Home » Budget Industry » Destroyer USS Mahan Fires Warning Shots in Standoff with Iranian Forces


Destroyer USS Mahan Fires Warning Shots in Standoff with Iranian Forces

Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Mahan (DDG-72) on July 16, 2016. US Navy Photo

Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Mahan (DDG-72) on July 16, 2016. US Navy Photo

This post has been updated with a statement from U.S. 5th Fleet.

The crew of the guided-missile destroyer USS Mahan (DDG-72) fired three warning shots to ward off four armed attack boats coming at the ship at high speed, a defense official confirmed to USNI News on Monday.

On Sunday, Mahan was transiting the Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf when the four Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy fast inshore attack craft (FIAC) came at the destroyer at a high rate of speed with their crew-served weapons manned, the official told USNI News.

After several attempts to warn off the boats with radio communications, siren and the ship’s whistle the boats came within 900 yards of the guided missile destroyer before the crew fired three warning shots from one of the ships .50 caliber guns.

After the shots were fired, the boats broke off.

Mahan was underway along with the big deck amphib USS Makin Island (LHD-8) and U.S. a fleet oiler, the official said.

Iran Fast Attack Craft. Fars News Agency Photo

Iran Fast Attack Craft. Fars News Agency Photo

A helicopter from Makin Island also deployed a smoke screen generator, a so-called “smoke float” that did not deter the IRGCN boats.

“Naval Forces Central Command assesses this interaction as unsafe and unprofessional due to the IRGCN’s vessels high-speed approach on Mahan with weapons manned and disregard for repeated warnings via radio, audible siren and ship’s whistle, which only arrested following warning shots being fired,” read a statement from U.S. 5th Fleet provided to USNI News.

The latest clash with the IRGCN follows several high-profile encounters in August and September between IRGCN patrol boats and comes almost a year after IRGCN forces detained ten U.S. sailors who strayed into Iranian waters in the Farsi Island.

The IRGCN is separate from the Iranian Navy and has been responsible for Iranian costal defense since 2007.

They report to Iran’s religious government and are given free reign to, “boldly and courageously” in the performance of its duties, a former defense official told USNI News.

The following is a Jan. 9 statement from U.S. 5th Fleet on the encounter.

Four Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) fast inshore attack
craft (FIAC) approached the guided-missile destroyer USS Mahan (DDG-72) at a
high rate of speed with their weapons manned as the ship was transiting
international waters in the Strait of Hormuz on Jan. 8.

Mahan established radio communications with the IRGCN vessels and issued
multiple radio and visual warnings to remain clear. Disregarding the
warnings, the IRGCN vessels continued to directly approach Mahan at a high
rate of speed. Mahan then fired three warning shots with a crew-served 50
caliber machine gun, and the IRGCN vessels arrested their high-speed
approach.

Naval Forces Central Command assesses this interaction as unsafe and
unprofessional due to the IRGCN’s vessels high-speed approach on Mahan with
weapons manned and disregard for repeated warnings via radio, audible siren,
and ship’s whistle, which only arrested following warning shots being fired.

  • PappyStu

    It’s pretty obvious that the Iranians are doing their best to create an international incident with US Navy Vessels in order to cry foul and feint victim status. Their agenda is clearly politically driven for they could not possibly harbor illusions that any unlimited engagement would result in anything less than a total loss of naval assets on their part. They apparently believe this scenario is not even possible which eventually could prove to be a mistaken assessment within a very short time span…

    • Kevin G

      Astute assessment. I do wonder, are there any signs of coordination between the boats and land-based units, such as anti-ship missile batteries.

      • Murray

        If the IRGCN really wants to create a shooting incident then I suspect they would support their FAIC by stationing Thondor class FACM nearby. Each Thondor can launch four C-802 anti-ship missiles so a flotilla of say five craft could launch up to 20 missiles almost simultaneously. Could such a missile salvo overwhelm the defences of an Arleigh Burke?
        One thing the IRGCN will have learnt from the Houthi C-802 attacks on the Mason is that firing individual anti-ship missiles is a waste of time.

        • Kevin G

          I did 3.5 years on a LPD a long time ago, during the cold war. I’m a naval buff now, not an expert. I don’t know how large a missile barrage the Burkes have been able to intercept in tests, or the conditions of those tests.
          30 plus years in heavy industry has taught me that sometimes equipment and people do not work as expected when stressed to maximum.
          That could apply to both parties, so to an extent luck would play. I think history reflects that, too.

          Hopefully we don’t find out.

          • old guy

            CIWS can handle 4 each. If we had Meroka, we could handle 6 each. WOW stops all supersonics

    • Ryan Gallagher

      You do realize the Strait borders their country. I don’t think any country on the planet likes the idea of an American warship in their backyard.

      • Mike Camodeo USN CPO retired

        yes and our ships are a threat as they should be. USS Mahan posed no threat to 4 boston whalers. I assume you never served in our Navy based on your comments.

        • Christopher Seal

          The threat is implied as it should be, why else whould we have warships station off of Iran. The mistake you made is using the term ‘Boston whalers’ to describe the threat to the USS Mahan. Defence minister Ahmad Vahidi has stated that “Seraj-1, with a fiberglass bodywork, can shoot rockets and it is equipped with an electronic navigation system.” Seraj-1 also possesses radar-evading capabilities. The Seraj-1 is equipped with a 107 mm MRLS and bow mounted DShK 12.7 mm HMG. An advantage of the Seraj-1 is that, just like the Bladerunner 51, it is very stable at high speeds in rough seas, thereby creating a stable platform to fire weapons. Consequently, Ahmad Vahidi described the Seraj-1 as, “(A) vessel (which) is a fast and offensive rocket launcher designed for regions with tropical weather.” As it is based on the Bladerunner 51, the Seraj-1 is probably capable of speeds between 55 knots (63 mph) and 72 knots (83 mph).
          Definitely a threat and warning shot should not wait until 900 yards.

        • old guy

          Not so. Read my comments on Swarm warfarr.

      • Marcd30319

        You do realize that the Straits are international waters. See Christopher Steele’s comments below for a detailed explanation.

        Also, not cool about your rather snarky comments about American warships; the only countries that ever had problems with our warships were rogue nations like Libya under Muammar Gaddafi claiming international water as their own.

        BTW – Are you a member of the United States Naval Institute?

      • Christopher Seal

        Who cares what they think, it is INTERNATIONAL WATERS.

        • draeger24

          AMEN

  • Corporatski Kittenbot 2.0

    What does a large vessel use against small boats?

    Are there Griffin/Hellfire launch canisters on board?
    Or is it missiles launched from the Helicopter that would handle this?

    • CharleyA

      Yup, the -60s have the weps – plus the Makin Island has their Snakes. The ship does have some light 25mm and .50s that could train on boats close-in. The Iranian whalers are not much of a threat – unless loaded up with explosives. But then again, the Iranians themselves are not so much into suicide bombing – but maybe they have some remote command options.

      • Duane

        It would not be hard to hide a smaller anti-ship (or anti-tank) missile in one of those boats with a little bit of creative disguise. The Iranians are masters of deceptive, cowardly attacks, having perfected the design and large-scale manufacture of IEDs that maimed and killed a helluva lot of American and Iraqi soldiers. An American Hellfire missile (AGM-114) is only 64 inches long and 7 inches in diameter – not much bigger than a cardboard chart tube. Mounted innocuously amongst a pile of gear in the bow of a small boat, it could be hard to spot from 900 yards away. The Iranians don’t have American Hellfires, but they’ve shown that they readily copy our weps, or buy them from the Russians or black market weapons dealers – there are similar missiles out there like the South African Mokapa, the British Brimstone, or other missile types such as the now-rather common laser-guided anti-tank missiles that ISIS is using in Iraq and Syria, such as the Russian Kornet ATGM.

        • CharleyA

          An RPG would hurt no doubt, but it’s nothing like what a boat with a bilge lined with Semtex could do. Tankers have been hit with RPGs resulting in minor damage; not sure what a heavy anti-tank missile could do – but you can see those mounted from a distance. And theoretically, a heavy/guided AT missile could be shot from some distance. Anyway, in international waters, a boat can essentially do whatever it wants – while avoiding crossing courses – traffic separation rules don’t seem to be hard and fast. The trick is how close you allow another vessel to approach, and judging intent. The American captain did a good job in this incident.

          • Duane

            A small boat can do whatever it wants, as long as we allow it, of course … and that is the point.

            Gee, how close do you think the IRGC would let a swarm of armed USN small attack boats approach their ships on a high speed direct intercept course before opening up on them, whether in international waters or not? I’ll bet that range is a lot more than 900 yards.

    • The Plague

      In the good old days when battleships still sailed the seas – and old-school captains commanded them – a rain-shower of 40 mm Bofors shells would have been most likely. My goodness, a sight to behold that would have been in this case…

    • Ken N

      25mm bushmasters

  • GreyGeek77

    I suspect that the Iranians want us to destroy one of their toy boats so they can use it as justification to launch a shore to ship anti-ship missile.

  • Mark Jennings

    Third paragraph, first sentence… boars… s/b boats… Sorry… it’s the technical editor in me…. but seriously this is the only way to deter this type of thing. I had the same idea for the “Southern border issue”… Set up an “up-armored” HUMVEE with a .50 cal every 1000 meters or so…. and light some up on a regular basis…. it will send a loud and clear message. It didn’t go over so well. 🙁

  • Marialice Barone

    Evidently this goes on whenever US desroyers are in the straight. If they were to seriously hit a destroyer or missile cruiser they’d be annialated, but one of these days they are going to get hit getting to close

  • RobM1981

    Yes, use the M2 .50 caliber to fire the warning shots.

    No point in wasting more expensive rounds.

    I hear rumors that Iran is in discussions with Bayliner for a new class of warships…

    • old guy

      Don’t denigrate SWARM techniques. They accounted for our naval defeat against the Tripoli pirates. It took the MARINES ashore to defeat them. Remember, “to the shores of Tripoli?”

    • John Locke

      You joke but Iran has a contract with the British for their Bladerunners.

      • RobM1981

        If they outfit one with a para-sail, they’ll hand the “pilot” an AK and classify it as an Aircraft Carrier…

        😉

  • Hans Solo

    A little better reporting would be nice. No ID on the USNS oiler that was with the Mahan and Makin Island. Wonder why USNI and USN PA shows little interest in providing all the basic data on all the ships that were in company during the transit.
    No info on whether the ships were inbound into the Gulf or exiting. I assume they were inbound (northbound) as that leg of the Hormuz transit does cross into Iranian side of Hormuz.
    The 900 yard margin is somewhat an amorphous threat distance, it’s the behavior of the IRG, the lack of response, and assuming (again not reported) that the US Navy ships were challenged by Iranian Navy via VHF radio like all ships entering the Gulf are, prior to the warning shots. The warning shots worked, good job, the clear signal that USN will light up IRG boghammers as next step if needed. They’ve done this before, it’s the on scene leadership that makes the call, we need to support them.

  • Ed L

    Guess the Mahan was trying to save money and not scaring the Iranians to much by not using the 127mm

  • Christopher Steele

    The Strait if Hormuz border three countries, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, and Musandam, an exclave of Oman. The Narrowest part of the Straits is Approximately 29 Nautical Miles or Roughly 54km for the Non-Navy personnel. That being Said, Vessels Using the Straits of Hormuz do travel within territorial waters of Oman and Iran, but they do so using what is known as “Transit Passage” A United Nations Law governing the Seas, although some countries have not ratified or do not hold to this Law i.e. (IRAN). Iran insists on pressing the issue with the US and any other countries Naval vessels attempting to transit the Straits, Always have, always will. They have threatened to close the Persian Gulf down. blockading the straits with Mines, Their Silkworm Missile Sites, and all of their 1980’s hand me down Ships and Aircraft. YAWN. Typical sword rattling from those guys. All this in mind, It matters not how big the vessel coming towards you is, what weaponry they may or may not have. A small utility boat tending lines in Yemen and concealing enough explosives onboard blow a hole into the USS COLE. Therefore, You challenge them to stand clear, they are standing into danger, as they are approaching a US Naval Warship operating under UN International Law (Done that many times in the 1990’s ESPECAILLY there.), When they don’t heed the words of those well armed, Let the Guns be their warning. They would welcome an incident as PappyStu stated. Not only for political reasons, but to inflame the region, Hence the professional United States Sailors do as they do and Carry-on.

    • Marcd30319

      Spot on!

    • old guy

      Good analysis, but flawed. What is allowed is gun practice as you have stated. With proper notice and buoy markings, of course. I have warned about SWARM for 30 years, since Iran received many Russian Komar and OSA boats. I testified (classified) in the USS Cole investigation. The captain knew the threat , but had “no shoot” orders. Great guy. He took a mean rap.

      • draeger24

        AMEN…The Clinton administration hamstrung the armed forces, and I was not pleased when the CNO praised the skippers of these vessels “for showing great restraint”….BALONEY….Chris had a good wrap up, but these guys are making provocative moves…they only have to get lucky…once.

        • old guy

          We never lost a war before Rules of Engagement and never won one after. Let’s hope Prez Trump deep sixes them.

          • Secundius

            Don’t Point Fingers just yet Guy’s!/? The NATO ROE (Rules of Engagement Manual) MC-362-1, was Officially Adopted into the US Military in 5 October 1978…

          • draeger24

            well, they were written for that context in a bipolar construct. In this war, it was necessary to have some ROE because it was a counter-insurgency atmosphere; that said, ISIS has captured land and are a state, so, we must go back to ridding ourselves of White House mismanagement. We were winning in Vietnam when Nixon started unrestricted warfare, and GEN Giap stipulated that as well- the media lost that war. We have to go back to changing our strategy – some unrestricted bombing of ISIS which will incur civilian casualties will have to be resurrected. Had we bombed ISIS on their way to Baghdad a few years ago when they had a thousand truck convoy, we would have obliterated the problem, but politics interfered by this WH.

          • Secundius

            The Manual was written so a person with a 5th Grade Education could Understand it…

          • old guy

            SOOOO< rescind it. It is not applicable in time of a declared war.

          • old guy

            I will repeat my suggestion to Prez TRUMP.
            1. Since ISIS has declared itself (as ISIL) a state, have Congress pass a Declaration of War against ir.
            2. Take Uniformed P.O.W.s to Gitmo for the duration + 6months, according to The Geneva Convention.
            3. Shoot all out of uniform combatants as spies, on the spot.
            4. Try all sympathizers with sedition and incarcerate them for 25 years.
            5. Institute war crimes trials for all leaders.

          • old guy

            Ever wonder what GEN. Patton would have used those ROE for?

          • Secundius

            M26(M46)…

          • old guy

            That’s my tank. I was a MOS 733 tank jockey In 1945. Started in M4s switched to M24s, M26s, M8s and M20s.

          • morrell

            Target Practice?

  • Jim Jolly Rogers

    “Smoke screen generator”? Hardly. Those floats do make smoke, but to serve as markers during a search and rescue. They weight a few pounds and in no way make enough smoke to “screen” anything. Their purpose is to mark, not to obscure.

  • John B. Morgen

    Next time and maybe our American warships should take an impolite stance towards the Iranians. Fire two shots across their FIACs’ bows, if they do not change their aggressive approaches, then make the third shot be destructive. Enough with this appeasement with some one who is poking us at our national honor expense. Iran is a bully in the international waters, and it is time to remove this bully by any means necessary. In other words, punch them in the face.

  • The Plague

    I sooo miss the battleships from the inventory. They’d be so well suited to just this type of close-range back-and-forth with the Hottentots of the world. The real Littoral Combat Ships.

    • publius_maximus_III

      Great idea. Time to dust off the USS New Jersey yet again, currently a museum in her namesake state — a veteran of WW-II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Lebanese Civil War, and served once before in the Persian Gulf (soon to be renamed the Freedom Gulf by da new Prez). Try one of those Cole sneak attacks against THOSE armor plated sides. LCS cleanup duty, might as well.

      • Secundius

        The “Closest” your likely to See a 57,000-ton Battleship is EITHER going to be a 30,000-ton Arsenal Ship or a 16,000-ton Destroyer…

        • old guy

          No, we might get smart enough to build one of our 55,000 designs for a hovercraft-supporting Logistic ship, proposed in 1979

          • Secundius

            As I recall, the SES-3000. Was ~3,000-tons with a 80kt speed that had a Projected Cost of ~817.3-Million USD in 1979. Factoring for Inflation, it would Cost ~2.71705-Billion USD in 2016 Dollars. I’ll Wait for “DARPA’s” Tony Stark Iron Man “Helicarriers” to be Built…

          • old guy

            I gave you a detailed account of the rise and demise of the 3K SES program, but, it seems ASNI pulled it for some reason.

          • Secundius

            I remember Quite Well!/?

          • old guy

            I sent it again today, but USNI pulled it for some reason. Maybe because I mentioned big Z and Holloway.

          • Secundius

            Before Christmas, I told “John Morgen” that I’ve been “Redacted” 241 Times. As of January 1st, the Number grew to 259 “Redactments”. Personally I think its either Certain Word Phases that get an Attended Responds or a “Name” of a Specific Individual…

          • publius_maximus_III

            Somebody’s got it in for you, Bro.

          • Secundius

            “Dickius Chaneius”!/?

          • publius_maximus_III

            I’d definitely keep your head down if you ever go quail hunting with that one — Caveat Shoot-Hair, as the Romans used to say. And if you ever played a round of golf with Gerald Ford, I hope you took any cries of “FORE, FORE” to heart…

      • old guy

        Nice conjecture, but wrong ship, swarm tactics would kill her.

      • The Plague

        The Iowa-class could still be relevant, if properly equipped, for a range of special missions, no doubt. But what really boils my brains is that the US has passed up the opportunity to build “BBGNs” using the same basic hull as the nuclear powered carrier, using the same powerplant, just leaving out all the planes-related decks and fluff and sinking some very large capacity well-armored missile magazines behind a decent armor-belt. Same mobility in speed and range as the carrier. Far more firepower than all the current escorts combined. Power-generation and cooling to your heart’s content. Survivability and protection in a class all its own. Economies of scale. But instead of that, the Navy is wrangling with a large fleet of expensive, thin-skinned ships, none of which can keep up with the central elements in its own warfighting concept, the carriers. Utter puke.

        • publius_maximus_III

          Good idea, BD (Black Death). Why should carriers and subs be the only non-oiler dependent vessels in our fleet? And realistically, even the nuclear carriers need replenishment of their aviation fuel stocks from time to time. Park a E-u-u-ge BBGN right in the middle of those Straits of Hormuz, the gateway to Iraqi Freedom Gulf, and start swatting Persian flies as your buddies sail right on by, unimpeded.

          • The Plague

            Yes, the primary strike mission could be shifted to the BBGNs and their missiles : real fighting ships able to give and take punishment. The carrier would still be relevant for ISR and what not, but it wouldn’t have to be the tip of the spear anymore. But with all the thin-skinned buckets floating around in today’s battle-group, either the carrier stays the tip of the spear, or it can only yield that position to the SSGN – of which there are barely a few, are also “enormously expensive”, and cannot do anti-air warfare at all.

        • Duane

          There is no rationale for such a ship. What would it do? Just sail around and look impressive?

          Carriers don’t exist in order to simply deploy big hulls around the global seas … they exist strictly to serve as mobile air bases. Without the air wings and the various assets they provide, for offense, defense, and ISR – there would be no reason for being for a CVN, or its accompanying task groups.

          There is nothing that your so-called BBGN can do that is not already being done by far cheaper, and therefore affordable surface and subsurface combatants. Whether SSGNs that can launch 154 Tomahawks unseen and nearly undetectably from undersea, to our fleet of AEGIS-equipped destroyers and cruisers and guided missile cruisers, to, well, everything else we have in the fleet today, your BBGN would be a ship in search of a purpose … just like the BBs were a ship type in search of a purpose after they were proven vulnerable in the face of naval aviation in Pearl Harbor.

          • The Plague

            Obviously you couldn’t read what was written in my post, but I was suggesting that the BBGN would be a more (cost-)effective solution to the defense of the carrier than the current escorts of thin-skinned maxed-out endurance-challenged light hulls. More and more such hulls (expensive hulls at that) are needed to fulfill the same AD mission for the carrier, leaving less and less of their own armaments for offensive purposes. Just look at the current struggles of the Navy to somehow dual-task the SM’s for surface warfare. That’s because of the mis-proportioned design of the light hulls that doesn’t leave sufficient volume for a broad array of armaments. And stop going back to the Pearl Harbor-line with the sunk-at-pier 1920’s Standard Types : any vessel caught in harbor that way, no matter what it is – LCS, CVN, SSGN – would be sunk just the same way. It’s simply not a valid argument in this discussion.
            By the way, the rationale for a BBGN would include the fact that it could take over the primary strike mission from the carrier. The current trend is that the carrier is less and less strike-capable due to its short-legged air wing, but it has an expanding ISR and ever-present fleet air defense mission still. The BBGN’s could do most of the high-volume heavy striking, going closer in if they have to, dealing out and taking punishment in missile-engagements, while the carrier could stay farther out, sending up long-range ISR assets ( if the Navy ever gets there ) and only use its strike-planes for mop-up later.

          • Duane

            Obviously you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.

            No point in trying to explain to an intentional ignoramus that, no, no navy in the world has built a BB since 1944 and nobody is ever going to build one again. There’s simply no rationale for such a white elephant.

          • The Plague

            With brains like you having proliferated in the world since the end of WWII, it is darn near guaranteed that nobody will build one again. The Navy will pay the price for that, both in the field and institutionally, in its competition against the Air Force.

          • Duane

            Yup – the rest of the world is dumb, all except you. Are you Trump’s little brother or something?

      • Duane

        You’re being ridiculous. The BBs were obsolete 70 years ago.

        So you’d have us spend massive amounts of money to put a museum relic up against a handful of Iranian speedboats?

        Ridiculous.

        • publius_maximus_III

          You da obsolete… 😉

    • Duane

      Not hardly – the battlewagons are about as deep drafted as any US naval vessel (a bit over 37 ft), requires massive numbers of crew (about 2,800), and were enormously expensive to operate. The armor plating was designed to resist torpedo hits and large naval guns from other battleships – not small missiles and lightweight guns.

      High speed (47+ knots), maneuverable, shallow draft (a bit less than 13 feet) LCS are suited to dealing with high speed coastal patrols and small surface combatants, or Frigates if the coastal waters are deep enough.

      The big, not very maneuverable battlewagons were designed to do combat with similar enemy battlewagons in line of battle – a mode of warfare that was proved obsolete more than 70 years ago when the Japanese destroyed most of ours with little bitty carrier planes, and the Brits did similarly to the Bismarck.

      • The Plague

        Only if you think of “battleship” as narrowly as it existed in its WWII manifestation, as though a modernized version of the same concept could not be created cost-effectively. As for the “enormous expense” of their operation : yes, the WWII battleship is very expensive to operate, but even that level of expense is less than the costs of the LCS which is already “enormously expensive” but does not even operate and actually never will. Big things are actually more economical to operate than small things, particularly ships, especially when you look at the size of the “naval problem” in the world.
        Also, shallow draft is hardly any advantage when the ship is so weak that it cannot actually accomplish any mission in that shallow water, except blow up and burn spectacularly. Don’t forget that the carrier never fought alone in WWII, it relied on those battlewagons very much for AAA, without which it would not have survived in combat. On top of everything, we’re not in WWII days anymore, this is the missile age much more than it is the age of the airplane. The plane is still relevant, very much, but a battleship in modern form, with very large capacity missile magazines, is actually far more survivable – even all alone – than any carrier, cruiser, or destroyer in the modern inventory.

        • Duane

          The LCS IS operational, and is operating. It is vastly cheaper than any large modern surface combatant, let alone those ridiculous monuments to naval and politician egos called the “battleship”. Battleships were all about image and the appearance of power, but they were useless for their intended purpose of engaging in the line of battle with other battleships, because a handfull itty bitty carrier planes, even back in the low tech days of unguided munitions, easily wiped battleships from the surface of the sea. Battleships were the ultimate white elephant of naval warfare.

          And you have it exactly backwards – the carriers protected the battleships. The only time we sent battleships out to do battle with Japanese task forces was under cover by the carriers … without carrier planes to protect them, the battleships were sitting ducks, as Pearl Harbor proved beyond the slightest doubt. The battleships were sent to shell enemy beaches under cover of the carriers. In the event of an enemy air attack, of course the battleships put up fire … they were there, they were expected to carry at least some of their own massive weight to earn their keep.

          A battleship today would be even more vulnerable than the WWII versions if we ever revived them again, which we won’t, because in addition to being sitting ducks for missile attacks from above, they are sitting ducks for torpedo attacks from below .. and today’s quiet submarines, with self-guided torpedoes that can be launched from dozens of miles away, can easily break the back of any battleship with a single boom under its bottom where there never was any armor.

          • The Plague

            I think your problems with the concept of the battleship are fundamentally psychological in nature. Inside your head, you still construe them as though they were still restricted to 14-inch guns from the days of Jutland. This is simply deformed thinking : everything you pack into a $1.5B DDG today, you could pack into a BBGN hull too, only ten times more of it. Everything a Burke can do to avoid being hit a BBGN could do as well, only with orders of magnitude more staying power.

          • Duane

            You’re quite the piece of work.

            Did it ever occur with you to, like, review actual history? Such as the fact that no nation on earth built another BB after World War Two?

            This isn’t about my thinking .. I’m simply explaining to some apparently uninformed people – you – the reason why nobody has built a BB in more than 70 years. If you choose to remain deliberately uninformed, I believe that enters the realm of “stupid” and not merely ignorant.

          • The Plague

            You’ve got some awfully big mouth spewing $hit without restraint, calling the other guy names because you lack meaningful arguments. That’s characteristic behavior for bought-and-paid-for agitprop pushers. Not to mention the irrational intensity of your ape$hit kneejerk reactions in an entirely conjectural subject, as though that floating can of worms called LCS that you’re such a blowhard for could be threatened by the mere mention of the “battleship”. Lest their ghosts come back from the grave and sink that joke of a program! Woo-hoo!! Now go back to your leashholders for a lick of the hands for them and a pat on the back for you, a$$hat.

      • old guy

        PH(M). 55 knots, on foils, 20 , in displacement, 4′ draft (FOILS), 9′ foils up. Sounds like a winner. 75mm gun + .50 caliber back up.

  • RobM1981

    During the initial Iraq war we got a feeling for just how “loyal” much of that particular military force was. Given the chance to surrender, they surrendered in droves (with some notable exceptions).

    It makes me wonder what it must feel like to be the gunner on one of these fishing boats, up on plane and approaching a Burke. Take a look at the picture that starts this article – it’s a great shot of Mahan. What an awesome looking vessel. The Burke’s are fantastic, and leave no doubt that they aren’t there for the Social Program. Burke’s are men-o-war, in every sense. You tangle with a Burke at your own peril.

    And there you are, trying to stay balanced while your 24 foot Alumacraft (or whatever) skips along the waves, trying to menace a Burke.

    What thoughts MUST go through their heads…

    • publius_maximus_III

      More destroyers, more destroyers, more Arleigh Burke DDG-51 Flight III destroyers.

    • John Locke

      “What thoughts MUST go through their heads”

      The asymmetric tactics they have learned and the vulnerabilities of a Burke.

    • old guy

      One LEGAL shot ahead of those boats, rescue the crews after flip, get confessions of incitement and APOLOGIES, TA-DA end of harassment.

      • John Locke

        Praying Mantis did a whole lot more but obviously its effects have been forgotten or they are confident in their current tactics.

        • old guy

          Right on.

        • draeger24

          yep….get some little birds out there with miniguns….

    • Duane

      Equating the Iranian Guards, an outfit built upon religious zealotry and fealty to the mullahs in Tehran, with the Iraqi armed forces fighting on behalf of secular thugs, is not apples to apples. The Iranians are quite happy to die for their religion and go to their reward.

      • muzzleloader

        And the able sailors of the USN will be glad to send them there.

  • eddie046

    I would say the best “warning” would be to sink the lead boat. That is a warning to the rest to leave ASAP!