boats making the drops or any sort of combinations.
The main idea is creating many small teams with missiles able to knockout ships in sudden unexpected attacks, easy to hide and unexpected on the attack.

[Bosnian]

These types of weapons and resources that would make up the shore defenses..Small land based systems, minor aircrafts for small drop forces and so on...Low cost defense for small elite units specialized to hunt expensive targets.
It might seem strange and not realistic but if done right could create a tough hard to find defense.

Yes, I understand. But if I am officer-in-command I would make carpet bombing of the area where I want to make descant, then I would send helicopters under the artillery barrage from ships, they would secure the area and ships with armor would come. After carpet-bombing, guerilla style defense have small chances. The only way is to have log range cruise missiles all-time ready, and MBRLs at proper distance, but which are able to make target acquisition in a matter of seconds. You must have hidden helicopters with C-802, flying boats and high-speed airplanes (MIG-25, 31) deep in the territory with anti-ship missiles ready. Then you could have some small costal units, which would react locally. Even that Iran is tough target; it will be extremely hard to reject strong and well-aimed attack. Any defense must be based on repulsion, targeting anything what can make harm to the enemy. Few people on the coast cannot repel well-coordinated naval attack.

[jawwal]

Yes, I understand. But if I am officer-in-command I would make carpet bombing of the area where I want to make descant, then I would send helicopters under the artillery barrage from ships, they would secure the area and ships with armor would come. After carpet-bombing, guerilla style defense have small chances. The only way is to have log range cruise missiles all-time ready, and MBRLs at proper distance, but which are able to make target acquisition in a matter of seconds. You must have hidden helicopters with C-802, flying boats and high-speed airplanes (MIG-25, 31) deep in the territory with anti-ship missiles ready. Then you could have some small costal units, which would react locally. Even that Iran is tough target; it will be extremely hard to reject strong and well-aimed attack. Any defense must be based on repulsion, targeting anything what can make harm to the enemy. Few people on the coast cannot repel well-coordinated naval attack.

Carpet bombing would not be effective against deep hidden bunkers with fighters on the ready at short response time. A mobile launcher for C-701 or C-801 could deliver a sudden surprising punch. Low flying helicopters would be neutralized with good manpod systems like SA-18 or SA-16, that is why it has to be small units with effective lethal punch.
There would not be a fixed targets or heavy displays of units to be targeted, well dispersed units, heavily fortified to withstand the areial bombing.

[Bosnian]

Carpet bombing would not be effective against deep hidden bunkers with fighters on the ready at short response time. A mobile launcher for C-701 or C-801 could deliver a sudden surprising punch. Low flying helicopters would be neutralized with good manpod systems like SA-18 or SA-16, that is why it has to be small units with effective lethal punch.
There would not be a fixed targets or heavy displays of units to be targeted, well dispersed units, heavily fortified to withstand the areial bombing.

Deep hidden bunkers are expensive to construct, hard to hide and fixed objects. You never know what you can regard as secret. You may think that somethink is secret, but that can be obvious to your enemies. I would never make plans thinking something is secret. As somebody says, the real secret is how to hide secret. Carpet-bombing can do waste damage to underground objects. If enemy uses fuel bombs, you will have different story. For every new enemy’s system, you need counter system. What you Jawwal propose is not a new system. It is an old tactic with newer weapons. Constant shelling and bombarding will highly disable any movement. On the main attack direction, the excessive force will be used, probably many times bigger then these used against Iraq. For dealing with that scale of attack, Iran would need extreme coordination of force. Off course, it would use all kind of tactics, from small units to large aircraft groups. Nevertheless, certainly, it must be able to respond instantly with all force. During the war in Bosnia, we never could reach that kind of coordination. If we attack the lines around the Sarajevo with full power, at once, the chain would break somewhere. However, we could not. In addition, in this specific case, the problem is that bunkers cannot be right everywhere. Iran has so long coastal line. If Iran base strategy on retaliation, that would not solve the problem of attacking force. While you destroy some hard-value targets, you are under the attack at the same moment, and your possibility to respond is lower and lower every minute.

The only strategy, which Iran can deploy, is to retaliate instantly, and to create chaos in the Persian Gulf. That means to send hundreds of small boats, launch cruise missile attacks, use small subs, lay mines, employ thousands of sonic jamming devices, use flying boats, so that would be like the bear attack beehive and bees attack at once and bear does not know where to respond. However, that must be massive attack, complete chaos. Otherwise it would be as early Middle Ages siege where the enemy fleet standing before the port and shelling the citadel. Now, the enemy will know that hundreds of small boats will attack, and it will deploy many hunter helicopters and small boats around the fleet. There that SA-x systems will maybe become effective.

[Gonjeeshk]

True such aircrafts would be vulnerable, but it could take off from anywhere almost short distance flights low level altitudes in friendly areas to make the drops, it is only an example, in iran situation most likely small boats making the drops or any sort of combinations.
The main idea is creating many small teams with missiles able to knockout ships in sudden unexpected attacks, easy to hide and unexpected on the attack.


I know what you mean, but using an aeroplane directly is not realistic. It could be used to carry a special forces team to the approximate target area, then the team would have to be dropped and go the rest of the way to the target by themselves. A flying boat, such as the one Iran demonstrated would be far better for this, than a plane.

The best option for Iran is to mount its rocket-propelled torpedoes on swimmer delivery vehicles and small boats. Then launch hundreds at the same time. Or even on flying boats.

[jawwal]

Deep hidden bunkers are expensive to construct, hard to hide and fixed objects. You never know what you can regard as secret. You may think that somethink is secret, but that can be obvious to your enemies. I would never make plans thinking something is secret. As somebody says, the real secret is how to hide secret. Carpet-bombing can do waste damage to underground objects. If enemy uses fuel bombs, you will have different story. For every new enemy’s system, you need counter system. What you Jawwal propose is not a new system. It is an old tactic with newer weapons. Constant shelling and bombarding will highly disable any movement. On the main attack direction, the excessive force will be used, probably many times bigger then these used against Iraq. For dealing with that scale of attack, Iran would need extreme coordination of force. Off course, it would use all kind of tactics, from small units to large aircraft groups. Nevertheless, certainly, it must be able to respond instantly with all force. During the war in Bosnia, we never could reach that kind of coordination. If we attack the lines around the Sarajevo with full power, at once, the chain would break somewhere. However, we could not. In addition, in this specific case, the problem is that bunkers cannot be right everywhere. Iran has so long coastal line. If Iran base strategy on retaliation, that would not solve the problem of attacking force. While you destroy some hard-value targets, you are under the attack at the same moment, and your possibility to respond is lower and lower every minute.

The only strategy, which Iran can deploy, is to retaliate instantly, and to create chaos in the Persian Gulf. That means to send hundreds of small boats, launch cruise missile attacks, use small subs, lay mines, employ thousands of sonic jamming devices, use flying boats, so that would be like the bear attack beehive and bees attack at once and bear does not know where to respond. However, that must be massive attack, complete chaos. Otherwise it would be as early Middle Ages siege where the enemy fleet standing before the port and shelling the citadel. Now, the enemy will know that hundreds of small boats will attack, and it will deploy many hunter helicopters and small boats around the fleet. There that SA-x systems will maybe become effective.


Creating deep buried bunkers is not an obstackle to iran, this project has been under construction for many years now, and it is not obvious in its locations as it may seems, keep in mind that israel never managed to even destroy one bunker from aerial bombing during last war, despite the heaviest aerial bombing ever in that war and all bunkers buster been used, cause the locations were not known, these bunkers could come in any size of course to limit their costs, small bunkers are the best in these plans, lots of them spread around for a long long fight not just a response to any action.
Plus they would be a part of the whole defensive strategy that would include the swarm tactics of small boats and the regular defenisve measures been chosen for any conflict. Do u know that hezbollah built a deep bunker twenty meters only from a main U.N center without them noticing that?
Iran is a massive country with huge resources in this field and expertise.
Small units with enough authority to lauch their attacks without having to go back to traditional command center is a must in any upcoming war, but surely they have to maintain their communications lines working through out the war to form one solid defensive structure, not just point defense positions.
It can be done, and it is been done in lebanon. More modifications has to take place though.

[jawwal]

I know what you mean, but using an aeroplane directly is not realistic. It could be used to carry a special forces team to the approximate target area, then the team would have to be dropped and go the rest of the way to the target by themselves. A flying boat, such as the one Iran demonstrated would be far better for this, than a plane.

The best option for Iran is to mount its rocket-propelled torpedoes on swimmer delivery vehicles and small boats. Then launch hundreds at the same time. Or even on flying boats.

True, the drop has to be somewhere near not in the battle area if such planes were used, it is only an option that could be used in such warefare, definitely other means could prove to be more effective to deliver the punch.
Large numbers of these specialized teams must be close by to counter any incursion through out the whole gulf area, each team patrol a certain area and supported if needed by backup teams to form a massive network of killing zones spread all over.

[Bosnian]

Creating deep buried bunkers is not an obstackle to iran, this project has been under construction for many years now, and it is not obvious in its locations as it may seems, keep in mind that israel never managed to even destroy one bunker from aerial bombing during last war, despite the heaviest aerial bombing ever in that war and all bunkers buster been used, cause the locations were not known, these bunkers could come in any size of course to limit their costs, small bunkers are the best in these plans, lots of them spread around for a long long fight not just a response to any action.
Plus they would be a part of the whole defensive strategy that would include the swarm tactics of small boats and the regular defenisve measures been chosen for any conflict. Do u know that hezbollah built a deep bunker twenty meters only from a main U.N center without them noticing that?
Iran is a massive country with huge resources in this field and expertise.
Small units with enough authority to lauch their attacks without having to go back to traditional command center is a must in any upcoming war, but surely they have to maintain their communications lines working through out the war to form one solid defensive structure, not just point defense positions.
It can be done, and it is been done in lebanon. More modifications has to take place though.


Don't understand me wrong. You have a right to defend your Country the best way you can. I would do that for my Country also. But you should be realistic. Once, when former Yugoslavia was on its top, one foreign journalist asked Mr. Stane Dolanc, I think then Interior Minister, “What if somebody attacks Yugoslavia?” He said, “We will become stronger and united and nobody could harm us!” Then journalist asked him, “But what if nobody attacks you?” What I want to say? You may base defense as Albania on static bunkers, waste network. Then you sit with Kalashnikovs inside. We had that in Bosnia – Zeljava airport. A huge underground construction filled with worthless Mig-21s. Visit these links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ6Tb7udryo&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqbMBB1-27E&mode=related&search=


Look at it now? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMi_k6m5ivM&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmHHvZbyfhA&mode=related&search=

Therefore, you do not need that kind of “death capital”. You saw what happened to Saddam’s airbases. Weapons are for sure more important then infrastructure. The Soviet doctrine is investing in infrastructures. USA invests in weapons. Forget about bunkers as fighting infrastructure. They should exist as logistical support and for eventual hiding of troops and weapons. I would organize very mobile units with unconventional vehicles and weapons. I would create a fund for young people, constructors, giving them full freedom to create what ever they want, to modify systems, to make vehicles like in Mad Max, to create some new tactics. Why not make fast moving vehicle for transport and launch of C-802, something different from commercial truck or tank chases, something what can travel 120 KM/h if needed? Why not use non-standard materials, fiber-glass, Kevlar, graphite? Why not make amphibious C-802 launchers? You need money and brake in your mind to allow your young people to do that.

[jawwal]

Don't understand me wrong. You have a right to defend your Country the best way you can. I would do that for my Country also. But you should be realistic. Once, when former Yugoslavia was on its top, one foreign journalist asked Mr. Stane Dolanc, I think then Interior Minister, “What if somebody attacks Yugoslavia?” He said, “We will become stronger and united and nobody could harm us!” Then journalist asked him, “But what if nobody attacks you?” What I want to say? You may base defense as Albania on static bunkers, waste network. Then you sit with Kalashnikovs inside. We had that in Bosnia – Zeljava airport. A huge underground construction filled with worthless Mig-21s. Visit these links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ6Tb7udryo&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqbMBB1-27E&mode=related&search=


Look at it now? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMi_k6m5ivM&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmHHvZbyfhA&mode=related&search=

Therefore, you do not need that kind of “death capital”. You saw what happened to Saddam’s airbases. Weapons are for sure more important then infrastructure. The Soviet doctrine is investing in infrastructures. USA invests in weapons. Forget about bunkers as fighting infrastructure. They should exist as logistical support and for eventual hiding of troops and weapons. I would organize very mobile units with unconventional vehicles and weapons. I would create a fund for young people, constructors, giving them full freedom to create what ever they want, to modify systems, to make vehicles like in Mad Max, to create some new tactics. Why not make fast moving vehicle for transport and launch of C-802, something different from commercial truck or tank chases, something what can travel 120 KM/h if needed? Why not use non-standard materials, fiber-glass, Kevlar, graphite? Why not make amphibious C-802 launchers? You need money and brake in your mind to allow your young people to do that.

Bunkers would only be used to lessen the impact of aerial bombing, and stage quick attacks after when needed, and it must hidden well to be effective.
Mobility is the most important factor for any good defensive strategy, any war in iran would not follow any previous war scenario, probably resemble lebanon but on much higher and wider scales with the addtion of more conventional moblie tactics but not on wide scales or large numbers.
I believe we will witness a new fighting style, iran being working for years now on a special strategy based on all previous wars experience.
Hope we donot have to findout how effective it might be..

[Qahraman]

I tried to post link(s) but I need 30 posts before I can post link(s).

[Jegeris]

Hello!

I'm looking some information on Iranian Marines (Naval Infantry).
Does Iran got any Amphibious Force?
Any insignia?
Any pictures?
Best regards!
Aleks

[Gonjeeshk]

Hello!

I'm looking some information on Iranian Marines (Naval Infantry).
Does Iran got any Amphibious Force?
Any insignia?
Any pictures?
Best regards!
Aleks

Yes, Iran has. They are supported by boats, landing craft and helicopters. There are some photo's in other threads, of Iranian naval special forces in amphibious operations, during recent military excercises. Search for them.