In reply to z31maniac :
Those aren't really formal designations; the normal terms are defined by either usage (e.g., surface-to-surface) or range (e.g., intermediate range ballistic missile). Loosely, tactical or battlefield missiles are going to be those SSMs with ranges of under ~500 miles. Beyond that you start to get into weapons with possible strategic applications, but then you have to factor in warheads, intended targeting, trajectory, etc. It's all rather muddy and inconsistent.
Laconically, I think tactical missiles are devices you want to use to win a battle and strategic missiles are devices you want to have so nobody berkeleys with you.
Generally, tactical refers to attacks on military units (e.g. troops / tanks) so will be shorter range and may be specialized (e.g. anti-ship, anti-tank). Strategic generally references the industry and bases used to support or create military units or even civilian infrastructure (or the ability to wage war), so strategic will be longer ranged and less precise (just need to hit a building etc). Of course, most of the time when people think of strategic missiles they think of the big ones that deliver nukes, but a conventional one that can hit a distant factory is strategic.
Something like a medium ranges missile like the Iskander, Scud or ATACMS is a bit of a crossover, but are normally used a bit more strategically (hit a ammo dump or airfield), than tactically (blow up a bridge). Even an attack on an ammo dump could be argued to be strategic or tactical.
You can use strategic missiles / weapons tactically but it generally only useful for large concentrations of troops etc. The US tried to use strategic bombers a few times in WWII with less than great results. They bombed troop concentration after D-Day in close support of troops but eneded up bombing some of their own units. Level bombers where used to attack the Japanese fleet in the battle of Miday, but had no effect (very hard to hit a moving ship with a stick of bombs)
It is interesting to bring up the cost of the attacking missiles. A quick search comes up with some interesting numbers:
The Kh-101 missile costs $13 million, a Kalibr $6.5 million, an Iskander $3 million, an Onyx $1.25 million, a Kh-22 $1 million, and a Tochka-U $0.3 million'
Which really puts some of the costs in perspective, especially when you talk about launching million dollar Patriot missile to shoot down a 3 million dollar Iskander (which is what it's most likely / useful to be used for).
The article noted above talks about how a large cruise missile attack Russia did back in August likely cost 91 million for 8 hits. As the Ukrainians start shooting down a larger percentage, the numbers start to get pretty silly and maybe hard to justify (?)
Some interesting fallout from the Ukrainian "New Years Surprise" and the claimed Russian response (ice rink humanitarian stockpile does not equal HIMARS stockpile:
---------------
The Russian MoD’s attempts to claim Russian forces responded to the December 31 Ukrainian strike against Russian positions in Makiivka are generating further discontent in the Russian information space. The Russian MoD announced on January 8 that Russian forces conducted a “retaliation operation” against Ukrainian forces for the December 31 strike on Makiivka that killed up to 400 mobilized soldiers due to Russian command failures and poor personnel dispersal practices.[1] The Russian MoD falsely claimed the retaliatory strike targeted several temporary Ukrainian deployment points in Kramatorsk, Donetsk Oblast, and killed over 600 Ukrainian personnel.[2] This claim is false — a Finnish reporter visited the site of the strike in Kramatorsk on January 8 and noted that it hit an empty school.[3] Several Russian milbloggers responded negatively to the Russian MoD’s claim, pointing out that the Russian MoD frequently presents fraudulent claims and criticizing Russian military leadership for fabricating a story to “retaliate” for the Makiivka strike instead of holding Russian leadership responsible for the losses accountable.[4]
The Russian MoD application of a grievance-and-retaliation framework to many of its operations has created a negative feedback loop with prominent members of the pro-war Russian information space. At the beginning of the massive campaign of strikes against Ukrainian critical infrastructure in October 2022, the Russian MoD employed a similar framing of “retaliation” against claimed Ukrainian strikes on the Kerch Strait Bridge and other Russian infrastructure.[5] The Russian MoD partially used this framing to mollify escalated demands from the pro-war community to “avenge” Ukrainian actions but provoked an array of responses from milbloggers outlining other instances that the Russian MoD should equally “retaliate” for.[6] The Russian MoD has thus created a negative feedback loop, wherein it attempts to respond to Ukrainian offensive successes with a discrete, retaliatory, offensive action, which then opens the MoD up to continued criticism from discontented Russian milbloggers highlighting their beliefs that the MoD is responding in the wrong manner or to the wrong event. The Russian MoD’s response to the Makiivka strike is a clear continuation of this grievance-and-retaliation model that has once again opened Russian military leadership to staunch criticism of their conduct of the war.
In reply to aircooled :
Again that is great information. So Russia is spending 100 million dollars to put a power/ water plant out of order?
Think it costs anywhere near that to get it operational again? I'd bet not.
If you add in the cost of life? But I'll bet when the missiles are on the way everybody is told to leave. At least I hope they are.
Regarding corruption within Ukraine:
Still occurring, and more to the point, still being rooted out. Interpret that any way you'd like. I'm encouraged to see it being addressed.
By its nature corruption tends to be deeply imbedded over a long period of time. In the case of Ukraine - much of it is likely a legacy from when it was part of the USSR. And it will resist being found out and removed. It will take time.
Iran is now killing arrested protestors openly.
The US is now placing new sanctions on Iran for supporting Russia.
Iran building a drone aircraft carrier from a converted merchant ship.
Ukraine school refutes Russian claim it killed hundreds of soldiers there. They say all they did was blow out windows and damage some classrooms.
Regarding the Iranian drone carrier. I do wonder what the point is here? Are they expecting to sail it into the Persian gulf and start launching drones and not have it almost immediately sunk? Do they have any idea how vulnerable a cargo ship is to anti-shipping missiles? Or torpedoes?
In reply to aircooled :
Drones are a lot more plausibly deniable than more conventional ordnance, and that's assuming their being used to attack targets rather than conduct other operations. There have been reports of ship-launched drones swarming US Navy vessels far from the Persian Gulf.
In reply to aircooled :
It also depends on who would sink it. Sinking an Iranian ship would essentially be a declaration of war.
C'mon Israel, do your thing...
Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to aircooled :
It also depends on who would sink it. Sinking an Iranian ship would essentially be a declaration of war.
It also depends on who they're using it against and what their capabilities are.
Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to aircooled :
It also depends on who would sink it. Sinking an Iranian ship would essentially be a declaration of war.
It's a crazy dance, isn't it? If one is providing material support in the form of weapons, that's pretty well an act of war in my book. But despite all their posturing, the last thing that Russia wants is to draw the west into the war in the form of direct military involvement, so what you have is this proxy war.
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to aircooled :
It also depends on who would sink it. Sinking an Iranian ship would essentially be a declaration of war.
It's a crazy dance, isn't it? If one is providing material support in the form of weapons, that's pretty well an act of war in my book. But despite all their posturing, the last thing that Russia wants is to draw the west into the war in the form of direct military involvement, so what you have is this proxy war.
Much of the Cold War was spent attempting to maneuver the opposing power into a position where they had their options had been limited to firing the first shot against the other superpower or backing down.
In reply to 02Pilot :
"And to think I used to have such a safe job, putting mob bosses in prison..."
Just checked this morning- wow, European gas has hit rock bottom. It's down like half in a month.
"European natural gas prices were at pre-Ukraine war levels of €70/MWh in mid-January, down nearly 50% from their December peak and a fifth of records levels set in August, as warmer-than-expected temperatures eased concerns over shortages and the need for gas rationing. Yet, Europe is set for the warmest January in years. At the same time, record LNG imports, a rise in renewable capacity, namely from wind power in Germany, lower consumption and energy-saving measures helped to keep storages full. Gas storages across Europe are 83.2% full as of January 7th, well above the five-year seasonal norm of 70%. In Germany, storage facilities are about 91% full. Still, the outlook for 2023 remains challenging as the winter season is far from over. Also, Europe needs to increase its LNG import capacity while a rise in gas demand from China and other Asian countries could increase competition in the LNG market."
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/eu-natural-gas
In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :
If we wanted to sink it it would be really easy to tow a semi submerged barrel filled with C4 across its line of travel and when in contact with the hull, set it off. The tow boat could be almost anything. A fishing boat or tug boat registered to a third world country.
frenchyd said:In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :
If we wanted to sink it it would be really easy to tow a semi submerged barrel filled with C4 across its line of travel and when in contact with the hull, set it off. The tow boat could be almost anything. A fishing boat or tug boat registered to a third world country.
Or just torpedo it from a submarine.
Iran has other enemies as well though, some of whom have lesser capabilities and might not be able to call on Uncle Sam for help.
If one wanted to sink a ship surreptitiously, ideally it wouldn't involve a large explosion. Small time-delay directed-energy limpets deployed by SOF in critical areas of the hull would probably be the method of choice. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are thermite devices in use that will burn through the hull rather than using explosives as well.
That said, I suspect there's more value in monitoring this Iranian vessel to determine its operational capabilities and figure out how to contend with them effectively in a non-kinetic environment.
aircooled said:Regarding the Iranian drone carrier. I do wonder what the point is here? Are they expecting to sail it into the Persian gulf and start launching drones and not have it almost immediately sunk? Do they have any idea how vulnerable a cargo ship is to anti-shipping missiles? Or torpedoes?
Force projection against Israel? Maybe they're using that ship both to gain experience, and also because they just don't have better. Could also be to build something akin to a Q-ship as well, but those have been historically lackluster at the best of times.
02Pilot said:In reply to aircooled :
Drones are a lot more plausibly deniable than more conventional ordnance, and that's assuming their being used to attack targets rather than conduct other operations. There have been reports of ship-launched drones swarming US Navy vessels far from the Persian Gulf.
That's an interesting report. I'm also kind of shocked that a drone was able to get so close to a US warship and for that warship to make no effort to shoot it down. They witnessed it using either a searchlight or camera flash to view the ship, and they were around for two hours, and they did nothing? Just turned and watched it? Maybe they know more than they let on in the FOIA response.
Just to throw this out there re: above discussion on tactical vs strategic weapons.
Sun Tzu Strategy Lesson One
Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory.
Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.
In reply to dculberson :
I'm betting the USN was scanning radio frequencies and trying to hack into the control of the drone. If the NSA hasn't worked up some sort of corrupting algorithm to hack into the control network of Opfor Drones yet, I'd hope they'd have it distributed to the Fleet real soon.
To explain more about my confusion about the purpose of the drone ship: It clearly is a fairly large (slow) ship, which seems to be built to carry a large number of drones, which seems to imply drone swarm attacks similar to what Russia was doing in Ukraine. If they just wanted a ship to launch reconnaissance drone, that could be a much smaller ship.
So, to what end. Clearly they could move that ship somewhere and execute many 10's maybe 100's of drone attack. Unless they are attacking rebels somewhere (probably not the ideal use for suicide drones) whomever they are attacking (ahem... Israel) will almost intimately sink the rather vulnerable ship. Essentially making it a huge suicide drone carrier, that works once (maybe that is what they are going for). It's stark contrast to a simple truck trailer that you can park in the desert somewhere and launch a bunch of drones (what they do now), which even if you find it and destroy it, it basically just a trailer.
I really don't see it as much of an intimidation factor, and the waters they would operate it in are very crowded and very much full of things that can blow it up within a few minutes. Hell, aircraft carriers are vulnerable enough, this thing is many magnitudes worse then those. They park that thing off of Israel and open the bays, I guarantee they will have multiple F-16 hovering over it, just waiting for the order.
You'll need to log in to post.
