Is a US-Iran maritime clash inevitable?

[Jimbuna]

I could be wrong but things appear to have quietened down a bit the last couple of days.

Of course, no carrier has entered the area neither.


In 1988, US warships clashed with Iranian forces in the Gulf. As a war of words now escalates, is there a danger that history will repeat itself?
Operation Praying Mantis is today little more than a footnote in US naval history.
But the clash between US warships and aircraft and Iranian forces in the Gulf in April 1988 could be a foretaste of the potentially larger naval clash that may be threatening as tensions in the region grow.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16485842

[Osmium Steele]

Inevitable? IMHO no. I would say it is not even likely, but it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility.

A US carrier will sail through the Strait of Hormuz when it is time to head to Bahrain, whether it is the Stennis or her relief.

What happens then is entirely up to Tehran.

I think it is just a tad more likely that a smaller ship in the group will be targetted. But just a tad.

Hitting a US ship would be going off on a tangent. Tehran needs to be more concerned with what Israel is planning.

[Jimbuna]

I agree with you up to a point but I'm wondering if an attack on a US vessel would be sending a veiled Iranian message/show of strength to Israel?

[mapuc]

It is my personal assessment that comes to speak here. I am no expert on these issues:

I hope that everything will be solved in a proper manner. I hope that Iran will back down and fullfill it's agreement to the UN.

If there would be some kind of clashes between USA-Iran, I believe it will be very shortly-maybe a 2-3 days durations.

Markus

[nikimcbee]

I could be wrong but things appear to have quietened down a bit the last couple of days.

Of course, no carrier has entered the area neither.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16485842

The Iranian Navy, seeing this thread, decide the time has come to attack. And that is how Jim, single-handedly, started WW3.:dead:

allah akbar.

[mapuc]

The Iranian Navy, seeing this thread, decide the time has come to attack. And that is how Jim, single-handedly, started WW3.:dead:

allah akbar.

No, they have red what the american have and what they can do, so the iranian is staying at port, hope that the american will transit, without giving Iran a right left.

[Jimbuna]

The Iranian Navy, seeing this thread, decide the time has come to attack. And that is how Jim, single-handedly, started WW3.:dead:

allah akbar.

LOL...ya crazy bugga :DL

[TLAM Strike]

I agree with you up to a point but I'm wondering if an attack on a US vessel would be sending a veiled Iranian message/show of strength to Israel? Israel is getting prepared, they shut down their nuclear plant the other day fearing the Iranians might attack it. :hmmm:

A US carrier will sail through the Strait of Hormuz when it is time to head to Bahrain, whether it is the Stennis or her relief.
Enterprise is on her way IIRC. :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

Enterprise is on her way IIRC. :hmmm:


http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4782/makeitso776665.jpg

[mapuc]

Enterprise is on her way IIRC. :hmmm:

Are they sending Enterprise as a preventive measure or?

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Are they sending Enterprise as a preventive measure or?

Markus

I doubt anyone apart from those 'in the know' at the White House can answer that atm.

[mapuc]

I doubt anyone apart from those 'in the know' at the White House can answer that atm.

That's true

However I was thinking in a strategic way of thinking

Why sending an extra carrier to an area where the situation is somehow hot.

1. A back-up if the iranian do attack USS Stennis?
2. As a base during the upcoming Iranian campaign

I can remember wrong, but from what I remember, it has never occurred that 2 or more aircraft carriers have been in the same area, except on those occasions when the U.S. has been at war or attacked a country
I am not talking about exercises.

Markus

[Skybird]

I agree with you up to a point but I'm wondering if an attack on a US vessel would be sending a veiled Iranian message/show of strength to Israel?
Depends on how the attack is going along, and how successful it is.

And the question is not whether a clash at sea is inevitable, but whether a clash on land (most likely via air) is coming or not. the things we need to focus on, are not located on the seas, but inside the country. They just started to operate a new enrichment factory inside a reported massively fortified subterranean bunker. That interests me much more than the question whether or not a US warship can travel the gulf unharmed or not. Such provocative actions are just symbolic. The Iranian bomb program is a reality.

[mookiemookie]

Betteridge's Law of Headlines states:

"One thing though: This story is a great demonstration of my maxim that any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word "no". The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bull(deleted), and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it."

:Kaleun_Goofy:

[Jimbuna]

Depends on how the attack is going along, and how successful it is.

And the question is not whether a clash at sea is inevitable, but whether a clash on land (most likely via air) is coming or not. the things we need to focus on, are not located on the seas, but inside the country. They just started to operate a new enrichment factory inside a reported massively fortified subterranean bunker. That interests me much more than the question whether or not a US warship can travel the gulf unharmed or not. Such provocative actions are just symbolic. The Iranian bomb program is a reality.

I doubt it matters where the enrichment factory is located because it is possible/probable a ground strike (via troops on the ground) will be instigated or a strike by other means will result in the destruction of everything related above ground level being destroyed.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Israel is getting prepared, they shut down their nuclear plant the other day fearing the Iranians might attack it. :hmmm:


Enterprise is on her way IIRC. :hmmm:Enterprise is going to be decommissioned soon anyway so its best ship to send in case Iran is serious, which I strongly doubt.

That's true

However I was thinking in a strategic way of thinking

Why sending an extra carrier to an area where the situation is somehow hot.

1. A back-up if the iranian do attack USS Stennis?
2. As a base during the upcoming Iranian campaign

I can remember wrong, but from what I remember, it has never occurred that 2 or more aircraft carriers have been in the same area, except on those occasions when the U.S. has been at war or attacked a country
I am not talking about exercises.

MarkusIf I have understood correctly Stennis should already be heading to home.

[mapuc]

Enterprise is going to be decommissioned soon anyway so its best ship to send in case Iran is serious, which I strongly doubt.

If I have understood correctly Stennis should already be heading to home.

I did not know that. I have red that Stennis was on it's way back to base.

It seems that the embargo is not just to prevent Iran getting the bomb.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/goal-of-iran-sanctions-is-regime-collapse-us-official-says/2012/01/10/gIQA0KJsoP_story.html

Markus

[Skybird]

I doubt it matters where the enrichment factory is located because it is possible/probable a ground strike (via troops on the ground) will be instigated or a strike by other means will result in the destruction of everything related above ground level being destroyed.
That's why they move(d) their important stuff into mountains or underground. I doubt the program can be killed without such bases being taken by commandos and the facilities destroyed from within (but for that there are too many target sites, and too huge distances that must be travelled), or mini-nukes. I am quite certain that any conventional air campaign will only delay. In which case we will be meeting the same situation and need for decisions just a small handful of years later again.

I also do not put hope into a civil uprise via sanctions, or an attack. First, I have learned that Persians are extremely prpoud of their nation and are as patriotic as Americans or French. Put pressure on them from outside, and they will rally around their flag. Second, hopes mean nothing, they are neither a plan nor an option nor a strategy. I refuse to take mere hopes into account for forming plans. Politicians may be stupid and irresponsible enough to do that - I am not. We should have a plan with less infantile objectives.

It is about detemrination, and it seems the Irnaian leadership so far is superior in that. Determination for us means: either break and destroy their program, forever, or destroy and shatter the nation, the people, the country. I doubt that many people in the West making the political decisions understand this. It is too uncompromised and too hard for civilised gentlemen. But if you do not have such determination - you shouldn't go to war.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I did not know that. I have red that Stennis was on it's way back to base.I understood from earlier news reports that she is returning to her home base Bremerton, Washington, USA. I'm sure TLAM can tell us which one is correct.

CIA Analyst is very fitting description for him. :DL

[nikimcbee]

Does anyone know if they rotate the ships between the different Strike Fleets?

Like from 2nd SF to 3rd SF.

http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/

[Jimbuna]

I doubt this will be of much use because it shows the Stennis as still being in the Arabian Sea (31 Dec 2011).

http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html

[TLAM Strike]

Looks like we got the John C. Stennis is still on station with the Carl Vinson right behind and soon to be joined by the Abraham Lincoln.

EDIT: The Admiral Kuznetsov is also in the eastern med... things could get interesting...

For the Lulz some Iranian political cartoons...

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/7254/13901010163011680photol.jpg
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/5955/13901011181629805photol.jpg
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/2546/13901012181152305photol.jpg
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/614/13901012181407477photol.jpg

[Jimbuna]

For the Lulz some Iranian political cartoons...


Similarly....an old joke...


George W. Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad meet in Tehran for peace talks following recent hostilities. As they're sat down, Bush notices three buttons on the side of his chair.

He pushes the first one and a boot comes flying out of nowhere kicking him in the shins. The Iranian president falls about laughing.

He pushes the second button and a boxing glove comes flying through the air and hits him in the face. Again the Iranian president pisses himself laughing.

He pushes the third button tentatively and another boot comes flying out of nowhere and kicks him in the balls. Eyes watering, he falls to the floor while the Iranian president struggles for air as he's laughing so hard.

Bush staggers to his feet and announces that he's going to Washington - the Iranian president will be welcome to resume talks in three days.

Three days pass and the Iranian president arrives in Washington for the talks.

As he sits down in his seat he notices three buttons on the side. Eyeing them suspiciously, he presses the first one.

Nothing happens........ Bush starts giggling.

He winces as he pushes the second one. Again, nothing.... Bush starts laughing harder.

He grimaces as he pushes the third one. Once more, nothing happens..... Bush falls out of his seat laughing.

The Iranian president gets up in a huff and announces, "I'm going back to Iran."

Gasping for air, Bush replies, "what Iran?"

[Sailor Steve]

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

That's one I'll definitely commit to memory. :rock:

[mapuc]

Accordig to the danish news. USS Stennis is scheduled to return to Bremerton and USS Carl Vinson is there to replace her.

If the american are planning to have 3 carrier in that area, then USA is either awaiting something or up to something.

Markus

[TLAM Strike]

To be fair here are a couple of Western Cartoons...

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/6084/cj010412color.jpg
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/6955/bishcartoonxlarge.jpg

I think ours are more creative...

[mapuc]

:har::har::har:

[mapuc]

What if and it's a big what if.

The westen world is building up enough strenght to attack the iranian nuclear-facalities/program.

Perhaps USA, England, france and some others are tired of all this diplomacy that has not led to any change.

I found these two article about the situation. It's the only I could find in english

https://rt.com/politics/us-iran-israel-russia-patrushev-603/

https://rt.com/news/us-iran-conflict-hormuz-581/

Markus

[Jimbuna]

SINK EM ALL!! http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/pirate.gif

[TLAM Strike]

Several IRGCN Boston whalers approached the USS New Orleans, and the USCGC Adak on January 6th.

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-ships-approached-u-vessels-gulf-000624748.html

USS New Orleans:
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/6784/usnavy070911n9758l088tu.jpg

USCGC Adak:
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/1861/liberty22.jpg

Iranian Ashura class (MIG-G-0800) patrol boats that approached the Adak:
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/7404/20120114t010634z01tor52.jpg
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9848/20120114t010351z1btre80.jpg
Another photo of the type of craft in question:
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/2672/87622635.jpg

[magicstix]

You laugh but those little go-fast boats can put a hurting on you. Just ask the USS Cole and USS Liberty.

[Skybird]

Cole sat still in a harbour, refueling. Liberty was a surveillance and ELINT unit, not an armed combat unit.

However, I agree that those speedboats are underestimated by Americans. Especially if these boats get crewed by suicide crews.

A scorpion's sting is unlikely to kill you. But the pain from some of them nevertheless is severe.

[mapuc]

A few nights ago, I had a dream that was so realistic. The dream was like a kind of trailer for a movie, I saw only some simple fragments. It's a little hard to explain.

fragment 1: I was suddenly watching TV2news (same as CNN, just a Danish version) on the screen I saw the word U.S. attacks Iran and in the lower right corner I saw contraction Feb=February, but I didn't see the day or year.

Fragment 2: Here I saw , a Major using a pointer and pointed at the drawing of a Bunker Buster. What I have noticed was that the drawing was the recognized symbol for nuclear

Fragment 3: Now I was no longer with TV2NEWS in Iran, but in either Saudi Arabia or a third country. I saw massive demos where there was shouting invectives against America and American flags being burned

Fragment 4: This fragment went so fast by, so I really couldn't catch so much. I saw some suicide bombers throwing themself towards some soldiers (could not see nationality) and a single suicide bomber throwing himself against a door / gate

It felt like I saw all these fragments in a few minutes, like a movie trailer.

Markus

[magicstix]

A few nights ago, I had a dream that was so realistic. The dream was like a kind of trailer for a movie, I saw only some simple fragments. It's a little hard to explain.

fragment 1: I was suddenly watching TV2news (same as CNN, just a Danish version) on the screen I saw the word U.S. attacks Iran and in the lower right corner I saw contraction Feb=February, but I didn't see the day or year.

Fragment 2: Here I saw , a Major using a pointer and pointed at the drawing of a Bunker Buster. What I have noticed was that the drawing was the recognized symbol for nuclear

Fragment 3: Now I was no longer with TV2NEWS in Iran, but in either Saudi Arabia or a third country. I saw massive demos where there was shouting invectives against America and American flags being burned

Fragment 4: This fragment went so fast by, so I really couldn't catch so much. I saw some suicide bombers throwing themself towards some soldiers (could not see nationality) and a single suicide bomber throwing himself against a door / gate

It felt like I saw all these fragments in a few minutes, like a movie trailer.

Markus

It's unlikely Saudi Arabia would be anti-American in an attack on Iran. They aren't the best of friends and SA has already asked us to attack Iran on their behalf (I say if that's the case we ask them to fund it).

[mapuc]

It's unlikely Saudi Arabia would be anti-American in an attack on Iran. They aren't the best of friends and SA has already asked us to attack Iran on their behalf (I say if that's the case we ask them to fund it).

The government yes, but the people on the street, what about them??

I've wondered about my dream. the demonstration I saw, could well have taken place in Iran.

these suicide attack could have happened in Israel.
As I said, so the dream went through my head fast, like a movie trailer

Markus

[magicstix]

The government yes, but the people on the street, what about them??

I've wondered about my dream. the demonstration I saw, could well have taken place in Iran.

these suicide attack could have happened in Israel.
As I said, so the dream went through my head fast, like a movie trailer

Markus

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, sometimes a dream is just a dream. :O:

[MothBalls]

It's an election year in the US. Subject to debate, but it could work for/against the standing President. A show of strength will piss off 50% of the population, but a show of weakness will piss off 100% of the population. If we lose a carrier, we'll get a new President without a doubt.

Last thing we need right now is a war that we can't afford to pay for. Seems like we're in a damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Bottom line is 50% of the oil moves through the area. The US would be crippled without that oil. We can't even produce enough of our own fuel to grow our own food and get it to market, even if we all stopped driving cars and turned the power off at night. Add to that, the fuel our military uses on a daily basis, we're fooked.

Getting close to the time when we'll need to apologize to our kids for letting it get this bad, and tell them it's going to be up to them to fix this mess we created.

[TLAM Strike]

Bottom line is 50% of the oil moves through the area. The US would be crippled without that oil. We can't even produce enough of our own fuel to grow our own food and get it to market, even if we all stopped driving cars and turned the power off at night. Add to that, the fuel our military uses on a daily basis, we're fooked.
We only get some 24% of our oil from the Middle East. We import as much oil from Mexico as we do from Saudi Arabia and we import more oil from Canada then from the entire middle east. :03:

A few weeks ago they announced that America's biggest export is now... wait for it... oil... :yeah:

[magicstix]

We only get some 24% of our oil from the Middle East. We import as much oil from Mexico as we do from Saudi Arabia and we import more oil from Canada then from the entire middle east. :03:

A few weeks ago they announced that America's biggest export is now... wait for it... oil... :yeah:

Actually the US only gets 9% of its oil from the Middle East. Europe would be hurt more than we would by any hostile ME actions, they're also more likely to be threatened by a Nuclear Iran. Wait, why aren't they handling this? :O:

In any case, oil prices are global. What happens in the ME raises oil prices everywhere.

[TLAM Strike]

Actually the US only gets 9% of its oil from the Middle East. My numbers must have been old. :salute:


Europe would be hurt more than we would by any hostile ME actions, they're also more likely to be threatened by a Nuclear Iran. Wait, why aren't they handling this? :O: Because their new Arab Overlords are soon going to be able to counter force any Iranian nuclear move. :ping:
(http://geimint.blogspot.com/2009/02/saudi-arabias-ballistic-missile-force.html)

[Platapus]

In any case, oil prices are global. What happens in the ME raises oil prices everywhere.

That's the key concept. Oil is fungible. Increases in cost "over there" will result in increases of cost "over here".

Besides, the oil companies would not let a crisis pass without raising prices for profit. Anyone remember the "oil shortages" of 1973?

[magicstix]

That's the key concept. Oil is fungible. Increases in cost "over there" will result in increases of cost "over here".

Besides, the oil companies would not let a crisis pass without raising prices for profit. Anyone remember the "oil shortages" of 1973?

Those oil shortages were real, and the main reason we only get 9% of our oil from the ME today, as well as why we have a huge strategic reserve. :>

[Tribesman]

Those oil shortages were real
"Real" as in some people cut production and raised prices which affected global markets...just like any possible real oil shortage.

as well as why we have a huge strategic reserve
One months supply. Which will then have to be replenished after any crisis which will further reduce supply on the global markets and increase prices.

[Skybird]

German news reports that Iranian radio announced Iranian agreement to a US demand to give back the drone that was brought down (or crash-landed by itself) in Iran recently. Iranian radio said that a drone will be given back to honour according American demands - they will send an identical toy copy of the drone, scale 1:80.

:D

Taken for itself, funny. But in seriousness of reality: how much more in provocations are Western useful idiots determined to swallow?

[mapuc]

What do you say about these two stories??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu8Hs5gabL4


Markus

[Jimbuna]

TBH they say nothing more than that which has already been speculated across the media.

[TLAM Strike]

What do you say about these two stories??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu8Hs5gabL4


Markus

1st Story: Might be Israel but I think there is a lot being done by internal forces in Iran. There are major Sunni, Kurdish, Pakistani and Azeri etc separatist groups operating inside Iran and have been linked to assassinations of top IRGC officers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Pishin_bombing). These folks could be working with the Mossad or CIA or on their own. Iran's nuclear program is its crown jewel, for any dissident group to strike at it is an obvious move.

2nd Story: I couldn't get more than half way though it before I wanted to puke. I'm guessing that guy is on the payroll of the Iranians or is just an idiot...

EDIT: Just looked up the "Answer Coalition (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/answerprofilestand.html)" LOL I thought I heard of them before they were the bunch of commies (yes hard core Marxist-Leninist Commies) who shut down the Smithsonian for a little while when protesting the unmanned aircraft exhibit and trying to force their way in to the museum.

...seriously a country does not built its nuclear infrastructure underground in bunkers unless its up to no good.

[mapuc]

1st Story: Might be Israel but I think there is a lot being done by internal forces in Iran. There are major Sunni, Kurdish, Pakistani and Azeri etc separatist groups operating inside Iran and have been linked to assassinations of top IRGC officers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Pishin_bombing). These folks could be working with the Mossad or CIA or on their own. Iran's nuclear program is its crown jewel, for any dissident group to strike at it is an obvious move.

2nd Story: I couldn't get more than half way though it before I wanted to puke. I'm guessing that guy is on the payroll of the Iranians or is just an idiot...

EDIT: Just looked up the "Answer Coalition (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/answerprofilestand.html)" LOL I thought I heard of them before they were the bunch of commies (yes hard core Marxist-Leninist Commies) who shut down the Smithsonian for a little while when protesting the unmanned aircraft exhibit and trying to force their way in to the museum.

...seriously a country does not built its nuclear infrastructure underground in bunkers unless its up to no good.

When I heard his statement, , was the first thing I was thinking of , was the following. Yes Iran is not pose a threat right now, but I'm not in the slightest doubt about that when they get the bomb, they will be a threat to its neighbors and especially Israel.

IAEA can not predict these things which Iran is a threat or not, when standing with the atomic bomb


What guarantees can the IAEA gives the western world and Israel that Iran is definitely not going to develop the atomic bomb, and they will not pose a threat if they are, after all, started development of the same

[TLAM Strike]

IAEA can not predict these things which Iran is a threat or not, when standing with the atomic bomb


What guarantees can the IAEA gives the western world and Israel that Iran is definitely not going to develop the atomic bomb, and they will not pose a threat if they are, after all, started development of the same

Consider:

If they stopped development of the bomb what of all those people who are designing it? Lets not forget that one Pakistani got the data to build their bomb from China and spread it to North Korea, Iran, Syria and who knows where else.

It may sound cold but these scientists and engineers might be just as threatening as their enrichment facilities.

[mapuc]

Consider:

If they stopped development of the bomb what of all those people who are designing it? Lets not forget that one Pakistani got the data to build their bomb from China and spread it to North Korea, Iran, Syria and who knows where else.

It may sound cold but these scientists and engineers might be just as threatening as their enrichment facilities.

I totally agree on your statement.

They claim it is for peaceful purposes. Of course what else :haha:

In my little head there's no doubt-they are going for the bomb.

I hope that one or another military power will put a definitive end to these plans before they are completed.

I try to put myself into their mentality. Will they use the bomb against Israel as their first goal?

If they are sufficient fanatical enough, then yes

Maybe they think, that Allah will protect them against the response from Israel

Markus

[TLAM Strike]

I try to put myself into their mentality. Will they use the bomb against Israel as their first goal?

If they are sufficient fanatical enough, then yes

Maybe they think, that Allah will protect them against the response from Israel

Markus I don't know if its a belief in the protection of Allah as much as welcoming of death in battle. We are talking about a country that formed suicide units in the Iran-Iraq war. These units had boys as young as 12 march in to battle with little plastic "keys to paradise" around their necks. The Basij ("Mobilization of the Oppressed") still exists today.

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3035/basijyoungrecruits.jpg
^A recent photo of Basji troops.

We can contrast that with the Taliban (http://digitaljournal.com/article/317009) who are known to tell children that amulets with Koranic verses will protect them from the blast of their suicide bombs. We can attribute this somewhat to the higher amount of mysticism found in Sunni countries; belief in Jinns and sorcery are quite common, while people in Iran are quite well educated.


Active Basij number about 90K, while there could be up to 1 million drafted. The Basij is subordinate to the IRGC which answers to the Ayatollah. It was also well documented a number of years ago of Iran announcing they had a martyrdom unit of 1,300 troops ready to fight the US in Iraq.

[Karle94]

off topic to the thread itself, but to counter your 50% claim -- our top 5 sources for oil in the U.S.

canada 2.535 (21%) 0.233 2.302 (24%)
Mexico 1.284 (11%) 0.477 0.837 (9%)
Saudi Arabia 1.096 (9%) 0.000 1.096 (12%)
Nigeria 1.023 (9%) 0.017 1.006 (11%)
Venezuela 0.988 (8%) 0.020 0.968 (10%)

The US has always gotten about 10-14% of its oil from the Middle East. Loosing that oil is a blowback, but not a world-ending catastrophe. Does´t the US produce a lot of oil it self? Maybe not enough for their own need.

[Jimbuna]

Well I've personally seen all the oil derricks located on Neals ranch so Texas must have a plentiful supply :DL

[soopaman2]

You're probably much more enlightened on this subject than me - i dont know how much we produce ourselves - so your guess is as good as mine, if not better:yep:

the top 5 list i just googled and sourced from a .gov site, the only thing i was sure of is it wasnt 50%

I heard from an educated friend we get a majority of our oil from Canada and Mexico.

No links to back it up sorry, so call me a moron, if I am wrong.:D

[Jimbuna]

Moron...if your wrong :O:

[soopaman2]

Moron...if your wrong :O:


I know your teasing, but not so many here as light hearted, and jolly as you Mr Buna. So I found some actual stats.

According to these numbers, Canada, Mexico, and Columbia provides a majority of our oil imports. These numbers show an inclination towards non OPEC (cartel) countries.

We truly do not need these desert savages, and letting them know that would take a huge majority of their power.

Too bad Russia and China keeps encouraging them.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

[TLAM Strike]

This was in the paper today:
http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/7154/bildeg.jpg

All I can say is: Hell Yea!! :rock:

[Jimbuna]

I know your teasing, but not so many here as light hearted, and jolly as you Mr Buna.


Rgr that...pleased you realised :03:

Isn't it the case though that the US still receive oil from the Middle East to preserve their own oil stocks?

Least that's what I'd be doing.

[TLAM Strike]

The IDF's Airborne troops just conducted their first major exercise in 15 years...

http://www.israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=483&ArticleID=816

Well I've always said any attack against Iran's nuclear sites would need troops on the ground.

[Jimbuna]

If this is the future scenario I hope they have a realistic and workable plan for getting them out again.

[moose1am]

Accordig to the danish news. USS Stennis is scheduled to return to Bremerton and USS Carl Vinson is there to replace her.

If the american are planning to have 3 carrier in that area, then USA is either awaiting something or up to something.

Markus

Remember Loose Lips... sinks ships....

Do you guys really think that if the US was preparing for a war with anyone that we would pubblish where our ships are or where they are going?

Big Stick Diplomacy days using aircraft carriers may come to an end someday if our potential enemies get weapons that can easily sink a mulitmillion dollar aircraft carrier from long range.

We have entered the missile erra and just like when the Aircraft Carriers too over the job from the Battleship the missiles may someday take over diplomacy from the Aircraft Carriers. But if or when that will ever happen is not determined just yet. The next war can change everything.

Like we have said in the past. We often are still fighing the last war and all new tactics and weapons are not yet proven in battle.

All I really know if that Iran's threats have caused the price of gasoline and oil to go up and it's only Jan. Normally gas prices are lower in Jan. I hear reports of gas prices going up to $4/gal here in the Midwest and up to $5 /gallon on the West Coast by Memorial Day. That costs me a lot more money and I don't like it one bit.

So Iran is winning so far. We moved out Aircraft Carrier out of the Persian Gulf and until we move another carrier in and out of the Persian Gulf Iran wins the war of words.

All Iran has to do is threaten the Strait and our prices skyrockets and our economy takes a hit.

What will happen to the worlds economy if Iran starts the war in the Persian Gulf by attacking one of our combat ships or even a oil tanker and shuts down the flow of oil to the World?

My problem is that Iran has already attacked the USA in 1979 when they invaded our US Embasy and held our diplomats hostage for over a year. They did it once and the world thought them cazy even back then.

One thing that the USA has not fought in a very long time is silent electric submaines and now those subs have air independant power stations which makes them even harder to find and detect.

The stakes are high guys! :|\\

[moose1am]

To be fair here are a couple of Western Cartoons...

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/6084/cj010412color.jpg
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/6955/bishcartoonxlarge.jpg

I think ours are more creative...

We are going to need a BIGGER BOAT!

[moose1am]

I do. I bought my first car that year and I got a Datson 240Z because I wanted a smaller car that went fast but still got good gas mileage. That was long before the oil Embargo hit us but I saw it coming. I learned in college about the decreasing supply of oil and the increasing human population and it was easy to see this coming.

The guys at the factory where I worked made jokes about me buying a foreign car until they could not buy gas for their big american cars due to rationing of the gas and long lines at the pump.

Anyone who was living and driving a car and buying gas back in 1973 probably also remembers when gas only cost 25 cents a gallon. Now it's 3.35 /gallon and it's going up this spring according to the news reports I'm reading.




That's the key concept. Oil is fungible. Increases in cost "over there" will result in increases of cost "over here".

Besides, the oil companies would not let a crisis pass without raising prices for profit. Anyone remember the "oil shortages" of 1973?

[TLAM Strike]

Big Stick Diplomacy days using aircraft carriers may come to an end someday if our potential enemies get weapons that can easily sink a mulitmillion dollar aircraft carrier from long range.
Yea but what weapons can do that? Lets list shall we?

Threat: Air Strike
Tu-22M Backfire Bombers, Russia built 500 of these and armed them with one of the longed ranged air launched ASMs ever built.

What Iran Has:
32 Su-24 Fencer bombers. Shorter ranged and far slower these carry a more basic missile equivalent to the Exocet (C-801K). Plus ~65 F-4 Phantoms with similar weapons.

Threat: SLCM attack
Guided Missile Submarines, Russia built 13 Oscars and 17 Charlies armed with long range SLCMs.

What Iran Has:
3 aging Kilo class diesel submarines, one or two that might have limited short ranged ASM ability (Two tubes with C-801s).

Threat: Submarine Torpedo Attack
Russia built about 50 2nd/3rd/4th generation nuclear submarines. Plus about 200 Diesel submarines.

What Iran Has:
(again) 3 aging Kilo class diesel submarines. Plus about 12 short range midget submarines with two torpedoes or C-801s.

Threat: Ship killing Surface Action Groups.
Russia built 4 Kirov and 4 Slava class missile cruisers with large batteries of Anti-Ship missiles. Plus 21 Sovermenny Destroyers with medium range missiles. Plus had five "aircraft carrying missile cruisers" to defend them.

What Iran Has:
4 Alavad/Modgue class frigates with four medium range missiles each and nearly no air defense. Plus a couple dozen short ranged PTGs suitable for operations in the Gulf.

Iran would have to increase its Navy budget about 1000% to get anywhere near close to being able to take on a carrier group.

[mapuc]

The USA is Iran technologically and militarily superior, there is no doubt about it.

They were also superior to Afghanistan and Iraq. They won the two wars? Yes the wars, but not peace.

So all it is with military superiority, has no value if you can not win total against the enemy

[magicstix]

Big Stick Diplomacy days using aircraft carriers may come to an end someday if our potential enemies get weapons that can easily sink a mulitmillion dollar aircraft carrier from long range.

We have entered the missile erra and just like when the Aircraft Carriers too over the job from the Battleship the missiles may someday take over diplomacy from the Aircraft Carriers. But if or when that will ever happen is not determined just yet. The next war can change everything.


Protip: Carriers cost in the billions with a B. Not millions.

People have been predicting the death of carriers for decades. The simple fact is if you want to have air power in someone's backyard and you don't have friendly bases nearby, you need an aircraft carrier, end of story.

There is no "missile era." Missiles have been around forever. They've been a threat forever, they've been guided forever. With missile threats comes missile defense. Modern carriers are not easily sunk. The USN is no fool and is taking the missile threat to carriers seriously, mostly due to China's development of ASBMs. Why do you think we've invested so much in theater ballistic missile defense? Ballistic missiles also come with their own political cost, namely that nobody can tell what they're tipped with until they go off, so nuclear powers (and quasi-nuclear powers) can't simply use them. If it looks like a nuke, it can trigger a nuclear response before it even goes off. This was why the idea of building conventional tipped ballistic missiles during the Bush administration was such a bad idea.

The reason we don't build strategic shields is due to treaty limitations. There are no such limitations on theater shields, and we know how to deal with theater anti-ship missiles.

[moose1am]

But you didn't mention any of the mobil missiles that Iran has scattered thoughout the country. I'm not sure about their capability but a carrier trying to go though the Strait of Hormutz would not be able to maneuver much while in the 2 mile wide navigation channel.

And would you want to pilot an oil tanker though those staits during a shooting war?

How do you stop a torpedo from hitting the carrier in those narrow straits if the submarine gets close by just sitting on the bottom until it's ready to fire it's torpedoes?

That's what I worry about.

I think Iran would be stupid to try to attack one of our ships but they are not always predictable. I doubt that we figured they would invade our embasy when the Shaw left and we gave him santuary in the USA.

Yea but what weapons can do that? Lets list shall we?

Threat: Air Strike
Tu-22M Backfire Bombers, Russia built 500 of these and armed them with one of the longed ranged air launched ASMs ever built.

What Iran Has:
32 Su-24 Fencer bombers. Shorter ranged and far slower these carry a more basic missile equivalent to the Exocet (C-801K). Plus ~65 F-4 Phantoms with similar weapons.

Threat: SLCM attack
Guided Missile Submarines, Russia built 13 Oscars and 17 Charlies armed with long range SLCMs.

What Iran Has:
3 aging Kilo class diesel submarines, one or two that might have limited short ranged ASM ability (Two tubes with C-801s).

Threat: Submarine Torpedo Attack
Russia built about 50 2nd/3rd/4th generation nuclear submarines. Plus about 200 Diesel submarines.

What Iran Has:
(again) 3 aging Kilo class diesel submarines. Plus about 12 short range midget submarines with two torpedoes or C-801s.

Threat: Ship killing Surface Action Groups.
Russia built 4 Kirov and 4 Slava class missile cruisers with large batteries of Anti-Ship missiles. Plus 21 Sovermenny Destroyers with medium range missiles. Plus had five "aircraft carrying missile cruisers" to defend them.

What Iran Has:
4 Alavad/Modgue class frigates with four medium range missiles each and nearly no air defense. Plus a couple dozen short ranged PTGs suitable for operations in the Gulf.

Iran would have to increase its Navy budget about 1000% to get anywhere near close to being able to take on a carrier group.

[moose1am]

Forever is a long time. I don't recall any guided missiles being used during WWII unless you are talking about the V2's. And they were not that accruate.

Hitting a missile with another missile may or may not work 100% of the time. If the enemy shots tens of missiles at one of the carriers as it's going though the tight strait of hormutz and even one of there land based anit ship missiles hits the carrier it would be bad news for those people on the carrier.

I guess we will see someday soon if Iran is bluffing or not as I don't think the US Navy will stop sending carriers into the Persian Gulf.

I personally hope that Iran is just bluffing and playing with words and it not stupid enough to try anything. But you never know what they may pull.

I'm sure that the US Navy has plans to counter the Iranians but all good plans go to Hell when the shooting starts. We have plans to rescue the US Embasy Hostages too but a sand storm and weather ended those plans before they even reached the hostages.

All I know for sure is that it's costing me more money to buy gasoline right now and this is the middle of Jan when gas prices in the past have dropped. But not this winter and now I hear rumors of higher gas prices next spring. So just the threats are costing us money.


QUOTE=magicstix;1824913]Protip: Carriers cost in the billions with a B. Not millions.

People have been predicting the death of carriers for decades. The simple fact is if you want to have air power in someone's backyard and you don't have friendly bases nearby, you need an aircraft carrier, end of story.

There is no "missile era." Missiles have been around forever. They've been a threat forever, they've been guided forever. With missile threats comes missile defense. Modern carriers are not easily sunk. The USN is no fool and is taking the missile threat to carriers seriously, mostly due to China's development of ASBMs. Why do you think we've invested so much in theater ballistic missile defense? Ballistic missiles also come with their own political cost, namely that nobody can tell what they're tipped with until they go off, so nuclear powers (and quasi-nuclear powers) can't simply use them. If it looks like a nuke, it can trigger a nuclear response before it even goes off. This was why the idea of building conventional tipped ballistic missiles during the Bush administration was such a bad idea.

The reason we don't build strategic shields is due to treaty limitations. There are no such limitations on theater shields, and we know how to deal with theater anti-ship missiles.[/QUOTE]

[TLAM Strike]

But you didn't mention any of the mobil missiles that Iran has scattered thoughout the country. I'm not sure about their capability but a carrier trying to go though the Strait of Hormutz would not be able to maneuver much while in the 2 mile wide navigation channel. You specified long range weapons, Iran's only long range weapons are ballistic. Their "Persian Gulf" ASBMs have a range of only 160 nmis and the US is getting very good at TBM defense. A 30 mile wide area is not long range in today's naval warfare. In any war scenario our carriers would be operating 1,000 miles from the strait. Our carriers operating in the Gulf is a symbolic move and has nothing to do with naval tactics.

And would you want to pilot an oil tanker though those staits during a shooting war? Yep, an Oil Tanker is very difficult to sink. C-802s or Silkworms might disable her but it would be very difficult to sink her short of a torpedo or large mine hit (talking like a 1,000lb mine not a M-08)

How do you stop a torpedo from hitting the carrier in those narrow straits if the submarine gets close by just sitting on the bottom until it's ready to fire it's torpedoes?A stationary submarine on the bottom is still detectable on active sonar. The USN has some mine hunting UUVs and USVs that can be sent in to the strait to located (and possibly destroy) a submarine that is sitting on the bottom. Its also possible that the US has a fixed acoustic sensor net in the strait and in parts of the Gulf that can monitor Iranian submarine movements.

Forever is a long time. I don't recall any guided missiles being used during WWII unless you are talking about the V2's. And they were not that accruate. First anti-ship missile attack occurred on 9 September 1943 when German bombers sank the Italian Battleship Roma with a Fritz X GBUs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X). The US built several GBUs/ASMs (Gargoyle, Felix etc) in the war but only Azon was used, but not at sea.

http://www.ausairpower.net/WW2-PGMs.html

[magicstix]

A stationary submarine on the bottom is still detectable on active sonar.


[Citation Needed]

[TLAM Strike]

[Citation Needed]

Red Book 2.2.4

http://www.commanders-academy.com/forum/downloads.php?do=file&id=147

(written by a fmr submariner.)

ADDENDUM: The US keeps charts of major ports and seaways in case someone mines them. So the mine hunters know were all the "junk" or "nombo" (non- mine mine-like bottom object) are. So a submarine can be detected by its "air pocket" and crosschecked for seamounts/shipwrecks etc in that area: detection.

[Agiel7]

This was in the paper today:
http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/7154/bildeg.jpg

All I can say is: Hell Yea!! :rock:

Made me crack up. But someone should let the artist know that the big thing on the centerline pylon of the F/A-18F Superhornet in the photo he used as a reference isn't a bomb; that's an external fuel tank.

[Sailor Steve]

Made me crack up. But someone should let the artist know that the big thing on the centerline pylon of the F/A-18F Superhornet in the photo he used as a reference isn't a bomb; that's an external fuel tank.
Or a napalm container.

[magicstix]

Red Book 2.2.4

http://www.commanders-academy.com/forum/downloads.php?do=file&id=147

(written by a fmr submariner.)

ADDENDUM: The US keeps charts of major ports and seaways in case someone mines them. So the mine hunters know were all the "junk" or "nombo" (non- mine mine-like bottom object) are. So a submarine can be detected by its "air pocket" and crosschecked for seamounts/shipwrecks etc in that area: detection.

Dubious source at best. Submariners know next to nothing about active sonar.

The simple answer is, as always "it depends." It depends on what's doing the pinging, what system is doing the processing, and what the sub is next to.

[TLAM Strike]

Dubious source at best. Submariners know next to nothing about active sonar. Considering that active sonar is the primary method by non-submarine ASW forces to locate submarines it seems doubtful that submariners are not familiar with the theory of active sonar.

That's like saying a Stealth Fighter pilot knows nothing about Radar. Or a tank commander knows nothing about anti-tank guided missiles.

The simple answer is, as always "it depends." It depends on what's doing the pinging, what system is doing the processing, and what the sub is next to. Maybe but those submarines are still vulnerable to MAD detection, detection by UUVs, heck they even use aquatic mammals in the Gulf for searching for mines I'm sure they can be retasked.

Honestly the Strait is so small and shallow they could just drag an anchor and find them that way.

[magicstix]

Considering that active sonar is the primary method by non-submarine ASW forces to locate submarines it seems doubtful that submariners are not familiar with the theory of active sonar.


Knowing how to evade active sonar and knowing how to use it to prosecute a contact are two separate things. Submariners don't know as much as they think they do about the former, and will tell you outright they don't know much about the latter.


Maybe but those submarines are still vulnerable to MAD detection, detection by UUVs, heck they even use aquatic mammals in the Gulf for searching for mines I'm sure they can be retasked.

Honestly the Strait is so small and shallow they could just drag an anchor and find them that way.

With MAD you literally have to step right on a submarine to see it. It's a localization tool, not a search tool. Mammals are short range, mine hunting sonars are short range, and our UUV capabilities are not where you think they are.

The straights are around 30 miles wide; a 30 x 30 mile box is a fairly big haystack to be searching for a submarine with those tools, and the sub doesn't have to be in the strait itself; it can be on either side and do its job just as well.

[TLAM Strike]

With MAD you literally have to step right on a submarine to see it. It's a localization tool, not a search tool. Mammals are short range, mine hunting sonars are short range, and our UUV capabilities are not where you think they are.

The straights are around 30 miles wide; a 30 x 30 mile box is a fairly big haystack to be searching for a submarine with those tools, and the sub doesn't have to be in the strait itself; it can be on either side and do its job just as well. Assuming the MAD sensor has a range of 1,000 feet an aircraft using MAD would have to travel a search pattern 157 miles long. At 300 MPH it would take just over a half hour to search.

The Persian Gulf and the Straits are arguably the worst areas in the world to operate submarines in. For a Kilo the depth is mostly less than the length of the submarine meaning changes in depth could ground the sub. The sub would be operating virtually at Periscope depth the entire time.

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/5909/1645004a10eccc8.gif

Lets look at a chart. The light blue has an average depth of 165 feet (mostly its less than 100 feet). The medium blue shows an average depth of 655 feet, however this is because of a few deep points lowering the average mostly its 200-300 feet. There is no deep waters for a submarine to hide in, basically the submarine is operating like a surface ship since it lacks an abilty to operated along its vertical axis. There is no layer to exploit and the submarine is vulnerable to detection and engagement by far more weapons, ships fire HE rounds could potentially destroy them.

Also note on that map the cities of Al-Fujayrah and Muscat, there are gas pipelines going from Basra and Ras Tanura to those locations (the oil pipelines go in farther in to Oman and in to the Red Sea). The Arabs are not stupid, they have built another exit for their oil outside of the straits.

[magicstix]

The Persian Gulf and the Straits are arguably the worst areas in the world to operate submarines in. For a Kilo the depth is mostly less than the length of the submarine meaning changes in depth could ground the sub. The sub would be operating virtually at Periscope depth the entire time.


There is no layer to exploit and the submarine is vulnerable to detection and engagement by far more weapons, ships fire HE rounds could potentially destroy them.


This all seems rather irrelevant to the original nebulous and unqualified statement that DIW subs resting on the bottom are still vulnerable to detection by active sonar.

[Tribesman]

Also note on that map the cities of Al-Fujayrah and Muscat, there are gas pipelines going from Basra and Ras Tanura to those locations
Basra? isn't that the place the British handed over to the Iranian run militias when they pulled out of Iraq

[moose1am]

This all seems rather irrelevant to the original nebulous and unqualified statement that DIW subs resting on the bottom are still vulnerable to detection by active sonar.

We had a hard time finding the German U boats during WWII until Turring invented a computer that helped the ALLIES decode the German Enima machine's codes in a timely manner. Only after that did we know where the U boats would be which allowed us to win the battle of the Atlantic.

Modern submarines made by German and Sweden are very silent and in war games have gotting pretty darn close to our ships.

Also the newer subs have a rubber coating over their outer shell that makes them every harder to see with Sonar. Is this not right?

How close would a sub have to be before it's torpedos could hit one of our ships. Do we have any way to counter the high speed supercavitating torpedoes?

Does anyone else remember when a Chinese Sub surface well within torpedo range of one of our Carrier's not too long ago?

[Jimbuna]

I certainly wouldn't want to be a sub driver in the area if a US battle group went active :o

[magicstix]

I certainly wouldn't want to be a sub driver in the area if a US battle group went active :o

That's just because it's annoying to hear, especially continuous active... ;)

[Krauter]

We had a hard time finding the German U boats during WWII until Turring invented a computer that helped the ALLIES decode the German Enima machine's codes in a timely manner. Only after that did we know where the U boats would be which allowed us to win the battle of the Atlantic.

Modern submarines made by German and Sweden are very silent and in war games have gotting pretty darn close to our ships.

Also the newer subs have a rubber coating over their outer shell that makes them every harder to see with Sonar. Is this not right?

How close would a sub have to be before it's torpedos could hit one of our ships. Do we have any way to counter the high speed supercavitating torpedoes?

Does anyone else remember when a Chinese Sub surface well within torpedo range of one of our Carrier's not too long ago?

I don't think the Iranians have anything like a supercavitating torpedo. AFAIK it's only the Russians no?

[magicstix]

I don't think the Iranians have anything like a supercavitating torpedo. AFAIK it's only the Russians no?

Iranians have Shkvals and their indigenous copy, the "hoot."

These weapons have never been fired in anger, and their usefulness is dubious at most. It's very hard to build a guidance package in a missile like that because of the massive amount of self noise, so they'd basically be shooting blind and straight, which requires an extremely good firing solution.

[Jimbuna]

That's just because it's annoying to hear, especially continuous active... ;)

Rgr that :DL

[mapuc]

The USS Abraham Lincon has transit the strait without any problems what so ever.

That's no surprise, It would have, if the iranian had attacked the carrier.

Markus

[TLAM Strike]

Modern submarines made by German and Sweden are very silent and in war games have gotting pretty darn close to our ships.

Also the newer subs have a rubber coating over their outer shell that makes them every harder to see with Sonar. Is this not right? Iran's submarines are no where near the quality of Germany or Sweden's. Their Ghadirs do not have anechoic coatings on their hulls and their drive system is most likely either a North Korean design or a COTS design. Their Kilos have also had their anechoic tiles removed after their refits for some reason (probably they couldn't keep up with them falling off or had no new source for them.)

Also the US has access to the same model of Kilo Submarine Iran has thanks to Poland and have "inspected" some submarines North Korea has shipped to Iran (their Taejong semi-sub for example) so I would say that the US knows every nut and bolt of Iran's submarines.

[moose1am]

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/23/10213179-uss-lincoln-sails-through-strait-of-hormuz

I guess Iran was bluffing again. I'm not as worried now. Perhaps the price of oil will drop now that this is over for the minute.

[Jimbuna]

I think the Iranian fall back position will be:


the Iranians threatened to attack the aircraft carrier Stennis three weeks ago, if it attempted to return to the Persian Gulf


:03:

[Skybird]

If you haven't noticed it, the subsim main page with news articles has a link to a threat analysis regarding the Iranian navy, especially the lacking conventional firepower on US platforms to fight off attacks of speed boats using so-called swarming-boats-tactics, vectoring in from various directions simultaneously and in numbers oversaturating the defenders' firing capacity. They say that such boats loaded with explosives and attacking in suicide (kamikaze) strikes probably would be able to even reach carriers. Maybe that would not sink a carrier. But a small frigate or destroyer, that's something different.

Which has been my point since years, in several threads.

They also point out that the maritime environment of the Gulf favours submarines lying flat on the ground, and that even if they would not mine and close the Hormuz Street, they nevertheless could scare away tankers by going after right these - the tankers. Those poics of the Kilos made them appear to be in shabby state - but what does that mean if the Iranians do not mean to move around with them that much at all? And as long as it can launch its payload, even a Ghadir midget sub is a threat potent enough to scare every tanker and navy vessel.

I wonder whether I should take from the new carrier entering the Gulf that this means no American attack is likely to take place - with that nice big target on display in that small cup of saltwater. If an attack is planned, wouldn't one move that fat cat out of there first?

[TLAM Strike]

I would not be concerned too much about these small boat attacks. The range their rockets are effective at is atrociously bad:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aoWNyKYX6o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aoWNyKYX6o)

The simplest countermeasure would just be to set up a bunch of mini-gun and .50cal positions around the ship and fortify them with sandbags or concrete barriers. Give the gun crews night vision and just have them hose the sea around the ship if they get in trouble. If you've seen The Sand Pebbles you get the idea. Great thing is it could be fitted to any ship: from tankers to cruisers.

[Skybird]

The argument made is that on US ships there is not enough such conventional firepower on deck to fight off a swarming boat attack, and the argument made is that the attacking boats do not fire, but are loaded with explosives and are used as racing kamikaze bombs that do not mean to escape anyway - just to penetrate the defenses and blow up as close to the shops hull as possible. And obviously, says the article, the US navy is concerned by this scenario.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/could_iran_close_the_strait.html


For some time now experts have been worried about the possibility of light, fast "swarming boats" stuffed with explosives in suicide attacks, overwhelming an adversary and attacking from multiple angles. A suicide attack would be nearly impossible to stop because the firepower on most NATO ships is insufficient to knock the swarming boats out of the water. But a swarming attack that combined light fast boats stuffed with high explosives with fast missile boats is a threat to even large American and NATO warships, including aircraft carriers.
And, while there has been a lot of talk on the subject, not much has been done either tactically or technologically to offset the threat. In fact, the lack of firepower on U.S. ships is a very real concern in the context of protecting critical shipping lanes, especially the Strait of Hormuz.
Despite intelligence and warnings, the latest U.S. naval vessel, the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), is equipped to do just about anything except combat. Equipped with an undersized, unproven short-range gun and a few missiles, the LCS is outclassed by its Iranian adversary. It is a good thing that the LCS is not ready for prime time and won't play any role in the current crisis.
For the U.S. to respond under current conditions and protect shipping lanes, it needs a lot of help from the allies in Europe, who -- despite a generally lagging ability to contribute military capabilities to a situation -- have firepower appropriate for this problem in the form of modern frigates, corvettes, and missile boats; mine-hunting ships; and plenty of good helicopters. The allies have good submarine assets (Germany, France, the U.K., and Italy) and have long played a role in protecting sea lines of communication in the Mediterranean.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/could_iran_close_the_strait.html#ixzz1kITVsCGc




Iran-watchers lean heavily on the argument that Iran will not mine or otherwise damage the Strait because then Iranian oil won't be able to pass through either. They posit that the Iranians are unlikely to take an approach that costs them oil revenue, particularly now. But there is another possibility -- Iran can pose a threat not to the physical passageway, but to passing tankers and their crews. And the United States Navy is not in a position to protect them. Under that circumstance, Iranian ships could pass, but the ships of other Gulf countries could be deterred/dissuaded from trying. The result would make Iranian oil more valuable as others withheld their supplies.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/could_iran_close_the_strait.html#ixzz1kISy1RSW


BTW, who is to pay for a possible war with Iran? All countries maybe supporting such a war, are deeply burried under debts, debts, and then more debts.

[Tribesman]

The simplest countermeasure would just be to set up a bunch of mini-gun and .50cal positions around the ship and fortify them with sandbags or concrete barriers. Give the gun crews night vision and just have them hose the sea around the ship if they get in trouble. If you've seen The Sand Pebbles you get the idea. Great thing is it could be fitted to any ship: from tankers to cruisers.
Who pays, how much does insurance go up, how much does that translate to at the pumps, how much does that increase knock on into transport and industry, who pays for that?

Again and again you are going through the motions of a military solution, your planes are better, your missiles are better, their subs are crap , the persian gulf ain't good for subs....all of that is completely irrelevant as the only issue is an economic one, and as has been demonstrated in the red sea a little twat in a leaky skiff with an AK can cost you millions to deal with.

[Type941]

I think the fear here is clear : Americans are afraid to lose a single combat unit and that's very cool of them.

Reality if there is stuff going down, they'll lose not one but more. Point of worry should be - can they win. YES. So, accept there'll be some casualties in the war of US vs Iran and ask yourself who'll you back up. I think that's clear.

Russia won't go into war over this ever. In fact Russia is pretty stupid to ask for Taliban to be sitting at its south (sorry, I mean demanding Americans leave the bases in Asia) but that's gonna be their problem, Chechnya will seem like a picnic compared to those guys spread out over Kazakhstan etc.

Wouldn't be surprised at ALL if US tells China - stay out of it, then we'll split the oil. China might get all pragmatic and just let Iran have the ass kicking it's been asking for since 1980s since Saddam miscalculated his little venture there.

[MH]

Re Iranian boats - well, why can't americans deploy some 'killer boats' or something that will be also zipping around and shooting at these fkers. SInce when an iranian speed boat became such and awesome weapon everyone is terrified of it. What is wrong with people..

:haha:

[TLAM Strike]

The argument made is that on US ships there is not enough such conventional firepower on deck to fight off a swarming boat attack, and the argument made is that the attacking boats do not fire, but are loaded with explosives and are used as racing kamikaze bombs that do not mean to escape anyway - just to penetrate the defenses and blow up as close to the shops hull as possible. And obviously, says the article, the US navy is concerned by this scenario.
Actually the crews have an escape system, these boats are built around a jet ski for the pilot to bail out after setting the autopilot, they are not per se kamikaze weapons.

But these weapons are like big, slow, poorly guided ASMs. The defense is simple: install more light machine guns. The Navy is doing this and can do it in a combat expedient fashion on both warships and merchant ships.

25mm Bushmaster installed on the aft deck of a US ship:

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/9086/34edd4c289f648f469f5cf0.jpg

Mini-Gun aboard HMS Monmouth manned by a Royal Marine:
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/5254/hmsmonmouthf235cametoth.jpg

:O:
http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/2400/86360090.jpg
:O:

[TLAM Strike]

They also point out that the maritime environment of the Gulf favours submarines lying flat on the ground, and that even if they would not mine and close the Hormuz Street, they nevertheless could scare away tankers by going after right these - the tankers. Those poics of the Kilos made them appear to be in shabby state - but what does that mean if the Iranians do not mean to move around with them that much at all? And as long as it can launch its payload, even a Ghadir midget sub is a threat potent enough to scare every tanker and navy vessel. The Ghadir threat is easy to counter. On day one their sub pens on Qeshm are going to be turned in to rubble. Then just keep the tankers in port for couple of days until those Ghadirs run out of food, water, battery juice and air and have to surface and surrender. The endurance of the Ghadir is only a few days.

I wonder whether I should take from the new carrier entering the Gulf that this means no American attack is likely to take place - with that nice big target on display in that small cup of saltwater. If an attack is planned, wouldn't one move that fat cat out of there first? The carrier suddonly doing a 180 and heading for the open sea can be seen as the ballon going up. :03:

[Jimbuna]

Look...if it turns into an armed conflict, the Iranians may enjoy a few minor successes such as damaging or disabling the odd warship but the eventual and swift outcome will be total destruction to their forces be they at sea or on land in missile sites.

The cost is IMHO a price the US is prepared to wager and will almost inevitably be helped/bankrolled by many western countries as well as the Saudies and more than a few other arab countries/states.

Undoubtedly the price will be high....but it will more than probably be considered a price worth paying.

I hope it won't come to that but I suspect it eventually will.....the stakes are too high.

[Skybird]

Wouldn't be surprised at ALL if US tells China - stay out of it, then we'll split the oil. China might get all pragmatic and sh.t and just let Iran have the ass kicking it's been asking for since 1980s since Saddam miscalculated his little venture there.
20% of current Iranian oil exports go to China. And China would like to buy more oil as long as global recession does not but a foot on their brakes.

[Skybird]

Look...if it turns into an armed conflict, the Iranians may enjoy a few minor successes such as damaging or disabling the odd warship but the eventual and swift outcome will be total destruction to their forces be they at sea or on land in missile sites.

The cost is IMHO a price the US is prepared to wager and will almost inevitably be helped/bankrolled by many western countries as well as the Saudies and more than a few other arab countries/states.

Undoubtedly the price will be high....but it will more than probably be considered a price worth paying.

I hope it won't come to that but I suspect it eventually will.....the stakes are too high.
If I were them I would ignore the Navy warships, and go for tankers. They could bring oil tranpsortation to a standstill. For it does not need all their speeboats and subam rined to achieve that. It only needs one single unit that remains undeteced, and rumours and threads launched by it. No tanker would pass the streets when rumour says there COULD be a sub, and another tanker has been hit by surprise early in the war.

TLAM,
I just refer to that article. I do not say it is riught or wroing, I cannot judge that, but of course I realise that the author there shares my own - novicde assessments. My strong feeling is that the war with Iran gets underestimated in all regards: vulnerability of naval assets as well as the availability of Iranian key targets to conventional Western amunitions, not to mention all implications regarding oil price, costs of transportation insurrances, and easy-to-hit tankers. I cannot see how the bomb program could be destroyed withoutr having troops on the grund in several dozen key facilities destroying them from within, or nukes.

That'S why I think the biggest probabbility today has this scenarioi: a symbolic, cosmetic military operation will be launched and carried out quickly, it will be limited to be cheap in costs, and not lasting too long. It will not achieve the mission objective. But politicians will love to say: at least we have tried.

And then we are set to deal with a highly irrational, destabilising Middle East with several players turning into nuclear bandits, and a reilgiously motivated civil war. We then will get a great desire to get back the old cold war. It were better times back then, in comparison. So stable, and peaceful. Okay, we were lucky during Cuba. But that were 2 weeks. With Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, maybe Syria grabbing for the bomb, every year will feel like Cuba, not to mention the threat of proliferation and terrorism. Iran will not strike at Europe all of a sudden, maybe at Israel, though - they said often enough they will actively seek the agressor's first-strike role. Beyond Israel, what the real risk is, is Iranian proliferation to anti-Europe terrorists, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraqi insurgents, Taliban. Note that Pakistan and Iran are rivals, no allies. Shared enemies do not make these two better friends.

[magicstix]

20% of current Iranian oil exports go to China. And China would like to buy more oil as long as global recession does not but a foot on their brakes.

China is benefiting from this because they can demand a lower price for the oil. India is doing the same thing right now. They may publicly pretend to be Iran's friend, but being desperate to sell it's oil, Iran has to make deep discounts.

[Type941]

China is benefiting from this because they can demand a lower price for the oil. India is doing the same thing right now. They may publicly pretend to be Iran's friend, but being desperate to sell it's oil, Iran has to make deep discounts.

Exactly. China is reportedly already asking 30% discount for Iran oil because it doesn't need too much.

US isn't stupid to try this embargo using EU. It's gotta hurt them and benefit Saudis and such. THey're playing them against each other. Tensions are rising so is oil price, and yet Iran can't take advantage but others can: I can imagine how this situation is nice for Suadis and they'll be happy there is pressure on Iran. :)

[TLAM Strike]

Well its been reported that in addition to the soon to arrive HMS Daring the Brit frigate HMS Argyll and French frigate La Motte-Picquet are in the Gulf. Both of these frigates are ASW centric vessels with good point defense systems: perfect for the Gulf.

[nikimcbee]

Well its been reported that in addition to the soon to arrive HMS Daring the Brit frigate HMS Argyll and French frigate La Motte-Picquet are in the Gulf. Both of these frigates are ASW centric vessels with good point defense systems: perfect for the Gulf.

Hopefully, the subs will get a crack at those guys. (Assuming this escalates:dead:)

[magicstix]

Well its been reported that in addition to the soon to arrive HMS Daring the Brit frigate HMS Argyll and French frigate La Motte-Picquet are in the Gulf. Both of these frigates are ASW centric vessels with good point defense systems: perfect for the Gulf.

I snicker whenever I hear "ASW" and a surface ship in the same sentence.

[TLAM Strike]

I snicker whenever I hear "ASW" and a surface ship in the same sentence.
Funny, I snicker whenever I hear "Iran" and "Submarine" in the same sentience. :03:

There are not many places where a submarine does not have the advantage but the Gulf is one.

The sonar system on one of these ships is about the size of one of those Ghadirs. :haha:

[magicstix]

Funny, I snicker whenever I hear "Iran" and "Submarine" in the same sentience. :03:

There are not many places where a submarine does not have the advantage but the Gulf is one.

The sonar system on one of these ships is about the size of one of those Ghadirs. :haha:

The array itself or the processing system? If it's the latter I'd say the French have a long way to go on their upgrades.

[TLAM Strike]

The array itself or the processing system? If it's the latter I'd say the French have a long way to go on their upgrades.

The bow array on a surface warship would be about the size of the forward half of the Ghadir. The bow array on a nuclear submarine would be about the same volume as the Ghadir.

The sonar processing and operating spaces on a US SSN would be about four times volume of the Ghadir.

[magicstix]

The bow array on a surface warship would be about the size of the forward half of the Ghadir. The bow array on a nuclear submarine would be about the same volume as the Ghadir.

The sonar processing and operating spaces on a US SSN would be about four times volume of the Ghadir.

[Citation Needed]

[TLAM Strike]

[Citation Needed]

Ghadir size vs Seawolf class SSN:
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/7507/ssnvsghadir.jpg

Approx size of Seawolf Sonar Sphere.
http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/1667/ssnsonar.jpg
(yes it might be bigger or smaller, this is just approximate)


Approx size of Ghadir Forward Compartment
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/9358/ghadirfwdcompartment.jpg

Required before continuing... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gENVB6tjq_M)

(Values are approx and taken from 3dsmax)

1st we find the volume of the sonar sphere:
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/3397/equation1.jpg

Radius of Sonar Sphere 2.5m
Volume of Sonar Sphere 65.5m^3

Now we find the volume of the Ghadir's forward compartment

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/5935/cylindervolume.gif
Radius of Ghadir Fwd Compartment 2m
Length of Ghadir Fwd Compartment 10m
Volume of Ghadir Fwd Compartment 31m^3
^Double this area for the entire Ghadir's manable spaces.

31m^3 < 65.5m^3

[magicstix]

words...

No scale provided of "a surface ship bow array" (which one?) nor a "ssn sonar processing and operating space."

Also ignores the fact that the sphere array is not hollow (though we'll go with solid volume, just for S&Gs), nor is it 2.5 meters in radius (given that class of SSN was not provided in the discussion we'll go off SSN21 dimensions).

[Jimbuna]

Well its been reported that in addition to the soon to arrive HMS Daring the Brit frigate HMS Argyll and French frigate La Motte-Picquet are in the Gulf. Both of these frigates are ASW centric vessels with good point defense systems: perfect for the Gulf.

I know little of the French vessell but HMS Argyll is well suited to the ASW role and despite being the oldest serving of the Type 23 Frigates she recently (2010) underwent a £20 million refit in which her her weapons and sensors were significantly enhanced.

I am hoping/presuming the US and UK have at least one SSN in the area to sniff out the wasps.