Iranian Navy Exposes a US Navy Weakness
 

Oke, it is long, i admit, but i considered it worth the time. have fun reading :)

The article can be found on:http://www.informationdissemination....-weakness.html

Quote:

The USS Enterprise (CVN 65), USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55), and USNS Arctic (T-AOE 8) crossed the Suez Canal from the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea on Tuesday. On Wednesday the Israeli's began to protest very loudly by revealing that a pair of Iranian Navy ships were approaching the Suez Canal from the south and were preparing to cross on their way to Syria. When I first heard this news, I began hoping that perhaps our Naval forces had passed their naval forces in the Red Sea somewhere, and someone was smart enough to get useful pictures for public communications. I seriously doubt that happened, but it should have. The two Iranian ships are the corvette Alvand and supply ship Kharg, both pictured in this blog post. The Alvand is the flagship of the Iranian Navy. Displacing around 1,500 tons, the ship comes armed with 4 C-802 anti-ship missiles, a 4.5in gun, torpedo launchers, and various smaller machine guns and mortars. The US Navy has seen this class of ship before, in battle. During Operation Preying Mantis in 1988, the Iranian corvette Sabalan was left paralyzed and on fire from a 500 lb bomb from an A-6, while another pair of A-6s crippled the Sahand where she later sunk southwest of Larak Island following a Harpoon strike from the USS Joseph Strauss (DDG-16). For the sake of symmetry, I'll note the A-6s involved in Operation Preying Mantis that slapped around the sister ships of Alvand were from the VA-95 "Green Lizards" and flown off none other than the USS Enterprise (CVN 65). The Iranian flagship Alvand is not a naval threat to anyone in the region, and is not why Israel is raising concern. The ship has terrible anti-air capabilities that are no match against the capabilities of the Egyptian Air Force, the Royal Saudi Air Force, the Israeli Air Force, or Carrier Air Wing One on the USS Enterprise (CVN 65). While the media portrayal of the Iranian Navy near the Suez is one of distressing concern, the reality is that corvette represents the biggest regional target at sea for thousands of nautical miles. The media may describe the presence of the Iranian corvette in the context of doubt, fear, and concern; but given Israel's outrage and tendency to be trigger happy - allow me to suggest the scariest place to be in the Red Sea today is anywhere near that ship. I note the irony between how the news narrative represents a complete disconnect between perception and reality. Speaking of Israeli concern, assuming it is legitimate and not parochial; it likely has to do with the supply ship Kharg and not the corvette Alvand. The supply ship Kharg is much more interesting. The Kharg is the largest ship in the Iranian Navy displacing around 33,000 tons and is a modified Olwen class fast fleet tanker. This is a big ship, and with the current tensions between Israel and Hezbollah, Israel is likely very concerned about what the ship is carrying. As a Navy ship rather than a commercial ship, the ship will not be searched for cargo so the concern by the Israeli's is that the ship could carry weapons to Syria where weapons can be unloaded and sent to Lebanon. There are rumors that go back several years that the Kharg has been often been observed in the Gulf of Aden delivering weapons from Iran to destinations like Eritrea and the Sudan. If you follow the Wikileaks cables you will note that this known arms smuggling connection between Iran and Eritrea was how the Government of Yemen believed the Houthis were being armed, although the cables actually reveal that is not how the Houthis are being armed based on different intelligence. Are the Israeli's being paranoid? Probably not. The Kharg is the best choice of vessel to move substantial arms from Iran to Hezbollah quickly and without harassment. It is around 2,150nm from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia - where these Iranian ships made port last week. While I understand that a little corvette might have to make stops every few thousand nautical miles - even a corvette with the range of the Alvand - why does a fast fleet tanker like Kharg need a fill up after only a few thousand miles travel? Probably because the tanker is carrying more than fuel. What To Do The Israeli's can get trigger happy in a hurry, so I have no idea what they will do. However, I noted with interest that PJ Crowley described the US position on the presence of the Iranian ships approaching the Suez Canal as one of "curiosity." OK, I buy that, I'm certainly curious as well. But the real question is what if anything should the United States do? Well, if you are the US it depends if you think the Israel will attack the ships. If you do think Israel is going to get trigger happy, we should do nothing. However, if the US does not believe the Israeli's are going to attack the Iranian ships, this is what I believe the US should do. It is more than a little disturbing to me that a ~1,500 ton Iranian corvette built in 1971 with 4 ASMs and no air defenses escorted by an old oil tanker can send the price of US oil up 1.8% for simply sailing on the ocean. Iran just significantly shifted an economic market in the US with a piece of **** corvette even though the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) was literally right there. Think about that a second... An increase of 1.8% comes to $.67 per bbl of oil, and the United States uses 21,000,000 bbls of oil per day. That means that through soft power presence alone the Iranian Navy flagship, which by every modern naval standard is nothing more than a ~1,500 ton unrated corvette with a questionably trained crew and supported an old tanker, and yet the Iranian Navy just sent a $14 million shiver down the spine of the energy economy of the United States. To add insult to injury, that bump in oil cost could potentially sustain itself for several days while the Iranian Navy operates in that region. How do we reconcile the ability of an Iranian corvette half way around the world to influence a US economic market with the rhetoric by the United States Navy leadership who attempts to link US naval power with US economy? How can observers not draw the conclusion that investors in this country have lost all association with American naval power and the sustainability of regional peace when an Iranian corvette can make this kind of economic impact while operating right next to a US aircraft carrier strike group? Investors in the US oil futures market must not even associate US naval power as a deterrent to economic disruption when oil shoots up 1.8% based on presence alone, and in this case the US naval power present is a carrier strike group. Is this a matter of stupidity or ignorance on the part of the investors, or does this say something about the US Navy's ability to articulate it's own value to the nation? So, clearly the Navy has a communication problem... How can the US Navy address this? Well, if I was given 5-star rank for a day I would sail my Arleigh Burke class destroyer along side the Iranian Navy flagship for a "wave and hello" and take a photograph of the two ships side by side while underway. I realize that strategic communication is a forgotten, and perhaps lost art in the US Navy, but if you put a photograph on Navy.mil with the two warships in near proximity that illustrates the sheer size difference between the flagship of the Iranian Navy and a US Navy Arleigh Burke class destroyer, I will predict that the unofficial PASSEX is worth several thousand words to a great many reporters and Americans while also being a photograph worth about $14 million in savings to the US energy economy a day. With a single photograph the concerns of an Iranian corvette threat to the Mediterranean Sea can be turned into an opportunity to communicate a visual public reminder of what US naval power looks like, and likely turns the Iranian naval threat to the Mediterranean Sea into the punchline of a joke - exactly what it should be. Posted by Galrahn at 12:00 AM

nice way of to put it :)

I took note of the size of the supply ship myself, too, and all that just for a corvette? The Iranians certainly were successful to focus world media'S attention of the "warship" - and distracting attention away from the supply ship that way.

I have no doubt that an Israel that is not shy to bomb the North-Korean reactor in Syria some years asgo, will also not be hesitent to bomb that supply ship as well, once they are certain of their suspicion.

It could also be that the Iranian ships are meant to serve as a trip wire for another global public relations coup in case Israel attacks the ships. Israel really must make sure that it'S case is absolutely safe in case it strikes.

On the other hand, past examples have shown that the world will condemn Israel anyway, no matter whether there is evidence against the Iranians or not. The Turkish Gaza provokation illustrated that.

German media said the Iranian ships will be stationed in a Syrian naval base for one year. If I were Israel, I would not let them get that far. The corvette could be tolerated as long as it does not interfere with another Gaza blockaded running, but the supply ship is an unaccepptable risk due to the reason outlined in the above article.

The thing is: They dont care what others think.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12493614

the convoy was blocked this morning, its in the WNN on the main page.

The thing is Israel does not care for others thinking that it should behave stupid, self-endangering and self-damaging and in support of Islamic terror and military enemies, like Hamas and Hesbollah and Syria.

Egypt OKs Iranian Ships' Passage Through Suez


Egypt approves passage of Iranian warships through Suez Canal despite Israel's objections

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...47_468x286.jpg



Oke, there is a start of trouble..... I really wounder what Israel will do. Maybe they will try out some new (German) stuff...

Last year there were indications rumoured in the press that the Israelis have constantly stationed one of their three Dolphin subs in the Red Sea, as a deterrant against feared missile and weapon deliveries from Iran to Syria.

How is putting a submarine in the Red Sea in any way a deterrant?

Since when anything makes any sense at all.

When you have no decent ASW weapons in your navy and your sworn enemy that has a habit of launching surprise attacks deploys a submarine near where you are sending your ships that tends to make you worried about the likelihood of those ships reaching port.

interesting read. as for suggestion to post next to iranian warships... as fun as that would be, i think the USA has lost ALL appetite for any cowboy moves on world diplomacy stage. Sorry, i mean it just has no balls to act anymore. Wars are... too expensive.

what i would do with the iranian ship smuggling weapons? Covert up, send the fker down. why they're not doing it I don't even know but hardly there is a crime in stealing from thief - he'll never go to police.

The Dolphins are extremly quiet, so one could even ask what decent ASW procedures there are against them - the Dolphins are Israel's name for the German type 212 class (214 for export versions), and regarding quietness and general stealth that class is at the very top of the international competition, not to mention the long leg it has for staying submersed. Also, although a conventionally armed Dolphin is a local anti-shipping derrent that in the limited space of the Red Sea finds somewhat ideal hunting grounds, the Israelis probably have already finished to adapt the torpedo tubes for launching nuclear armed cruise missiles, which makes the Dolphins also regional, strategic deterrants.

Two more Dolphins have been willed by Germany to be delivered to the Israeli navy. And this time, different to the first two boats, the Israelis even will need to pay for them. :DL In case of a shooting war at sea between Israel and Syria or Iran, hostile navies will totally hate to have to deal with these boats. :yeah:

I guess I'm not seeing the "weakness" that has been exposed here. I assumne that I'm missing something or not reading between the lines, because this seems like a complete non-issue.

Just to make sure I've got it straight, am I correct in my understanding that we should first in some way be concerned with the Iranians smuggling weapons via some knackered old tanker? If so, why? Since when has denial of weapons to hostile nations via one route ever been a valid strategy? When has it ever worked for any major sea power, ever?

Secondly, I'm not seeing the economic concern. Where is it? An increase of 1.8% in US oil prices during one particular Wednesday, even at the cost of $14 million, means almost nothing in an industry that regularly trades in excess of $770 billion per day, working from the writer's statistics. Even if the Iranians maintained a continued presence, the market would adjust very quickly. The 1.8% increase on one day is just the result of people who know very little about the situation buying in anticipation of hostilities.

What, exactly, is the US Navy going to do about this state of affairs, even if it weren't probably already aware of it and has discounted it for reasons I mentioned above? I think the author of the article underestimates the intelligence of the Iranians. They know perfectly damn well that we're not going to sink or try to board their ships because doing so would be seen as another overbearing act by the US by its own populace and the world at large, especially in the wake of Operation Iraqi Freedom. If people are willing to overlook despotism and genocide, they're not going to care about whatever piddling nonsense Iran is mostly not doing. More disagreeably, the resultant situation would also help unite Islamic fundamentalist elements, which are eager to see anything we do as a threat.

We know this, and they know this, but what are we going to do? Put a huge ship next to theirs in the hope that they'll suddenly reconsider the power of their "fleet" and abandon their attempts? I hope the author doesn't ever get to be an admiral for a day, because all he would end up doing is wasting Navy time and money.

Imo, we're better off leaving well enough alone. Given the riots that have been erupting in Islamic states in the name of self-determination I'd say the best course of action is to destroy their militancy with our diplomacy, trade, and prosperity, (and not by installing puppet governments) save where they present a direct threat. They'll come around eventually, as all peoples united by anything other than peace and freedom must.

No, our country has lost it's "balls", it's our President and his admin, bunch of wimps like most lefties.Yea war is exspensive and should avoid it unless absolutely needed esp given our current fiscal issues.

Thing that worries me is if Israel ends up in a hot war, obama will do nothing, because he does not care Israel very much.Some of the lefties on here will respond to this no doubt but just look at his behavior towards Israel ladies, the writing is on the wall.

Cool. Can they come up with a pet term for you?

I think Israel does its best to track ALL supply and smuggle routes their enemies have on sea and on land, namely for Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria. Remember the bombing of the Northkorean reactor in Syria? The Gaza blockade? Intel activity of the Israelis in Lebanon and in the Palestinian territories?

Who said they try to deny supply to their enemies on one route only, leaving the others open? I think you mistake the EU and the UN with the Israelis here.

If The Iranians try to smuggle not just smull ammounts of handguns, but huge stockpiles or bigger missile parts or parts for a new Syrian reactor or a radar station or whatever, then a ship would be needed. Via plane they would need so many transports that it would attract even more attention.

With Turkey betraying NATO and sending huge ammoiunts of support and supplies to Hamas and Hezbollah, and cooperating with Syria and Iran now, this leaves a new huge playground for hostile smuggling routes on Turkish territory open now. I would not rule out that in the forseeable future the Israelis could launch a military strike on Turkish territory, like they did in the past on Lerbanes, Syrian and Iraqi territories. For me, the diplomatic relations between Jerusalem and Ankare are a stageact only. Both nations are hostile to each other now, due to the changes towards fundamentalism in Turkey, and Erdoghan's cooperation with Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah.

I also think the time has come now that Turkey leaves NATO, or gets kicked out. They have overstepped so many lines in the past 8 years, and have separated themselves so far from NATO and Western policies and strategic interests. Smart EU intelligence beasts of course will not allow that to happen. They are always so bright, and so forgiving.