Iran

[Ninthace]

Originally Posted by LongTimeInCX

I would be interested to read the source if you can provide a link.

I agree, it could be possible, but, unless that could be confirmed with 100% certainty, it was a threat

May I ask, did you also read the MILAN exercise included live fire exercises? I personally am unaware whether IRIS Dena participated in that aspect or not, are you from what you have read?
Could you as the US submarine Captain be certain whether they did or not, and, whether even if they did, is it likely they expended all their offensive munitions?

Secondly, I assume you are also aware IRIS Dena was accompanied by a support ship IRIS Bushehr? Such support vessels are known to carry fuel and weapons along with rations and spares etc.

Captain Abuzar Zarri of IRIS Dena would have known of the tensions building in the Middle East and the worsening geopolitical situation, prior to leaving Vishakhpatnam. Therefore, if he is going to be sailing back into a possible war zone, I feel it was a strong possibility, that Captain Zarri would have ensured his vessel was loaded with as full a complement of weapons and fuel, from the support ship IRIS Bushehr, as possible.

The US submarine Captain would no doubt have significantly greater intelligence than us mere keyboard peons, and at the very least assumed similar.

Even if it was unarmed, I’d opine that in the circumstances, the submarine Captain would not have the luxury of giving them the benefit of doubt.
Moral: Don’t bring an empty tin can to a submarine fight.

What was the frigate a threat to? It was in international waters a long way from the combat zone. If the allegations are true, the US were in a position to know as it is claimed they were invited to the same exercise. While it is not normal practice for a boat to surface after an attack, this is because of the threat. In this case, what was the threat to the submarine? Were there any hostile vessels or ac remotely close?
As to sources,
https://www.thestatesman.com/india/e...503566523.html
https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/...ranian-warship

[West Coast]

Originally Posted by Ninthace

I am reading reports that the IRIS Dena was unarmed at the time of its sinking. It was returning home after a joint exercise with the Indian Navy. Moreover, the US had been invited to participate in the exercise and had withdrawn at the last minute, so they would have been aware that participating ships would not be armed. If true, does this constitute yet another war crime, especially as the submarine failed to surface and render assistance to survivors, even though there was no threat to it?

A man of war unarmed? Do you honestly think that's realistic or are you just trolling?

[sandiego89]

Originally Posted by Ninthace

‘Execution at sea’: Was IRIS Dena, Iranian frigate sunk by US in the Indian Ocean, unarmed?

Here is one such allegation.

That article contains about five "if's" a few "possibles", a "Strategic affairs expert" a Iranian official quote, a "may have been" a "may have been unarmed, or lightly armed" regarding its loadout. I have also been aboard quite a few vessels that were open for tours during exercises in a "safe condition" but I assure you they were not unarmed.

[rattman]

Originally Posted by West Coast

A man of war unarmed? Do you honestly think that's realistic or are you just trolling?

Know some ex RAN, been to exercises all over the world including india. They have never "disarmed' a ship for exercise ever.

[pr00ne]

Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin

Sadly not. The ship has a full complement, the reason it's taking a little longer is that she's just come out of a very short docking period to fix a particular issue..But before docking down she had to deammunition, which is why she's now back on UHAF.

Nice try. Now remind me again why the RAF requires the Navy to provide defence for the F35 force operating from an unhardened air base within range of a Hezbollah OWAS threat? For the avoidance of doubt this is norlt crab-bashing. The responsibility lies firmly with those in MB who thought that not providing HAS or GBAD on a base within range of Hezbollah was a tolerable risk...

ETA : Not that this absolves the Starmbot of being a bell end.....

Er, because the RAF HAS NO GBAD of any kind and hasn't had since the 1990's when the Bloodhound force was retired without replacement and the RAF Regiment Rapier force handed over to the Army.

Your description of why HMS Dragon is delayed makes perfect sense, but it does raise the question of WHY the RN chose to deploy that vessel and not one of the other two or three operational T45 Destroyers?

[West Coast]

Originally Posted by Ninthace

What was the frigate a threat to? It was in international waters a long way from the combat zone. If the allegations are true, the US were in a position to know as it is claimed they were invited to the same exercise. While it is not normal practice for a boat to surface after an attack, this is because of the threat. In this case, what was the threat to the submarine? Were there any hostile vessels or ac remotely close?
As to sources,
https://www.thestatesman.com/india/e...503566523.html
https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/...ranian-warship

The ship was about a days sailing away from being within its weapons engagement range of DG. Find another path to US bashing, this one isn't going to yield you any points other from those without military experience.

[Abbas Ibn Firnas]

Originally Posted by West Coast

A man of war unarmed? Do you honestly think that's realistic or are you just trolling?

Are you following the fiasco in Portsmouth?

The Royal Navy has six Type 45 Destroyers, with three of those at various stages of readiness and the other three in maintenance and currently unavailable.

[rattman]

Originally Posted by Abbas Ibn Firnas

Are you following the fiasco in Portsmouth?

The Royal Navy has six Type 45 Destroyers, with three of those at various stages of readiness and the other three in maintenance and currently unavailable.

and those type 45's are not operational. Big difference between a ship tied up inactive and a ship going around the world for an exercise

[LongTimeInCX]

Originally Posted by Ninthace

What was the frigate a threat to? It was in international waters

You cannot be serious.

The only sensible thing from your last comment is that “it was in International waters”.

I assume you are aware of where it was located, when the engagement occurred, SOUTH of Sri Lanka.
You’ll no doubt be aware of, or at least you should be if you’re commenting on this subject, that Diego Garcia is located just a little farther South.

I’m sure even the average PPruner on here, many of which are mil/exmil, can see that to cover the distance of just over a thousand km, to get within weapons range of DG, can be covered in less than 48 hours, by a modern Frigate capable of in the region of 30knots.
Couple that with its weapons fit, and whilst not an ideal weapon for taking out aircraft, hangars, infrastructure and the runway, it could still cause absolute havoc at DG.

The US submarine Captain thought it was a threat, most of the folk on here replying to you seem to think it was a threat also.

Respectfully, taking a view that IRIS Dena was not a threat, is naive at best.

[Senior Pilot]

Thanks for all the knowledgable and sensible answers, but can we move on past Ninthace 's trolling?

If we suffer any more of such input it may finish up with blocking access to any known and tedious Trolls

[Winemaker]

Don't jump on me! I'm just asking! Yes, I understand the proximity of Diego Garcia but am curious whether international law requires a warning to surrender before sinking a ship of a country that one is not 'at war' with.

[jolihokistix]

Legal quibbling and niceties aside, what's done is done, and 'all is fair in love and war', as I am sure Hegseth would probably be happy to say.

We remember that even today there are those who continue to question the sad fate of the Belgrano.

[Steepclimb]

Originally Posted by Winemaker

Don't jump on me! I'm just asking! Yes, I understand the proximity of Diego Garcia but am curious whether international law requires a warning to surrender before sinking a ship of a country that one is not 'at war' with.

As they've sunk almost the entire Iranian fleet. I think we can safely say it was a target despite it's lack of proximity to the homeland.

Apparently international law does not require a warning before sinking a ship of a hostile country. I watched a Sky News report where they interviewed a known expert on the subject and he confirmed it was a legitimate target. Remember if that particular vessel had come across an American or Israeli vessel on it's travels. It would be compelled to attack it.

A couple of observations. This is a military aviation forum and we're talking ships. Plus there is obvious trolling and not a little sophistry from certain contributors.

Maybe a drift back to aviation? The drone kill by an RAF F35 over Jordan is interesting, being a first. But remember the last RAF kill in combat of a manned fighter was back in 1948 when an RAF Spitfire shot down an Egyptian Spitfire over Israel.

What I find interesting is the fact that we're back in the same region after all these years.

Will we ever see peace there?
​​​​

​

[fdr]

It's odd to find something as serious as sinking a warship to have a lighter side, so, thanks to all for the recent discussion about the IRIS DENA.

The C.O. of the Dena would have done well to remain in VVZ enjoying the gastronomic delights of India, and may do so next time that he is circumstantially challenged by the gods.

Was imagining the dialog...
"Warship, warship, my Charlie Oscar wants to ask your Charlie Oscar a question, over"
"Unknown submarine, this is Warship, wait one... "
"Unknown submarine, this is Warship Charlie Oscar, go ahead with your message "
"Warship, are you armed, over?"
"... "
[sound of jeopardy clock....]

on CIC tac line...
"Con, Sonar, acoustic transients, depth charges in water...."
bell ringing... (even a SUS is loud in a boat)
"well, I think that answers that question... at least PPRuNe will have something to write about!"
"General Quarters, Set Battle Condition 1 (those that can still hear anything..)"
Plink, plink, plink.
endat.

With a tinge of sympathy for the turn of events that the 1st. 2nd 3rd leader of Iran in the last week has encountered, it does come at the end of a fairly long history of poking the bear, and making a great case that the matches should be removed from their reach for the safety of others. Whatever went on with the decision making of POTUS Mk 47, it hasn't come in a vacuum, and the response by Iran, while being in part consequential to the slap around the ears of the Iranian leaders apparently in the middle of negotiations... is another small step in the path to whatever it is that Iran sees as its future. The fundamental problem with assuming that the "deaf to the dudes" rhetoric is not tedious, is that it makes a clear case for occasional ringing of the bells. What in recent times would have given the Iranian management at Ft Fumble any comfort that the WH would do whatever it takes to make a headline, other than release files on sordid matters in the background? Flicking a thousand odd drones, missiles etc at your neighbours is hardly winning friends and making the case for normalising relationships.

Still, whacking the competition in the middle of the art of a deal was a section that was missing in the book of wisdom from the incumbent of the WH.

The annoying thing is, this sordid little affair gives a very good excuse for one and all to go and acquire buckets o' sunshine, just for rainy days mind, as we appear to have forgotten that all wars end in negotiation or the utter devastation of one side. The latter doesn't look that good on a resume in the cold light of history.

Remain convinced that Enrico Fermi was an optimist.

[BANANASBANANAS]

Originally Posted by Ninthace

I am reading reports that the IRIS Dena was unarmed at the time of its sinking. It was returning home after a joint exercise with the Indian Navy. Moreover, the US had been invited to participate in the exercise and had withdrawn at the last minute, so they would have been aware that participating ships would not be armed. If true, does this constitute yet another war crime, especially as the submarine failed to surface and render assistance to survivors, even though there was no threat to it?

If the sub hadn't sunk the Dena, and the Dena had made it back to Iran, it may (or may not) have been able to rearm (if it really was unarmed at all) and pose a threat. If it was armed, how far away was it from being able to target Diego Garcia - a day's sailing? So I am ok with it being sunk. Not dissimilar to Conqueror sinking the Belgrano in the Falklands.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by Steepclimb

Maybe a drift back to aviation? The drone kill by an RAF F35 over Jordan is interesting, being a first. But remember the last RAF kill in combat of a manned fighter was back in 1948 when an RAF Spitfire shot down an Egyptian Spitfire over Israel.
What I find interesting is the fact that we're back in the same region after all these years.
Will we ever see peace there?
​​​​

Well, down in the Malvina's, the Sea Harriers were flown by both swabbies like Mog's, the collector of holes in tales, and a number of crabs as well, fresh out of their GR versions. Collectively, they accumulated 23:nil in air to air, while in the background, my old mate ended up in the lost 2-ship, and sundry other planes and choppers ended up as diving attractions from the more than a little incentivised Argies driving their scooters and daggers armed with iron bombs and titanium private bits.

[John Eacott]

Originally Posted by Steepclimb

Maybe a drift back to aviation? The drone kill by an RAF F35 over Jordan is interesting, being a first. But remember the last RAF kill in combat of a manned fighter was back in 1948 when an RAF Spitfire shot down an Egyptian Spitfire over Israel.

I guess that you discounted the FAA cabs piloted by RAF drivers in the Falklands? Dave Morgan had 4 kills as an RAF Flt Lt, but agreed in RN Sea Harriers which are credited with about 23 A2A kills.

Back to the Thread Topic

edit: posted before fdr said much the same!

[Goanna01]

As a civilian, I’m curious but clueless as to what the Dena’s intentions were.
They must have known that the war had started and that most of the Iranian navy had been sunk and that there was a massive force between them and their home port. They clearly couldn’t have made it home safely and if they wanted to take refuge in a neutral port they could have stayed in India or Sri Lanka.
So what was the plan?
Also, the Dena is listed as having a ASW Bell 212, was it onboard? (Desperately looking for an aviation angle)

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/news/you...-being-tested/

Race of attrition’: US military’s finite interceptor stockpile is being tested

The U.S. military’s increased use of missile interceptors during the war with Iran poses long-term strategic risks to integral defense capabilities if fighting spills into a long term conflict, experts caution.

Military Times spoke with several national security specialists, defense analysts and foreign policy punditswho warned that the U.S. military’s finite interceptor stockpile could be strained and potentially exhausted if the ever-changing projected timeline of Operation Epic Fury depletes a resource that cannot be replenished at the scale and pace of war.…..

[BBadanov]

Originally Posted by Goanna01

As a civilian, I’m curious but clueless as to what the Dena’s intentions were.
They must have known that the war had started and that most of the Iranian navy had been sunk and that there was a massive force between them and their home port. They clearly couldn’t have made it home safely and if they wanted to take refuge in a neutral port they could have stayed in India or Sri Lanka.
So what was the plan?

This does not matter a jot. It is war. They were not going to get safe passage.
It's a grey target. A target's a target.