Iran Test Fires Russian Missiles Near Strait of Hormuz

[Purveyor]

February 7, 2007

TEHRAN, Iran: Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards test fired its new Russian defense missile system Wednesday near the strategically important Strait of Hormuz, state radio reported.

---snip---

The Revolutionary Guards' began the games Wednesday in the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea, which flank the strait, through which some 20 percent of the world's oil transits daily.

The goal of the maneuvers, dubbed Saegheh and Badr, is to improve the "defense, stamina and operation" of participating units, state radio reported. The first word of the games' name means lightening, while the second refers to a decisive battle in the early days of Islam.

---snip---

Iran announced in January that it had received the Tor M-1 Russian air defense missile system, though it did not say when the weapons had arrived. Moscow had said previously it would supply 29 of the systems to Iran under a US$700 million (€539 million) contract signed in December 2005.

---end of excerpt---

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/07/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-War-Games-Russia.php

[Tace]

1. I Don't Like The Scenario Where A Sunburn Missile Hits An Aircraft Carrier

I'm no expert on this stuff, but I was reading last year that our naval forces are very vulnerable to these supersonic missiles, and have no effective defense against them.

[oldtimecanuk]

2. I said in an earlier post that these aircraft carries are....

sitting ducks there..... Along with their support fleet.... As you stated, your no expert on the Russian built missle system nor am I, but I sure as hell know how big of a target that an aircraft carrier makes. Can you imagine what the US would be thinking if the tables were turned and Iran had 3 aircraft carrier battle groups in the Suez cannel... Wholly crap, there would be instant war.

ww

[EVDebs]

9. Support fleet includes nuclear armed subs if I'm not mistaken

so any attack would trigger WWIII seems to me along with a blocked up straight of Hormuz choking off world's oil supplies triggering internal conflicts elsewhere in the region and temporary spike in world oil prices (with nowhere to spend the 'ill-gotten gains').

[Solo_in_MD]

16. Why do you presume a nuclear response?

Convential muntions are more than capable of destoying anything of value without the political cost of nukes.

[EVDebs]

20. Conplan 8055 and other articles by WaPost's Arkin show nuke strike

by air, avoiding ground troops, as preferred DoD attack on Iran. All options wargamed (Sam Gardiner's in Atlantic Monthly for example) have shown an attack to be a failure. Military option doesn't succeed.

Inside US war plans
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/11/inside_us_war_plans.html

Will Iran be next ?
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows

[Solo_in_MD]

25. Thats invasion style planning, not a retaliatory strike for an attack

At the very least all launching sites, ordinance in transit, or other military assets that could pose a threat to the ships would be attacked almost immediately.

[EVDebs]

31. So your point is ...? Bechtel and Halliburton may get to clean up the mess ??? nt

[Solo_in_MD]

33. No, that invasions are different from retaliatory strikes

Different goals, different weapons and tactics.

A retaliatory strike would leave damage to miltary and and other assets but no troops on the ground, the Iraninn mullah oligarchy in tact (for the time being). It would be military only mostly with local assets. A few days in length maximum.

Invasion is boots on the ground, holding territory, open time line, with the contractors lining up...

[EVDebs]

35. Again, a tactical nuclear strike is what it's being called not an invasion

"Both the New Yorker and the Washington Post have reported the US has drawn up plans for launching tactical nuclear strikes against Iran. President Bush dismissed the reports as "wild speculation." But evidence continues to emerge the US is preparing for a possible attack. "

Monday, April 17th, 2006
Retired Colonel Sam Gardiner on Iran War Plans: "The Issue is Not Whether the Military Option Would Be Used But Who Approved the Start of Operations Already"
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/17/143241

This is what Arkin et al are saying. No 'boots on the ground' option = no 'invasion', your post #16 alludes to. Conventional weapons aren't going to be used to take out the nuclear facilities, only surrounding air defenses.

[Solo_in_MD]

36. Again, these a different scenarios

retribution for a stike against the USN is different that taking down their nuclear sites or full up invasion. There would be no reason to use nukes in a retaliatory strike unless one was used in the attack.

Potentail use of tactical nukes is part of every large warplan analysis, so that it is on the table is to be expected. I personally believe that not even the current administration would do that at this point. The *fallout* would be too large, even for them.

[Sirveri]

41. Also, aside from Strategic Missles, USN no longer has tactical

nukes on board their boats. I can't quite remember who signed that one into law, but I think it was Clinton by presidential order, but it might have been Bush Sr. Reminds me of a Navy Senior Chief who told me a story about how he would get annoyed because he'd have to call the missle room every time they did radiation surveys to make them point the missles a differant direction.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

38. SSBN's are not part of task forces like this.

You are not supposed to know where these guys are. If you put an aircraft carrier on top of them as part of a task force, then you might as well put bells and whistles and glowing lights on the SSBN's.

[EVDebs]

48. True, 'Boomers' aren't but LA class attack subs are....

A Los Angeles class attack submarine

" an attack submarine – in a direct support role seeking out and destroying hostile surface ships and submarines "

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/powerhouse/cvbg.html

" The LOS ANGELES class SSN was designed almost exclusively for Carrier Battlegroup escort; they were fast, quiet, and could launch Mk48 and ADCAP torpedoes, Harpoon Anti-Ship Missiles (no longer carried), and both land attack and anti-ship (no longer carried) Tomahawk cruise missiles. The new submarines showed another step improvement in quieting and an increase in operating speed to allow them to support the CVBG. Escort duties included conducting ASW sweeps hundreds of miles ahead of the CVBG and conducting attacks against the SAG. "

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-688.htm

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

49. But they are not nuclear armed.

Navy ships havve not carried tactical nukes since about '92. The only nuclear armed weapons on Navy ships now are ICBM's.

[EVDebs]

50. ...and you said Boomers won't be 'trackable'

So they could be anywhere in the world and launch whatever they've got. Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean, you name it. Shadowing the carrier groups it that's what DoD/Bushco orders.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

52. They don't have to be in the Indian Ocean to hit targets in that area

Hell, we can even hit them from Nebraska, MT, ND, you name it.

Side thread I know but, the point is, SSBN's are too valuable to put into a region that is that hot, when they don't need to be there. These guys are meant to threaten countries with large nuclear aresenals that could destroy our land based weapons with a nuclear salvo.

I doubt that any nukes much less strategic ICBM's would be used without a first nuclear provocation. I do believe that if a nuclear device is detonated in the US or on any legitimate US interest, and we find a state sponsored connection, then we absolutely should respond in kind with disproportionate force.

[Tyler Durden]

51. Don't bet on that one (from an ex "Broken Arrow" team member)

I can't say too much without maybe getting traced and arrested...let's just say that anyone who thinks there aren't any Nuke armed TOMAHAWKS on SSN's, Fast Frigates, or AEGIS Cruisers is not using reality based thinking.

[EVDebs]

53. 'Broken Arrow' from Wikipedia

"In United States military nuclear incident terminology:

* A broken arrow is an accidental event that involves nuclear weapons or nuclear components but does not create the risk of nuclear war.
* Broken arrow is also a code word used to request close air support from all available aircraft when a ground position is in extreme danger of being overrun by enemy troops. This was last used in the Vietnam War, and is a plot element in movies such as We Were Soldiers.""

That's o.k., Tyler, my uncle invented the launch systems for Polaris and Trident missiles abord subs while working at PRC Ridgecrest at China Lake Naval Weapons Center many moons ago. The excellent book Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage , by Sherry Sontag and Christopher Drew, never mentioned him (as I said, excellent book, just missed that one guy who made MAD possible however).

[Tyler Durden]

54. It's also a code phrase for a release of radiation from a weapon...

...due to an accident in handling. the next phase lower is "Bent Spear." I was on the Medical isolation and decon team.

We went in when some schmuck mishandled a warhead and cracked it. Fun Stuff...not.

[Bandit]

55. Or even a supposed attack such as the Gulf of Tonkin..

Do you actually trust the Bush* Cabal to tell the truth about any supposed attack?

[CoffeeCat]

5. I remember reading that too....

That was the article that laid out a scenario in which one of our carriers would
be hit by a Sunburn Missile, correct?

Isn't it interesting that the puzzle pieces are moving toward the full picture
that was laid out in that essay?

I remember being terrified after reading it. Now, I just feel like I'm bracing
for it all.

Sad.

[Solo_in_MD]

6. What your read is out of date, and incorrect

The USN has a mulitlayered defense against supersonic anti ship missiles.

The Sunburn hypebole has been debunked here and elsewehere.

[manic expression]

7. I hope we don't find out either way

I do think the USN has pretty solid defenses, but multiple and simultaneous attacks on one vessel could overwhelm them, no?

[EVDebs]

10. I guess the Israeli navy fell the same way a few months ago too

and agreed, Iran would be wisest just to wait until Bush is out of office and continue negotiating as Libya and So. Africa did on removing nuclear threat to world, if that's what Islam is all about. Proof is in the pudding.

So I guess Israel has nuclear subs targetting Iran now too. Saudis feeling safer w/ Israel nukes than Iranian. That's a hoot.

[Solo_in_MD]

13. Nor do I, but the scenario you paint is hard to achieve

There is more to an attack than swarming a single ship.

- Targeting information. Fairly precise and communicated to launch points in a timely manner
- Navies use a screening formation. A missile would have to be able to tell the carrier from several escorts. That is harder than it sounds.
- The missile sensors have to function. Jamming, spoofing and decoys are out there to prevent that.
- They have to survive the multi layered defense. Lots of guns and SAMs coming at them
- They have to be launched in sufficient number. Any in range launch site is monitored by armed aircraft. If a flurry of activity setting up missile were to suddenly start happening, they would most likely be preemptively destroyed.
- They have to work. Soviet weapons of that generation require a lot of maintenance. Lack of parts and expertise would seriously impact reliability.

Those are some of the issues associated with a SSM attack on a carrier group. The other is the retaliatory strike. Even an unsuccessful attack will result in massive retaliation up and down the command structure as well as joint use targets. The Iranian oligarchy is weak enough that they can not risk the long term issues associated with that.

[Oreo]

15. I hope you're right

But whether it's a carrier or a supply ship any loss of a ship would spark something that couldn't be stopped before the entire region was involved

[manic expression]

19. True

Those factors are very valid. I was aware of the machine guns and missiles they had, but I forgot about jamming.

I doubt the Iranians would attack US ships first, they would likely try to use them in retaliation. At any rate, maintenance shouldn't be a problem for Iran if they give themselves ample time to prepare; I would also think the Iranians could choose when and where to attack, so there may not necessarily be a "flurry of activity".

During the Falkland War, didn't the Argentinians manage to sink one ship and almost another, while the Royal Navy wasn't even aware of what was hitting them until after the fighting was over? Didn't they use similar tactics to the USN?

[Solo_in_MD]

26. Falklands incidents had some marked differences

and the RN made some major mistakes.

[manic expression]

29. I should know more about this kind of stuff

are there any sources (books, websites, etc...) that you would recommend? Modern warfare is something I need to study.

[Big Pappa]

46. Thanks

Someone had to say it. Taking out a Carrier would be one of the most difficult of tasks.

[krispos42]

14. We have Aegis

The shield of the Gods.

It's a seaborn air-defense system deployed on Ticonderoga and Arliegh Burke-class warhsips, which are most of the escort ships left in the Navy. It was specifically designed to defend carrier battle groups against saturation attacks by supersonic Russian cruise missiles launched by long-range bombers.

The natuaral evolution of the system has added integrated anti-surface and anti-submarine battle managment as well, and Mark 141 vertical launchers increased its capability to 122 missiles to various types. Long-range Standard SAMs, Tomahawk cruise missiles, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, ASROC missiles (rocket-launched anti-submarine torpedo), and a quad-pack of close-range Sea Sparrow missiles can be mixed and matched in each vertical launch cell. This means that the loadouts can be modified to be mission-specific, and that all missiles are ready for launch at any time.

The system can have two dozen or so of the Standard SAMs in flight at any one time, controlling them remotetly by secure datalink, until they are close enough to the targets. In the last couple of seconds, a powerful fire-control radar saturates the target with concentrated radar energy, giving the missile big fat target to home in on. The ship has 4 fire-control radars, and they just keep flicking from target to target every few seconds as the swarm of missiles moves in. And each time a missile detonates, a new one is launced from the ship to keep the flow of fire up.

In addition, the carrier's F-18s can intercept and destroy cruise missiles with their own medium-range air-to-air missiles like the Sparrow or AMRAAM. And the carrier's own radar planes have a two-hundred mile range to vector those fighters in.

The Air Force would also be nearby with F-15s and F-22s, if the carrier is close enough, plus the Pentagon might give the carrier E-3 AWACS coverage.

It's a formidable defense system. The worst thing that Iran could do was to do exactly what we're trained and equipped for. If they are smart, they will come up with some innovative tactic to either take out the battle group or make it politically impossible to keep the carrier there. Maybe set up the Navy to sink a ferry or something like that.

It will be interesting to see if we can be out-Gulf-of-Tonkined by the Iranians.

[Oreo]

18. I think Sunburns were made to beat Aegis

I only hope we have something that can beat it. I'm sure the Navy has some defensive weapons that aren't public knowledge.

http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/270457
The supersonic Sunburn missile, which can be mounted on a naval or mobile land platform, was designed specifically to destroy American aircraft carriers and other warships equipped with advanced Aegis radar and combat management systems. The US Navy considers the missile to be extremely difficult to defend against, adds the resolution.

It continues that the Sunburn missile has an over-the-horizon range of 65 miles and can deliver a 200-kiloton warhead in under two minutes. One conventional Sunburn missile can sink a warship or disable an aircraft carrier, causing the deaths of hundreds of American military personnel.

[krispos42]

28. It would be a challenging target

Mach 2 is twenty-five miles per minute or so, so the flight time fired from long-range is less than 4 minutes. Challenging indeed.

[Pavulon]

45. We co designed it

for that purpose exactly. Zvezda-Strela co developed it with US firms. We have a thorough understanding of the platform.

[EVDebs]

23. Gives new meaning to Steppenwolf's '...fire all of your guns at once and ..."

Explode into space. If Iran does attack, foolishly, taking the Bushco bait, they most likelly would use a saturation attack, which could evolve militarily into a more generalized nuclear attack by US subs/cruise missiles ... let cooler heads prevail, you know what I mean ?

[EVDebs]

24. USS Stark

did the Stark have any anti-missile weaponry ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_(FFG-31)

[Solo_in_MD]

30. Read the investigation report...its typically dry but interesting with a good upfront summary

The defensive measures (guns and chaff) were not armed. It also was not equiped with Aegis. Away from the exclusion zone. The US was not a party to the combat in progress, and they were caught unprepared.

[EVDebs]

34. Saudi, if not Iranian, intell probably has access to US software via

Ptech, now GoAgile, company.


""Ptech is used primarily to develop enterprise blueprints at the highest level of US government and corporate infrastructure. These blueprints hold every important functional, operational, and technical detail of the enterprise. A secondary use of this powerful tool is to build other smart tools in a short period of time. Ptech’s clients in 2001 included the Department of Justice, the Department of Energy, Customs, Air Force, the White House, the FAA, IBM, Sysco, Aetna, and Motorola, to name just a few. ""

Dollars of terror
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17730

Pay special attn to the WH, Air Force, and FAA connections there. Ask yourself, 'were there wargames on 9-11 ?' and further questions. If Saudi Arabia wanted to protect itself from Iran, what better way than to stir up a US middleman into the mix.

We got played by Iran on the Iraq front, now maybe we're being 'played' again by another Chalabi-like charlatan insider.

[blueinindiana]

37. FYI

FFG-7 Class Frigates have only a gatlin gun known as the CIWS or (Close in weapons system) It is designed to break up a missile in flight if it is at certain angles etc.

The Stark was not on alert when the missiles struck.

Second even if the CIWS does hit the missile it stil will cause damage to the ship when it breaks apart.

Navy ships in general are still very vunerable to missle attacks.

[krispos42]

39. Yeah, but not Aegis

It is primarily an anti-submarine frigate, with limited anti-aircraft capability. Basically, a floating helicopter platform with sonar. About 4 years ago they began removing the missile launcher because the older version of the Standard SAM was being retired, so now their anti-aircraft armament is only a 76mm rapid-fire naval gun and a 20mm CIWS mount. They don't even have surface-to-surface missiles anymore.

The Aegis system was responsible for the downing of that Iranian airliner back in the 80's.

[Purveyor]

21. I believe that Iran would sink a loaded 'supertanker' before attacking

a US Naval ship.

That would effectively shutdown the Straits with the environmental diaster and no insurance company would cover any other tanker attempting to navigate those waters until the threat was resolved.

JMO.

[Solo_in_MD]

32. I tend to agree that the IRG will not go after the USN head on

[Sirveri]

40. Just because you hit something doesn't mean it sinks.

If you were to break the keel, then the entire boat would break in half and sink, missles however just slam into the side and blow out whatever is in their explosive radius. If the ship is properly rigged that damage should be fairly contained, and if the crew has been properly drilled for fires and other casualties of this nature you should see a fairly fast response that keeps the ship fairly safe. Lets just say it would probably take more than one, unless some really strange things happened.

[Pavulon]

44. You mean our old drone...

that was a joint development between the US MIC and a russian firm. It was used as a drone.

In 1998, Zvezda and Boeing circulated reports of an agreement between Russia and the U.S. Navy to purchase up to 300 Kh-31s. According to Zvezda, Boeing was to convert the weapons into MA-31 supersonic aerial targets (SSST) for the U.S. Navy (Janes Defense Weekly 14 October 1998). According to Janes Defense, 28% of any sale would go directly into the bank accounts of the Russian Army Generals.

[Solo_in_MD]

47. Careful there, it will upset the the Soviet have super missile crowd horribly

to know that the aircraft carrier killer super weapons have been used as a target to qualify defensive systems and train the USN for at least a decade. Of course it was all public domain and published if they had bothered to look.

[havocmom]

3. Do the Chicken Hawks safe in D.C. still have fleets sitting within range?

They are probably prining up "REMEBER THE MAINE!" banners as we type.

[oldtimecanuk]

4. Just think back to the Cuban missle crisis...

The US went ballistic when Russia was going to park missles in Cuba.... This is just incredible.

ww

[Solo_in_MD]

8. Yet another nonsensical article in the IHT

The new missiles were SAMs as in anti-aircraft missile. Seems doubtful they would fire them there for a wide variety of reasons. No indication of SSM missiles were fired or which ones, but the article is sufficently weak that it could have been done. Consider also that the only source for data on this would be the Iranian government press releases.

We could use some decent reporting in the ME, and this sure isn't it.

[EVDebs]

11. I'd settle for decent intelligence in ME, Solo-in-MD ! nt

[Oreo]

12. I didn't see anywhere in the article...

where they said the missiles weren't defensive.

I'm not familiar with IHT but all they're saying is that Iran is testing defensive missiles purchased from Russia in the Straight of Hormuz.

[Purveyor]

17. Just for clarification, this is an Associated Press article carried by the IHT. n/t

[Solo_in_MD]

27. Point taken, I missed the byline.

[Solo_in_MD]

22. Like I said, its poorly done at best

Maneuvers/war games is when you practice using, including live firing, your weapons and tactics. Part of that has to be striking back at the opposing force. That is where SSMs would come in.

It is reasonable to assume that the US and others were watching closely, collecting information on weapons systems, communication protocols, tactics, and overall performance. An exercise shows your enemy your cards, especially if you do it right in front of them, though it could have been dumbed down.

Only missile mentioned explicitly were the SAMs, but I doubt the Iranians would have used those and not others as well. Not if it was a serious exercise.

Again, the IHT took the data from a press release and there is no other source or interaction to get a better picture. Still they should have exercised some rigor of their own.

[Porcupine]

42. So any bets on whether the straight are mined?

I can think of several ways of getting mines into the straights from miles away slowly and quietly. Of course the Navy can think of those too and should have them prevented.

Any guesses?

What about these things? Autonomous ocean gliders.

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=3781
More:http://marine.rutgers.edu/cool/glider/webpage/oceanrobots_liz.htm

http://www.milnet.com/pentagon/navy/auv/AUV-Brief.htm

AUVs hold the promise for a magnitude increase in the stealthy or low risk functionality of submarine operations in the underwater environment, from support of submarines themselves, to military underwater mission support such as mine detection and removal, or underwater surveillance, tracking, and even attack. Thus the import of tracking this vital new area of research in the commercial arena as it sets standards of performance and lends an eye to the future of military uses of AUV based platforms. This briefing looks at recent developments as well as summarizes key AUV developments in the past, building upon the work found in an earlie

Can you believe the military leaves this stuff on the net?


Does this thing look familiar? Its for UNDER the water.

Or this:The Piper Cub Offense

Buy a submarine? http://www.silvercrestsubmarines.co.uk/newsletter_feb_2005.html

[goforit]

43. The clock is ticking. OMG!