The Strike On Saudi Oil Facilities Was Unprecedented

nivek

As Above So Below
The title of this thread taken from the title of the article below, this is an unprecedented strike and the world should take notice of this because as Tyler states below, this is the future of warfare...

The Strike On Saudi Oil Facilities Was Unprecedented And It Underscores Far Greater Issues
By Tyler Rogoway

I don't know how better to say it—there was some really shoddy and downright reckless reporting over the weekend on the Saudi oil infrastructure attacks. After catching our readers up with what is going on regarding this developing situation in a post that you need to read here for proper background, I wanted to take the time to talk about some of the inaccurate analysis being cast around in the media and about some of the larger and very pressing issues surrounding the attacks and its aftermath.

Away from the office this weekend, I took to Twitter to make a few key points about what I was seeing regarding the strikes. I want to solidify those more completely here. First off, no, the direction of impacts seen in satellite photos is not any sort of conclusive evidence as to where these weapons originated from. I saw this parroted all over the place, from cable and network news to blogs over the weekend. We are talking about what are clearly extremely precise weapons here that are capable of being effectively employed at long standoff ranges.

https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1568681525008-23244242.jpeg

https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1568681537917-asdad2v.jpeg

https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1568681561204-13131c.jpeg

The post-strike satellite images provided by the U.S. Government clearly show just how precise the weapons used were, punching near-identical placed holes into major components of Saudi Arabia's oil apparatus. The idea that these same weapons, which have to use some form of autopilot to accurately fly to their target area over long distances, can't simply hit an offset waypoint away from the target before making their final attack run is laughable. In other words, this is not unguided artillery here, it can maneuver dynamically to approach a target from a direction that its targeters find most advantageous—either for kinetic effects, survivability, or deniability reasons.



With that in mind, the attacks could have come from any vector-based on impact information alone—Iraq, Yemen, Iran, or even a boat in the Persian Gulf. The weapons could even have been launched from within a nearby friendly country by clandestine forces, although that is quite unlikely. And who is to say they all came from just one locale? Multiple types of weapons—cruise missiles, suicide drones, or even larger low observable drones capable of dropping their own weapons—could have been launched from completely different locations in a coordinated, multi-layer assault. This would have been particularly useful for ensuring some of the weapons make it to their targets and for overwhelming or confusing Saudi air defenses—that is if they are detected and successfully tracked at all.

Regardless of their origin, when I first saw the damage, I felt like drones were potentially part of the attack, but likely not the only weapons employed. In fact, it looked a lot like a cruise missile strike with some of those weapons being equipped with shaped charges for penetrating fortified structures and others being equipped with general high explosives warheads for greater effects against unfortified structures. Whoever planned the strike had a very good understanding of the facilities targeted and what their components do, as well as their vulnerabilities and propensity for secondary effects. In other words, it wasn't just showering a target area with explosive-laden drones or even picking some important-looking structures targeting those. The targeting was systemic in nature and high in quality.

That brings us to my next point, one you probably also thought to yourself when this happened—this was an unprecedented attack. Welcome to the murky world of unmanned warfare that I have been warning about for many years. I almost take this issue personally because people use to blow it off or even snicker at it. Now all the predictions I wish were wrong are coming true and at an alarming pace.

The Department of Defense was ridiculously asleep at the wheel regarding this threat and is now scrambling to play catchup. Anyone who says differently is straight-up lying. It's well established what non-state actors can already do with relatively low-end unmanned aircraft technology—Houthi rebels alone have been using suicide drones for two and a half years—just imagine what a peer state will be able to do in the very near future. Instead of a mass of individual suicide drones layered in with other weapons, like cruise missiles, attacking a target simultaneously, imagine a swarm that is fully networked and works cooperatively to best achieve their mission goals, including jamming or killing air defenses in order for the swarm to make it to its final destination. America's adversaries are all too aware of this game-changing potential and the lack of defenses to counter it in any robust manner.

Here's a cold hard reality that most people just don't understand, including many defense sector pundits—air defense systems, no matter how advanced and deeply integrated, aren't magic. They have major limitations, especially considering most primarily rely on ground-based sensors.





This is true for the upper end of the envelope, such as ballistic missile defense, and also for the very low end, such as drones and cruise missile defense. In fact, I wrote a piece all about the 'missile shield' myth, which mirrors the realities of defending against drones and cruise missiles. I suggest you give it a read.

The vast majority of these air defense systems were built to counter higher-end threats, like combat aircraft and ballistic missiles. Low-flying cruise missiles and slow-flying drones with small radar cross-sections remain a very problematic vulnerability to even the best integrated air defense systems on the planet. Short-range air defenses (SHORADs) are currently the most reliable way to effectively deal with these threats, but these systems have a very short reach and are traditionally only used at strategic locations and to protect other high-value target areas. The U.S., and the western world to some degree, has lagged behind pathetically when it comes to fielding SHORAD capabilities and now the Pentagon is scrambling to catch up. Even those systems that do exist were largely designed to shoot down a single target, such as a jet, helicopter, or missile, at a time, not rapidly or even simultaneously engage a swarm of them. You can read all about this issue in this past feature of mine, where I literally predict this exact type of attack.

The biggest problem with most SHORAD concepts being pushed forward today—from lasers to missile interceptors—is that they still emanate from a mindset in which the threat is limited in volume. In other words, they can engage a few drones or missiles fairly quickly, but a dozen or dozens descending onto the target area suddenly is far beyond their capabilities. This is why electronic warfare—from jamming to microwave directed energy weapons—is so attractive for dealing with this threat. These systems have the potential to drop a whole swarm or large swathes of it in a way that kinetic systems cannot. The other alternative is something like Israel's Iron Dome, which is expensive to acquire and deploy, with each Tamir interceptor costing over $50K per round fired (two usually being fired at each target), while also being restricted to a fairly short range. Other more promising and more mobile systems are in the works, and as I have said repeatedly, the best thing to knock down a drone outside of electronic warfare, is probably another drone. This concept is also finally being explored.

Beyond SHORAD systems, integrated air defense networks, like Saudi Arabia's, would benefit greatly from airborne netted sensors that are specifically designed to detect low and/or slow-flying targets with small radar cross-sections. The Army's long-troubled JLENS blimp is just one concept that exists, although it is attractive because it is very persistent. Smaller aerostats with radars that can cover a smaller area, but still provide ample early warning of approaching drones and cruise missiles, could be another, more scalable option for high-value locales.

High-altitude, long-endurance (HALE) unmanned aircraft can also lug radars aloft that are especially adept at looking-down and detecting these types of targets. In fact, the Block 40 RQ-4B Global Hawk's Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP) gives that aircraft a very sensitive Active Electronically Scanned Array radar that is capable of rapidly scanning huge volumes of airspace for hard to detect threats as well as taking synthetic aperture radar images and tracking moving vehicles on the ground. This latent air-to-air capability has not been developed by the USAF, but it probably should be in light of recent events. A country like Saudi Arabia may find either of these concepts to be a worthy investment going forward, especially considering how much money is being lost in oil production after this strike. There is no doubt about it, Global Hawk isn't cheap to keep overhead, but considering they can stay up there for nearly a day and a half at a time and they can cover a huge area from their perch at 60,000 feet, they are better adapted to the role than traditional aircraft.

https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1568676805553-218159.jpg

Northrop Grumman - Block 40 Global Hawk with MR-RTIP.
The big takeaway is that this is just the beginning. You are getting a glimpse at the future of warfare in these satellite photos and quite honestly, considering how omnipresent this threat has become, we are lucky a couple busted up oil production facilities were the only result of such an eye-opening attack.

The cold hard truth is that counter-unmanned aircraft and counter-cruise missile capabilities are not 'sexy' to develop, field, and maintain operationally, but it will increasingly become absolutely essential to divert more funds in this direction. And no, I am not talking about some guys running around with wonky, sci-fi looking electronic warfare rifles. I am saying dense and layered counter-UAS capabilities will be required to even counter domestic threats in the years to come, especially against VIPs and critical infrastructure.

We live in an age where everyone has access to high-resolution satellite imagery of nearly any point on the globe. This is something that was unthinkable even following the end of the Cold War. A single individual now has the capabilities that entire government intelligence agencies were built to produce, all on their smartphone or laptop computer. And it's entirely free!

GPS is even more of a revolutionary capability. It's incredible pinpoint accuracy really has become more concerning since the hobby drone industry exploded and now components to control drones via GPS are somewhat off-the-shelf in nature and are supplied from manufacturers around the globe. With these two things combined, a bad actor has both the targeting intelligence and the precision targeting capabilities available for a minuscule fraction of what they cost in the past and without any major barriers of entry.

These types of strikes don't have to originate beyond a border, they can even originate from anywhere, including right here in the U.S. against U.S. targets. We must change our way of thinking when it comes to precision munitions and drones, and especially the imaginary line that still seems to separate them. In addition, confronting this issue just won't be about fielding near and very costly military gear, it will also be about implementing, regulations, working with the global community, and a lot of intelligence gathering. The best and cheapest way to stop any attack is to do so before they start.

As far as Iran's involvement in this, that seems pretty damn clear, at least on some level, and I wouldn't be surprised if they launched some or all of these weapons themselves. The thing is that they have created a unique situation in which they have literally bought deniability via furnishing a rebel force with 'indigenous' weapons that are distinct, but similar to their own. Yet there is nothing to say Iran couldn't use those same "off-brand" weapons themselves. In fact, doing so makes total sense in this case as their Houthi partners were ready and willing to accept responsibility. In the end, the effects are what really matters, not who owns the operation publicly. When it comes to responding to such an act, that certainly isn't the case.



I have to stress that I am not saying they definitely originated from Iranian territory or vessels, although I think that is very possible, but that this unique situation Iran has built for itself must be taken into account going forward. They literally constructed an elaborate deniability mechanism for themselves.

I hope this event is a wakeup call for the powers that be that counter-UAS and cruise missile defense gets more investment, especially in an era of murky hybrid warfare. The startling reality is that this attack could have come by ballistic missile—weapons that cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars—and it would have had a far lesser chance of succeeding. Not only that, the perpetrator would have been known. Yet some drones and/or low-end cruise missiles can accomplish the same effects more reliably and with the added feature of deniability. This alarming strategic truth is not reflected in the incredible sums of money being spent on integrated air defenses, and especially by the Kingdom and the United States.

Hopefully, we won't need another hugely successful attack on a prized target located deep in the heart of highly defended airspace before key decision-makers wake up to nature of what has been and continues to be a totally predictable threat.

.
 

Standingstones

Celestial
You would think that a defense would have been devised that included drone and cruise missile attacks. The reports that I have read suggest that Iran was backing Saudi Arabia enemies. These elements fired Iranian drones at the oil fields.

All countries that use Saudi will now pay the price of these attacks.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
I think some of the drones came directly from Iran and flew in with drones sent from another location...I could be wrong but I do not think the attack originated from Yemen though, I doubt anything could fly out of Yemen before its promptly shot down...IMO

Here's another report from The Warzone:

Everything You Need To Know About The Attacks On Saudi Arabia's Oil Facilities (Updated)
The U.S. has disputed Yemeni rebels' claims that they were responsible, while the Saudis also say the strikes originated outside Yemen.

.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
A coalition of the few: U.S. and Saudi Arabia stand alone against Iran

The United States and Saudi Arabia lack virtually any allies as they consider how to respond to this weekend's attacks on Saudi oil refineries, raising doubts about whether the Trump administration could build any coalition for military action in the region.

The attacks have crippled Saudi oil production, creating one of the largest oil disruptions in decades. But while Defense Secretary Mark Esper tweeted that the U.S. is working with "our partners to address this unprecedented attack,” President Donald Trump has alienated key allies by unilaterally pulling out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and re-imposing sanctions. It has already been unable to enlist allies to protect shipping in the region from Iranian attacks.

“In a normal administration, we should be able to get 40 or 50 countries on board for something like this but we can’t because nobody trusts the Trump administration and everybody thinks they’re going to take them into war," said Ilan Goldenberg, a former Obama administration national security official who worked on Iran policy at the Pentagon, referring to the maritime security initiative — which he called "pathetic.”

“There is no offensive coalition against Iran, not there or anywhere else in the world right now,” added Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who studies Iranian military activity in the Middle East.

Even leading Republicans in Congress called on Trump to take action only with the help of allies. "The best way to counter Iran is by working by, with and through regional partners — including making sure they have what they need to defend themselves and our shared interests," Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma said in a statement late Monday.

The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, said earlier that “I hope our international partners will join us in imposing consequences on Iran for this reckless destabilizing attack.”

Successive U.S. administrations have used coalitions to bolster the legitimacy of military actions and to relieve some of the pressure on heavily used U.S. military forces — from the 1991 Gulf War and the Clinton administration’s actions in the Balkans to the much-maligned “coalition of the willing” that the George W. Bush administration recruited for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

And since taking office, Trump has often expressed frustration with allies over burden-sharing, pushing European, Asian, and Middle Eastern partners to bear greater financial and practical costs in areas where the U.S. underwrites their security.

That was the Pentagon’s rationale when it announced the so-called International Maritime Security Construct in July following the Iranian seizure of a British tanker and the June shoot down of a U.S. surveillance drone. By recruiting international partners for a flotilla of naval vessels and surveillance aircraft, the Pentagon hoped to limit the amount of U.S. military might it would have to commit to providing security in waterways where Iranian naval forces have harassed commercial shipping.

That’s seen as a key concern at a time when the military is trying to shift troops, aircraft, warships and other equipment away from the Middle East to better prepare for potential conflicts with Russia or China.

Yet many allied nations — including bedrock military partners like France and Germany — steered clear out of concern that the Trump administration might use the mission to drag them into a confrontation with Iran.

France and Germany have both condemned the weekend attacks on the Saudi oil industry. But France appears committed to diplomacy with Iran. French President Emmanuel Macron last month called for Trump and President of Iran Hassan Rouhani to meet to try to arrange a summit.

And a German government official last month warned of being “sucked into” a larger military mission if it joined the maritime security mission.

So far, only the U.K., Australia, and Bahrain have joined the U.S. in the maritime coalition.

The maritime security force is based in Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy 5th Fleet. It draws on unspecified forces from the Bahraini military — whose navy mostly consists of small patrol craft — as well as a British contingent of two frigates, a destroyer and five mine hunting vessels, according to a British official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Australia, meanwhile, has pledged to deploy a surveillance plane later this year and a warship next year, and Australian Defense Minister Linda Reynolds stressed when she announced that commitment that “Australia’s core interest in this mission is de-escalation.”

In leading the effort, the U.S. has committed destroyers and “intelligence gathering assets,” according to a statement from U.S. Central Command. Telling reporters last month that the mission was “up and running,” Esper described its mission as “first, to provide freedom of navigation for the commercial shipping that is so vital to global economic trade, and second, to deter provocations and avoid conflict in the region."

The skeletal maritime force is far too small to be used in any type of military response to the Saudi Aramco attacks — a mission that would go beyond its intended purpose.

“The idea that this coalition could be used to respond significantly or seriously to Iran is fanciful,” said Goldenberg, who is now with the Center for a New American Security.

For quick aerial or sea-launched retaliatory strikes against Iranian missile and drone facilities, a coalition could be more of an impediment than as asset, according to Eric Edelman, a former George W. Bush Pentagon official. "If the president decides on a military response, I think you want it to be fairly prompt and you don’t want to spend a lot of time coordinating with others beyond Saudi Arabia," Edelman said.

But building a stronger international consensus before taking military action could foil Iran's efforts to diplomatically isolate the U.S., advised Jack Keane, a retired Army general who is close to the Trump administration.

"What the U.S. has the opening to do now, once it's gathered all the evidence, is present it to an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council," Keane said, calling that "a vehicle to garner more support to counter future aggressive Iranian behavior."

If the Trump administration does seek to build a separate, broader coalition specifically for retaliatory action against Iran over the Saudi Aramco strikes, it’s likely to come up empty — or nearly empty — for the same reasons the maritime coalition has struggled to gain traction.

“International allies don’t know what Trump’s going to do,” said Kelly Magsamen, a former Obama administration Pentagon official at the Center for American Progress. "They look at him and think one minute he’s trying to get us into some sort of maritime coalition, and the next he’s tweeting that he wants to meet [Iranian President Hassan] Rouhani.”

“They’re not going to sign up for politically or militarily challenging endeavors without a better understanding of what U.S. strategy is” on Iran, she added.

Spooking traditional allies like Germany and France has left the administration “with very few cards to play at this point,” said Magsamen.

The administration’s habit of making major foreign policy pronouncements over Twitter or in other impromptu formats has also hurt allies’ willingness to work jointly with the U.S. on matters as weighty as potential military action, Goldenberg said.

“Then they do things like release the intel on Twitter before talking to any allies about it,” he said. “That’s not what you do. You take it to your friends and convince them, and then you go out together and make the case.”

.
 

Sheltie

Fratty and out of touch.
Now there are reports claiming it was cruise missiles launched from Iran. This is getting scary fast.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
On thing that seems obvious to me now is that Iran heavily influenced the Obama administration and got LOTS of money from Obama, taxpayer money...

...
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
I bet there were some happy faces in the Raytheon boardroom after the news of this strike became known. Much rejoicing, the feasting upon breakfast cereals and orangutans and so forth. The Saudis will be shopping for some new gear.

Beam On: A Wide Range of Counter-Drone Technologies Comes of Age

The US Air Force has a new weapon called THOR that can take out swarms of drones

The awareness of this type of threat didn't crop up yesterday and neither did this hardware. The notion of drones and fleets of drones has been with us for some time. The public tech is now catching up and that's what we just saw. Probably a lot of off the shelf hardware at work and WE ironically probably paid for the development of it at some point.

I've heard the Long Range Strike Bomber program will include a coordinated package of manned and unmanned systems operating in concert. If I can read about that in Popular Mechanics or wherever the hell it was then likely work has been done on it that we won't hear of for quite some time. It's even in pop culture cheesy novels like Ghost Fleet.

As a military geek I have been reading about exactly this for some time and when I heard about this strike all I thought was 'well here it finally is' .
 
Last edited:

nivek

As Above So Below


Saudi Arabia presents 'evidence' for alleged Iran oil attack.

.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
Well seems the US is taking a defensive position by shoring up Saudi defenses and sending some troops to support them...

Trump Focuses on Defending Saudis, Not Striking Iran, for Now

WASHINGTON — President Trump is sending a modest deployment of American troops to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, along with air and missile defense systems, in response to the attacks on Saudi oil facilities, which the administration blames on Iran.

Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper called the decision, which came on Friday during a White House meeting with top national security officials, “defensive in nature.” Defense Department officials said the Pentagon would deploy additional antimissile batteries to Saudi Arabia and might also deploy additional warplanes. The aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln may extend its stay in the region as well, the officials said.

.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
The world doesn't need a war that could turn global, the UN and Europe should be stepping up more on this issue...

...

'Stay away!' Iran President issues chilling warning to the West to keep out of the Gulf, as he unveils long range missiles that could strike US bases in wake of Pentagon sending troops to Saudi



President Hassan Rouhani (left) has called on foreign powers to 'stay away' from the Gulf' and said their presence 'has always brought pain and misery.' Today is Iran's annual military parade (soldiers middle and inset) which marks the start of a week commemorating Iran's 1980-1988 war with Iraq known as 'sacred defence'. The parade showcased tanks (top right), drones and missiles (bottom right) - including the Khorramshahr said to have a range of 2,000 kilometres. Also on display was the Khordad-3 air defense system that shot down a U.S. drone in June.

Tensions have flared in the Gulf since May, when Iran began reducing its commitments to the nuclear deal and the US said it was sending forces to waters near the Islamic republic in response to 'indications of a credible threat'. Relationships were tested once more this month following attacks on Saudi oil installations, which made the price of fuel rise across the globe, that Washington and Riyadh have to varying degrees blamed on Tehran. Also during his speech today Rouhani, who is expected to travel to New York on Monday ahead of a debate at the UN, said: 'Our logic is the logic of a Persian Gulf whose security comes from within. Foreign forces can cause problems and insecurity for our people and for our region.'


.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
A fair bet would be C-UAS units, or units trained in the practice

counter-unmanned aircraft system (C-UAS) | Defense Systems Information Analysis Center (DSIAC)

Desert Shield Part II: Pentagon sending US troops to Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia had requested international help to help protect the country's infrastructure following the Sept. 14 attacks by Iranian drones and cruise missiles, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said at a Pentagon news briefing. The United Arab Emirates has also required help.

"In response to the kingdom's request, the president has approved the deployment of U.S. forces, which will be defensive in nature, and primarily focused on air and missile defense," Esper said. "We will also work to accelerate the delivery of military equipment to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UAE to enhance their ability to defend themselves."


Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would not say how many service members are headed to Saudi Arabia, but he characterized the deployment as involving a "moderate" number of troops. He told a reporter it would be "fair to say" it wouldn't be in the thousands.

"Secretary [of State Mike] Pompeo just came back this morning and the Saudis asked for enhanced defensive capabilities, so what we'll do now is take the president's decision; I'll talk with CENTCOM over the weekend ; we'll talk to our Saudi partners; and we'll work the details of the deployment. We'll be able to share that with you next week," Dunford said at Friday's briefing.

The United States is looking for other countries to also contribute Saudi Arabia's defense, Dunford said. Esper said the deployment of U.S. forces is meant to support the United States' partners in the Middle East, to ensure the free flow of commerce, and to show the United States' commitment to international rules.
 

Sheltie

Fratty and out of touch.
A fact seldom mentioned in the mainstream media is that China is now the world's largest oil importer. America has increased its energy production in recent years. This situation with Saudi Arabia will have far more economic impact on the Chinese economy.

China April crude oil imports hit monthly record, refiners stocked up ahead of sanctions

Combine this with the many companies that have begun sourcing their manufacturing to other Asian countries like Vietnam, Thailand, and India, and you have a perfect storm brewing. China may be in a lot of economic trouble IMHO. Wasn't it interesting today how Trump met with the leader of India in the morning and the leader of Singapore just a few hours later? Coincidence? I think not.

China is being badly hurt by the trade war and a number of other developing factors. Things could get very ugly. :eek:
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
A fact seldom mentioned in the mainstream media is that China is now the world's largest oil importer. America has increased its energy production in recent years. This situation with Saudi Arabia will have far more economic impact on the Chinese economy.

China April crude oil imports hit monthly record, refiners stocked up ahead of sanctions

Combine this with the many companies that have begun sourcing their manufacturing to other Asian countries like Vietnam, Thailand, and India, and you have a perfect storm brewing. China may be in a lot of economic trouble IMHO. Wasn't it interesting today how Trump met with the leader of India in the morning and the leader of Singapore just a few hours later? Coincidence? I think not.

China is being badly hurt by the trade war and a number of other developing factors. Things could get very ugly. :eek:

Heard something on - I think - NPR the other day. Could've been Reuters War College. Only caught part of it but it seems China has taken advantage of the situation in Afghanistan for economic purposes (nothing new) - but now is concerned over the day we pull out. Assuming we can ever unf**k ourselves there. They would have to provide their own security. Maybe they can throw money at the same civilian mercenary contractors we have been screwing around with. Oh, private security companies, sorry.

I think under Obama the US became an energy exporter again. Natural gas.
If China wants to burn up the last century's fuel then maybe they're just looking for a new form of pollution to choke themselves on. They're the largest producers of alternative energy but need so much they manage to burn up a crapload of coal too. Kaf kaf kaf.

main.png
 
Last edited:
Top