Iran says tests missiles able to sink "big warships"

[Phrogman]

Here we go.....


Iran's Revolutionary Guards test fired missiles in wargames on Thursday which a commander said could sink "big warships" in the Gulf, Sea of Oman and the north of the Indian Ocean, the state broadcaster said.

Iran is at loggerheads with the United States over its disputed nuclear program and what Washington calls its meddling in
Iraq. The United States has ordered a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf to step up pressure on Iran.

"These missiles, with a maximum range of 350 km (220 miles), can hit different kinds of big warships in all of the Persian Gulf, all of the Sea of Oman and the north of the Indian Ocean," senior Revolutionary Guards naval commander Ali Fadavi said.

Fadavi was also quoted by the state broadcaster's Web site as saying that the warhead of this missile had the capacity to sink "all kinds of big warships."

A little more at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070208/ts_nm/iran_wargames_dc

[Phrogman]

1. So what does * do when faced with a dilemma like this?

Well, he puts more big warships under their missile umbrella.

Impeachable incompetence right there.

[Amonester]

15. And, of course, there's no Jenna Busche on board ...

one of those warships.

$acrifice? Anyone? :mad:

[CrazyOrangeCat]

2. indeed.

here we go.

[izzie]

3. Maybe the day of the war ships is gone?

After all riding into battle on a horse was once great.

[saigon68]

5. Riding horses into battle worked

Until the machine gun and the Tank were invented

[izzie]

19. And maybe war ships have also had their day.

One can never count on what will turn up from the mind of man. We have got much from the art of killing each other. I would say off hand the horse has been around in battle from pre-written history to the charge in WW2 and the German army front lines were backed by horses doing the work the truck did in the fast part of that army. Battleships have been in moth balls for years. It is the ones that have planes that may even become old style.

[saigon68]

49. That's true

A lot of the German artillery in WW 2 relied on horses to move the pieces after trains brought them to the front

[Thothmes]

55. Horses

The Soviet fielded entire divisions of cavalry during WWII.

[Strelnikov_]

20. I am of the opinion that it is

Microprocessor guided missiles are relatively simple, cheap and require a limited degree of integration. Anti-missile systems are highly complex, highly integrated and expensive.

And with surface ships, just like they say about terrorism, the attacker only has to get lucky once, whereas the defender has to be lucky all the time.


Whether Iran has the quantities of missiles, or the platforms to launch the missile within range, I cannot say. But against a modern power (China, Russia, EU) I would not want to be on a surface ship.


Another consideration is that these systems have never been tested in open warfare. There have been a few missiles thrown around over the years, to good result (if you were the one firing the missile). Of course, the excuses throw up for the defense systems failures (operator error, not turned on, surprise, not state of the art) are somewhat cold consolation for the dead and dying.

Bottom line, my gut tells me we could be on the verge of another major shift similar to airplanes making the battleship obsolete and modern maneuver warfare making fixed fortifications like the Maginot line obsolete.


Of course, our resident Jane's Defense fanboy's/MI plants will chime in that our A3 Block 4 ultrasuperduper ship defender will make light work of any threats, because our military is A Number 1, and testing and war gaming has proved just how ultrasuperduper our stuff is. Just look how well Iraqnam is working out.

[oblivious]

65. I remember the remarkable 2% success rate of the Patriot system in the Gulf War. Or was it zero?

...shortly after Operation Desert Storm, the first war against Iraq in 1991, the U.S. Army claimed that an earlier model of the Patriot had intercepted 45 out of 47 Iraqi Scuds—a 95 percent success rate. Over the following year, the Army lowered its estimate, stating that Patriots intercepted 79 percent of the Scuds launched over Saudi Arabia and 40 percent of those fired at Israel. These remain the official figures today.

However, even the revisions wildly overstate the Patriot's performance in Desert Storm. A later report by the General Accounting Office concluded that Patriot missiles destroyed only 9 percent of the Scuds they tried to engage. The Israeli Defense Force calculated they'd destroyed just 2 percent. William Cohen, Bill Clinton's secretary of defense, admitted upon leaving office in January 2001, "The Patriot didn't work."
http://www.slate.com/id/2080615/

[JCMach1]

108. You forget HMS Sheffield in the Falklands (1982)

1982: Argentines destroy HMS Sheffield
The British ship HMS Sheffield has been hit by an Argentine missile fired from a fighter bomber.

It is not clear how many of the 268 crew have perished.

The sinking has shocked the British nation and foiled any possible diplomatic solution to the current dispute over the Falkland Islands between Britain and Argentina.

The ship caught fire when a French-made Exocet missile penetrated deep into HMS Sheffield's control room... http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/4/newsid_2504000/2504155.stm

What if it had been the Ark Royal? Britain would have lost the war...!

[One_Life_To_Give]

150. Actually it was decoyed into the Sheffield

That hit by the French built Exocet missile on the HMS Sheffield was classified as a miss. The missile was decoyed from the intended target, a troop transport full of British Marines, and struck the Sheffield.

The resultin loss of the ship was blamed on the construction of using a Aluminum Superstructure along with a Steel Hull. Which was claimed to have developed a thermite reaction which could not be extinguished by the firefighting capabilities aboard her.

[SpiralHawk]

4. Of course, the Iranians got all kinds of help from republicon Ollie North

"Self-proclaimed Super Patriot" North, the uber-republicon, gave the Iranians our technology, and our Hawk missiles so now they can more easily kill our sons and daughters in uniform.

Real swift, Ollie. You are a true republicon.

Too bad you are not a true American patriot.

[hack89]

6. Of course they have no abiity to

detect and track large warships at long ranges but oh well.

People always concentrate on the least important part of the equation - it is a complex and difficult task to detect and track a ship at long range and be able to coordinate an accurate missile shot. It is even harder when the other guy is shooting back.

[Sherman A1]

7. Agreed

add in the multi layered defenses of a Carrier Strike Group, not to mention it's offensive capability and the mix just gets that more difficult. A hit in the Persian Gulf which is more restricted waters ---- Perhaps, anywhere else with more maneuvering room is much more problematic...

[mc jazz]

8. they have no radar?

But I heard that they had outfitted ordinary looking merchant ships with missiles, didn't an Iranian missile sink an Israeli ship recently?
This is a potentional clusterfuck if we have underestimated the Iranians ability to deploy their missile arcenal. Certainly no-one is arguing the ones they have are not up to the job (sunburn, best in the world), the slender hope is they won't know which way to fire it

[Solo_in_MD]

21. The Sunburn has been totally debunked...Hezbollah sunk an Egyptian freighter

with a C-802 which is a copy of a Chicom weapon during the recent fracas with Israel.

[Richard Steele]

26. When did that happen?

The "sunburn being totally debunked", I mean.

Oh, and in what sense did you mean "debunked"?
Are you saying they don't work as well as we've been told,
or saying Iran doesn't actually heve them?

[meldroc]

27. I didn't think Hezbollah could get Sunburns. Iran certainly can, and does.

IIRC, the Sunburn is an anti-ship missile, sort of like an Exocet or Harpoon, but larger, faster, more powerful, with a longer ranger, and far more deadly. It travels at over Mach 2, and when launched, the target warship will only have a few seconds of warning before the Sunburn breaks the ship in half.

IMHO, it would be incredibly stupid to have carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf - that gulf's a bathtub, and carriers have precious little room to maneuver. They would be sitting ducks for Sunburns.

[Richard Steele]

29. Sunburns are the BEST anti-ship missiles in the world, and Iran has some.

I'm trying to figure out what was meant by "Sunburns have been debunked".
How? In what way? By who? :shrug:

[Pavulon]

103. A rense article

touted them as a great cool thingy to destroy the American empire. However it neglected to outline the fact that the us jointly developed that weapon platform with a russian firm as a target drone.

Hence debunked. Building a weapon system out of something we used as a target drone (ie we calibrate our weapons by shooting at it) is not quite the terrible carrier killer touted by some.

This is documented by jane's and the manufacturer of the weapon system.

[Solo_in_MD]

36. That they are not super missles

read the other thread...the USN uses Sunburns for target practice...literally.

[Richard Steele]

46. Thanks. That was helpful.

:eyes:

[jpak]

91. The SS-N-22 Sunburn/Moskit is in service with the Russian Navy

A smaller version lacking terminal guidance and a warhead (Kh-31 Krypton) was purchased by the US Navy to test the ability of US warships to deal with the threat of a high-mach terminal manuevering anti-ship missiles.

These tests showed that current US Navy defenses cannot deal with this threat....

It was reported in Janes Defense Weekly, but the article is on available on line.

There is a version on it here...

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3056.html

scroll down to it

[anotherdrew]

99. the MA-31 target drone is 'based' on the Moskit but is not the same

"According to official U.S. Navy statements, the Zvezda MA-31 target drone cannot duplicate the Moskit performance"

Also, the sunburn/moskit are NOT the latest and greatest out there.

from www.ausairpower.net :
1.1 The Raduga 3M-80, 3M-82 and Kh-41 Moskit
The Raduga 3M-80, 3M-82 and Kh-41 Moskit (SS-N-22 Sunburn) are all variants of the same
4.5 tonne supersonic rocket-ramjet missile. This weapon is the primary armament of the 956E
Sovremennyy class destroyer used by China and is credited with a range between 50 and 120
nautical miles.
Unlike subsonic Western anti-ship missiles such as the Harpoon and Exocet, the Moskit is a
supersonic sea-skimmer. It can be programmed to fly a high altitude trajectory at Mach 3, or
a sea-skimming trajectory at Mach 2.2. If the sea skimming mode is chosen, the missile will
be first detected by a warship under attack when it emerges over the horizon at a distance of
about 15 to 25 nautical miles. This provides the defences on the ship with about 25-60 seconds
of warning time before impact. Moreover the speed of the Moskit makes it a challenging target
for many shipboard defences.
1.2 The OKB-52 3K-55/3M-55 Yakhont.
The OKB-52 3K-55/3M-55 Yakhont (SS-N-26) is like the Moskit a complete family of super-
sonic rocket-ramjet missiles. Ship, submarine, air and ground launched variants exist. The
missile weighs 3 tonnes at launch, and uses a liquid propellant for the ramjet which propels it
at speeds between Mach 2.0 and 2.5. The Yakhont typically cruises to the target area at high
altitude, and then descends for a sea skimming attack from under the horizon. The distance at
which it begins its descent can be programmed before launch, this determining the achievable
range which is between 65 and 160 nautical miles( Refer Tsarev V., Melnikov V., “Yakhont -
New Generation Antiship Missile”, Military Parade, Exclusives, 2000.).
1.3 The Novator 3M-54 Alfa.
The third advanced missile is the new Novator 3M-54 Alfa or Club (SS-N-27) which like the
preceding missiles, comprises a complete family of ship, submarine and air launched weapons.
Unlike submarine launched Moskit and Yakont variants, the Alfa is designed for launch from
a 533 mm torpedo tube, or a vertical launch tube( Refer Military Parade, 2000-1 Exclusives
Issue, Kamnev P., “The Club Missile System”).
Five distinct variants of this missile exist. The basic 3M-54E1 and 3M-14E most closely
resemble either a winged Harpoon or the US Navy’s anti-ship Tomahawk missile. This weapon
has a range of 160 nautical miles and is subsonic. The 3M-54E1 uses an ARGS-54 active radar
seeker and Glonass satellite and inertial guidance, the 3M-14E Glonass satellite and inertial
guidance alone.
The more advanced 3M-54E combines the subsonic cruise airframe of the 3M-54E1/3M-14E
with a Mach 2.9 rocket propelled guided payload. Like its subsonic sibling, it approaches from
under the horizon using the same radar seeker to detect its target. Once locked on, it discards
the cruise airframe, fires its rocket motor, and accelerates to Mach 2.9 at a sea skimming
altitude of 15 feet. Novator claim the missile follows a zig-zag flightpath to defeat defences.
Both the 3M-54E1 and 3M-54E are small weapons which are difficult to detect on radar,
especially should even basic radar signature reduction techniques be applied to them. The use
of a bandpass radome and minimal absorbent coatings could push the weapon’s head on radar
cross section down to that of a large grapefruit (Refer Knott, Schaeffer & Tuley, Radar Cross
Section, Ch.14).
The 91RE1 and 91RE2 are rocket boosted homing torpedoes, most closely resembling the
US ASROC and Sea Lance weapons. All five weapons in this family share a common launch
system and thus any ship, submarine or aircraft equipped for these weapons can carry an
arbitrary mix.
All of these sea skimming missiles outclass the Harpoon used by the ADF and other nations
in the nearer region, both in terms of range, and in the instance of the Moskit, Yakhont and
supersonic Alfa also speed. For all practical purposes, the RAN’s surface fleet is outgunned.
In the absence of any comparable Western missiles, this situation cannot be easily remedied.
Since the USN, Royal Navy and French Navy all rely on carrier based air power, they are not
under strong pressure to develop such missiles.

[happyslug]

104. The US Navy better, that is what the US Navy be fighting

And one of the results of such attacks has been if any ship faces six or more missiles aimed at them, and that ship is gone (and this has been known since the 1960s). Things have "improved" i.e. US naval defenses are better than it was in the 1970s, but so has the missiles aimed at Naval Vessels.

Anyway, the US Navy is NOT about to put any Carriers in the Gulf, the Carriers will stay in the Sea of Arabia. The US Navy may move frigates and Subs into the Gulf (and subs only if the US Navy is despite for the Gulf is a very shallow body of water). Thus this missiles are aimed at such surface ships NOT Carriers.

Why would Frigates be in the Gulf? To Guard the Oil Tankers. Thus the targets for these missiles are such Frigates and such oil Tankers. As to the Tankers, even 1960 era missiles will sink them.

Remember do NOT think like how the US will fight this war, but how will Iran. Iran knows it can NOT fight the US Navy one on one and thus will NOT fight the US Navy, instead go after the US Achilles Heel, our addiction to oil. If I was Iran I would launch such missiles at ANY Tankers in the Gulf, hopefully sink enough to block the Straights of Hormuz. While the Oil Tankers would be a Target, if I was Iran my main attack would be on the oil fields of Kuwait, Easter Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf oil producers. If Iran can survive 3-6 months of Air Attacks, then the subsequent oil crisis will force the US to drop back its attacks (Do to lack of fuel). That is the Tactics I would adopt if I was Iran, force the US to face a long term oil shortage and the economic problems that will cause. Iran can "Win" such a war, while it can NOT stop an US Air Attack.

[Pavulon]

106. Top 4 suppliers..

canada
mexico
Saudi
Venezuela

By disrupting oil flow in the gulf the entire world's oil's supply would be thrown into turmoil.

[oblivious]

38. Some poster said they were nothing to worry about, so now the sunburn as been "totally" debunked.

edit: typo

[Solo_in_MD]

39. I suggest you read the referenced material...

The Sunburn is older Soviet era tech that is currently used as targets by the USN. Its also dubious that Iran and the required infrastructure to take on a Carrier Group with them.

The pages that claim the Sunburn is a unstoppable carrier killer are a mix of outdated misinformation and hyperbole. If they were a serious risk, the USN would not have the carriers within range.

Note that I am not the only poster pointing this out.

[oblivious]

41. I suppose when you are taking on a foe 100 times your strength, you don't think of 'taking them on'.

I guess Iran would consider it a success if they were able to take out just one ship if they were attacked.

[Solo_in_MD]

42. Only if they wanted to die and take a large number of their countrymen with them.

The retaliatory strike would be up and down Iran's command and control structure as well as any relavent dual use assests. That assumming of course that any missiles sucessfully launch and are not destroyed premtively at the lauching sites.

The down side is that the mullahs seem to have little regard for human life, including that of their fellow muslims and Iranians.

[barb162]

51. I learned a lot from your posts, Thanks

[ShortnFiery]

122. You forget that the Iranian people are fiercely NATIONALISTIC

The more you kill, the more future generations will evolve to HATE OUR NATION'S GUTS.

That blue jean and pop music propaganda only carries so far. :eyes:

F**k Jane's statistics, these are HUMAN BEINGS that we have a bloated and pumped up Military Industrial Complex telling us that it is A OK to KILL!

Isn't something f**ked up in that logic?

What have the average Iranian done to us personally?

This is hyped-up war bullshit. The only reason Iran wants nukes is also the reason that *every other nation* wants nukes = as a deterrent to being invaded.

And the World Community's biggest fear ---> Actions of the Rogue Nation called the United States of America.

Our Executive Branch has gone INSANE and they must be stopped before the entire world is thrown into chaos.

[sanskritwarrior]

75. I hear you about the sunburn......

I don't know what is more tiresome, instructing civilians about how outdated the Sunburn missle is, or that a soldier does not get to determine what orders he or she feels like following.....both discussions are tiresome.....

[oblivious]

79. Solo, you're going to have to provide some serious debunking info to support your statements.

The fact that Sunburns are currently used as 2 million dollar targets doesn't debunk them as a serious weapon. The results of that target practice would be more interesting.

I admit I am too busy to google up my own answers, but since you seem to have read up on this, it would be helpful if you posted some more info to support your 'debunking' assertion. There seem to be a few people here interested in your findings, myself included.

[hack89]

80. How about a more basic question?

what proof is there that Iran even has Sunburns? I have traced it back to a rumor that the Ukraine sold eight missiles to Iran in 1992 - as far I can see, it has never been substantiated. There doesn't seem to be much behind the idea.

[jpak]

28. No - Hezbollah hit and nearly sank an Israeli Saar-5 corvette - one of their best.

and killed 4 Israeli sailors.

[Solo_in_MD]

35. They got the freighter about the same time...

after which the Israelis turned on the their auto air defenses, enlarged the security zone at that end of the Med for aircraft (an issue latter), and destroyed every working radar in Lebanon.

[oblivious]

45. Thanks for the debunking info.

[Strelnikov_]

52. "The Sa'ar 5 ships are considered the Israeli fleet's most advanced surface ships"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27ar_5-class_missile_boat

Sounds like they about lost it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Hanit

Reportedly, the missile started a fire aboard the ship and critically damaged the vessel's steering capability, requiring it to be towed out of the danger zone. A large explosion caused the landing pad to cave in and be engulfed in flames that threatened the aviation fuel storage below, and flames were not fully extinguished until several hours later.



Crew error, equipment malfunctions, etc. etc. ASM's have to be the luckiest weapon ever created. Or, maybe . . .

[sanskritwarrior]

76. LOL

a corvette's defense systems versus a frigate or destroyer.......or a Carrier, now that sir is comedy.......Give me a rock and a catapult and I could get through to a corvette........

[jpak]

85. The Saar-5 has better missile defenses than most US frigates

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/saar5/Saar5.html

Stealthy hull geometry

Barak quick reaction SAM system

Phalanx gun system

Rafael (and other) jamming systems

Better be a big rock yer throwin'...

[sanskritwarrior]

100. Oh noes........

SAM's, CIWS and a halfway decent radar????

:)

Again to compare a Corvette's defenses to a Frigate, destroyer or Carrier is comical on the surface.......

[jpak]

124. Yes, and the I-raqi Exocet attack on the USS Stark was a real laughfest

37 sailors dead

62 wounded

[sanskritwarrior]

148. No Aegis radar

so of course it wasn't hard......

[teryang]

151. The ship was unprepared for the attack but could have defended

...except that it was not in the proper countermeasure posture. In other words, they underestimated the threat. According to defense expert Tony Cordesman in his review of the recent Lebanese invasion by Israel, the Israeli vessel had state of the art anti-missile capabilities.

[anotherdrew]

88. 'sunburn' is probably not it, worry more about YAKHONT (SS-N-26) ASCM

all the sunburn talk is probably disinfo, it's an old design
we wouldn't be leisurely shooting down one for target practice, there'd be 10 or more inbound simultaneously, still think it's a cakewalk to defend against?

[jpak]

90. No - the SS-N-22 Sunburn/Moskit is in wide service with the Russian Navy

Hardly "bunk"...

It has a speed of Mach 2+ and is a formidible anti-ship missile that was designed to defeat US anti-missile systems Aegis/Phalanx/RAM.

The only questions are - does Iran have them?? How many and what version????

[hack89]

97. I don't think Iran has them.

if you dig into it, all you find is an unsubstantiated rumor that Ukraine sold them eight missiles in 1992.

[jpak]

121. I don't think they have them either

What Iran *supposed* bought from the Ukraine were air-launched AS-15 (Kh-55) "Kent" cruise missiles.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/as-15.htm

It is also doubtful that they are in any kind of operational condition...

[hack89]

44. Radars are no good for several reasons

1. Limited range. On a good day in the Gulf perhaps 20 - 30 miles - can be a lot worse if there is a lot of dust in the air. The carries would simply stay out of radar range.

2. No Identification ability. There is a lot of stuff floating around the Gulf including supertankers as big as a carrier. On your radar scope all you would see is a bunch of blips - which one is the carrier? Without a visual ID you would have no idea what to shoot at.

3. They are easy to destroy or jam. Fixed radar sites would be the first targets of the war. Mobile sites would be jammed and shot at within seconds of them radiating.

The merchant ships would be a concern if the Iranians decide to shoot first. If not, what the US would do is simply inspect, divert and (if they didn't obey) destroy any ship that came within a certain distance of the carrier.

[anotherdrew]

89. electro-optical guidence is an option that could be in use

modern systems could 'see' the target and watch it for the whole up to 300km flight.

[hack89]

98. Not really,

the issue is finding the target before the missile is launched. EO systems are not long range search systems - their range is horizon limited. And you wouldn't fire a missile with an EO system to find a target unless you had a very good idea where it is to start with - such sensors have a very narrow field of view and cannot see a very large area. Another huge problem with an EO missile seeker is that it has to link back to the launch control unit if you want a man in the loop capability - for long range missiles it has to be an aircraft due to line-of-sight problems. Iran does not have this capability. And if they did, such an aircraft would not survive very long.

[UnyieldingHierophant]

40. and get through the ships missle defenses*

*

[okieinpain]

48. I thought some of these missiles had built-in guidance. and also

doesn't being in the that gulf make it hard for the big ships to maneuver

[hack89]

50. The problem is the missile is told ...

The missile is told to go to a point and turn on its radar. It then searches a relatively small area around that point (say 5 miles by 5 miles) and attacks the first ship it detects. The problem is twofold: First you have to have good location data on the target to determine the initial aim point. Secondly, you have to account for all the other ships in the area - the Gulf is full of shipping and a smart carrier captain would stay close to passing oil tankers or oil rig. Remember that the missile will attack the first ship it sees in its target box.

See my post 44 additional comments.

[daleo]

61. Sounds like using human shields

"the Gulf is full of shipping and a smart carrier captain would stay close to passing oil tankers or oil rig."

That's pretty high tech.

[jollyreaper2112]

158. I disagree

The smart captain would stay the hell away from civvie shipping because that would be the quarter he would expect the attack to come from. Iran doesn't have regiments of backfire bombers like the Soviets did. If I were Iran, I'd be fitting up civvie ships with launchers. Get close enough, point towards the fleet, fire. Some of these missiles have home-on-jam features so they should just be able to ride in the beam of the air search radars just as easily.

If I were a USN commander, my fear would be that the Iranians would hide their civvie missile boats in amongst the rest of the surface clutter and take potshots from there. What do you do then, sink everything on the sea that isn't blue? Yeah, that's going to go over real well internationally.

There's also the concern of the Iranian subs. They have four ex-Soviet subs, Kilo class I believe. Diesel-electrics are damn quiet when running off batteries. The last thing you want is for them to get close under the cover of civilian traffic and start popping torps.

You want to know what my nightmare scenario would be if I were an admiral? Transiting canals. The problem the Iranians face, as pointed out here, is that you have to be able to locate the target and get your missile or torpedo close enough to engage. That's tough, especially when you make it obvious you are an attacker. But what if you lie in ambush instead? The seas are open so there are few points where you can lie in wait knowing you can get the drop on a target. But there are canals, straits, certain areas you KNOW ships have to travel through and on very predictable courses.

I remembered reading about torpedo mines the USN and Soviet navies were working on back in the Cold War. A sub could deploy the weapon in advance and leave it sitting on the floor of a harbor or channel. At a predetermined time, the device would go active and passive sonar would start scanning. Once it located a ship whose signature matched a list of valid targets stored in its database, the torpedo would then deploy and close with the target. You don't even need a sub in the area for this to work.

Do the Iranians have a weapon like that? Unknown. But Persians and Arabs seem to have a thing for suicide ops so they could just use the sub instead of remote mines. Plunk the Kilo down where the carrier has to transit, run silent, and when the target is in range, start firing torpeodes. The Iranians wouldn't have to sink every ship in the fleet, they wouldn't even have to sink the carrier. They just need to scare us enough to keep those ships out of the area and then we'd be hamstrung.

[Solo_in_MD]

53. Missiles like these only terminal guidance sensors

To keep costs down and because there is no operator to interpret what is "seen" the sensor in a missile is fairly crude (relatively speaking). Typical anti surface missiles are given a location to fly to and then start looking. US weapons use GPS, other nations have other, less accurate approaches to mid course navigation. Once it gets to a designated point, the sensor is turned on and the weapon will home in on what it sees. Notionally it can not tell size, shape, or nationality, and will attack the first vessel it sees. To get around this there has been some efforts to develop sensors which look for unique signatures (specific IR spectrum or minimum radar return), but that it is also risky to bet that your enemy will always have that signature. It most cases, Soviet ASMs are designed to hit the first thing it sees. This goes a long with their doctrine of simple, cheap, and plentiful. Soviet ASMs were designed to be manned and used by short term conscripts or foreign nationals with minimal training. Their seekers, especially export versions were about as I described above.

[jollyreaper2112]

159. uh

Manned antiship missiles? Sorry, that's Japan, circa WWII. :) You mean cheap and plentiful launch platforms? Yeah, that was their intention. Their Oscar subs always scared me, massive powerful cruise missiles designed to take out a carrier battle-group. What's the thing they say, "you have to be luck 100% of the time, I only have to be lucky once?" One solid missile strike and it's lights out for a destroyer or frigate. It might take several to sink a carrier but I think even one would likely mean the end of flight operations. A carrier heading back for repairs is as good as sunk as far as most people are concerned.

[jpak]

86. An Iranian UAV overflew/observed the Ronald Reagan for 15+ minutes before detection

They can target US ships in the Gulf...

They also have minisubs and semisubmersible boats that can track US ships as well...

[sweetheart]

9. the installations are impressive

A bit of iran's defenses are visible on google earth:


This installation is near the straights of hormuz.
A smart military respects one's opposition, even if it is bankruptcy.

[leveymg]

11. Anybody have any idea what the hell this thing is?

Looks like a seawall or pillboxes.

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply hide their ASM launchers in caves and under cottage roofs?

[Solo_in_MD]

43. or prepared artliery positions, also known as submuntion magnets

[leveymg]

10. There's no reason to place anything bigger than escorts and minesweepers inside the Gulf

There are plenty of nice airstrips surrounding Iran from which to launch strikes, if that's what they want to do.

Any Admiral who allowed a carrier through the Straits -- in time of actual war -- should be hung from the tallest radome.

The threat of Iranian ASMs is to commercial tankers.

The second carrier in the area is totally insignificant. Just another hostile gesture, at this point.

[leftchick]

12. Are there are two US carrier groups in the gulf right now?

Or is one still on its way? Are they actually in the gulf as you suggest? I had really hoped the Iranian Mullahs would have ignored the saber rattling of bush instead of ratcheting up the heat. :(

[daleo]

32. I think their return saber rattling was for everyone but the Bush admin

They realize the admin is a lost cause, but it can't hurt to let the Congress, U.S. population and rest of the world know this won't be a cake walk.

[The Stranger]

13. Why does MSM refer to U.S. "military officials," but to Iran's counterparts as"Revolutionary Guards"

Is that part of the fear campaign?

[Solo_in_MD]

22. No there are two major parallel parts of the Iranian military

The Revolutionary Guard and the regular forces. Its a power balance left over from the revolution. The IRG held these maneuvers.

[The Stranger]

25. There are major parallel parts of the U.S. military as well, but, again, MSM does not distinguish

when the Navy Seals or the Green Berets are shooting at something. Or worse, when a statement is made, it is by "U.S. military officials," as my prior post states.

What you don't want to admit is that the very term "Revolutionary Guards" is loaded with meaning and conveys a sense of fear and dread.

The reality of the situation is likely that you wouldn't be able to tell on the street any one of these "Revolutionary Guards" from any other fool in the Iranian military.

[Solo_in_MD]

33. You need to read up more on the IRG also known as the Pasdaran

They are a competitive organization to the regular military, and done that way to keep the other in check and not allow a potential military coup (AKA protect the revolution). They are parallel in that they both have air/sea/land units. There is also a great deal of animosity between them and the regular military. Regularly Iranian military wear clear uniforms, the IRG, officially has uniforms though they are rarely worn except by the leaders and most member are not even issued them.

The press release that the recent stories were based on cited the IRG so to accuse those who use the term as scaremongering is specious.

Your analogy of SEALs vs Army Special Forces is also flawed. Different advanced training, different missions, though they do overlap and for that matter have a fair amount of respect for each other. They are also not large scale units.

Some articles on the IRG:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guards_Corps
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/qods.htm
http://www.janes.co.uk/defence/news/jwar/jwar060829_1_n.shtml

[The Stranger]

59. Iran is a backwards nation and poses no threat to the U.S., even your curious research doesn't

dispute that.

And all of the talk about these mean old "Revolutionary Guards" is utterly unadulterated fear propaganda intended to launch yet another illegal war.

[Sterling]

68. Why change the subject?

You were trying to argue two very misguided opinions. One that there is no difference between the Iranian Reg Army and the RG units. Then that somehow the media intentionally uses these terms to make the Iranians look bad and never differentiates between different branches/units of our own military. I could spend all night trying to explain how many ways this is wrong.

The media here often points when for example a marine/navy chopper is shot down, or a Ranger Unit or Seal team or what have you is responsible for a particular mission. They don't try to hide it, in fact we produce entire series's on TV based on the military and different organizations within the MIC.

The poster you were arguing with provided you with all the info you need on the Iranian military and instead of making use of it and broadening your horizons you ignored it and pretended he was arguing a completely different point. This kind of intellectual dishonesty and laziness is frustrating and adds nothing to the discussion.

[Solo_in_MD]

71. I corrected your erroneous statement that the IRG could not be told from regular Iranian military

I made no assertion as to the "backwardness" of Iran or the effectiveness of its regular military or the Pasdaran. Not sure how providing facts about how the Iranian leaders have structured their military is fear propaganda intended to launch another war.

[ShortnFiery]

116. No, you confuse IRAN with IRAQ. That country with the N, is a formidable opponent! n/t

[daleo]

34. Didn't they do this with the Iraq buildup too?

I recall the phrase "the elite Republican Guard" being used all the time.

[Sterling]

69. Seriously, you too? People we don't name other countries

Military organizations. We don't organize them either. Why are people here pretending to be so thick they think these are terms "the media" has made up for propaganda purposes? It's wacky.

[daleo]

135. It's not a matter of making things up

It's a matter of what is emphasized. There is often a range of words available, and words are often chosen carefully for emotional effect.

[slackmaster]

14. Have they released that herbal cure for AIDS yet?

:nuke:

[kingoth]

17. no cure

Heck no they're not gonna give that one away for free, they're either lying or they're hoping some country will purchase the "cure"

[kingoth]

16. hmmmmm....

Our fleet has both gun and laser missile defense systems on all ships run by computer so worry not about launched missiles its the bombs delivered via small boats that get to US, but I believe we now have learned from our past experiences bout' that too. We also have on station multiple boomer's on site that will not hesitate to launch tomahawks till their magazines are all empty. As Bill Clinton proved in Afghanistan in the past.

[Ezlivin]

30. "[R]un by computer..."

"Fire the missiles!" cried the Captain.

"Wait a second. I've got to reboot in order to install the latest patch," replied the missile tech.

We are completely fascinated and in thrall of our technological prowess. So was the USS Long Beach when my creaky old boat, the USS Skate, engaged it in a mock battle. It was armed with the latest and greatest ASW (anti-submarine warfare) and was up against the oldest nuclear submarine in the fleet, with two (!) noisy screws, slower submerged running speed and no state-of-the-art electronics.

We sank the USS Long Beach quickly, then dispatched several other surface ships ("targets" to us). Medals awarded, we scampered up the coast for some nice liberty in Victoria, B.C.

In the end it's all about the warrior and tactics. Read The Phantom Soldier: The Enemy's Answer to U.S. Firepower to get a picture of asymmetrical warfare (or how we can get our ass handed to us by some low-tech country).

[oblivious]

47. Or "fire the missiles" screamed the captain. "We're all out sir."

Didn't that happen in Shock and Awe? They finally ran out of missiles.

[NickB79]

31. Laser missile defense?

Last I read, we still relied on Phalanx Gatling guns and RAM missile launchers. What laser defenses are there?

[Solo_in_MD]

37. There is more than that

Its a layered defense and it assumes that the missiles:
- Work
- Have targeting information
- Are not destroyed before launch

[NickB79]

64. Ok, so it's not like there are actual laser cannons on battleships?

That's all I wanted to know, what laser-based weapons we have that can shoot down missiles.

[Chantico]

18. Appears inevitable.

It has been decided there will be more war. No one can stop it. Perhaps it is Humans time to die off. Massive mental illness has prevailed resulting in two groups: Psychotic Maniacs bent on death and destruction and the timid rabbits who do nothing to stop them.

[ShortnFiery]

118. No, The People, can get CONGRESS off their fat asses and have

them reign in The Executive Branch!

Even if a war starts, WE THE PEOPLE, do NOT have to climb aboard the PNAC perpetual War Machine. We can resist, we will resist. :patriot:

[Solo_in_MD]

23. Try this this thread where the entire carrier vs SSM was covered

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2720978&mesg_id=2720978

The gist of it is that hitting carriers with SSMs is a whole lot harder than most people realize, and it is exactly what the USN has trained to defened against for the last 20+ years.

[4dsc]

56. Its not about hitting our ships

All the Iranians have to do is sink "other" types of ship's aka huge tankers to close the Strait of Hormuz.. Once that is done its all over for our economy.. They could blockade the strait's and we'd be in a world of hurt.. A slow hurt for sure..

[Sterling]

94. You are right, would more likely target freight in the gulf.

It would certainly cause economic havoc for a short time. I don't think the Iranians could sustain a constant threat to the PG however as once the started attacking shipping the US would target there missile sites and over a period of days, maybe weeks, degrade their capabilities to the point they can no longer project a threat into the Gulf.

[gratuitous]

24. Compare and contrast, class

When threatened with imminent invasion over allegations of "weapons of mass destruction" that it didn't have, Iraq protested that it didn't have any such weapons.

When threatened with imminent invasion over allegations of nuclear capability that it does not have, Iran says it has missiles capable of hitting and sinking "big warships."

Watch and learn.

[mc jazz]

54. sunburns not 'debunked'

lol, it's funny how Americans dismiss Russian tech as 'old soviet' junk
Yeah, the same 'junk' that easily destroyed latest Isreali tanks in Lebanon last year

The question is one of tactics, the USN can stay outside the gulf but surely once Iran blocks the straight you'd have to sail in and do something?

[Strelnikov_]

57. If the best equipment always wins, we would be saying 'Mein Fuhrer'

Oh, wait . . .

As you say, tactics, and quantity.

If all Iran has is a small stock of ASM missiles, manageable. But what if they have a large stockpile, as has been suggested?

[mc jazz]

58. yes

it's the unknowns that make it hard to work out, hope centcom have better information than me!
Incidently the missile they just tested was a Raad, a 50's era soviet era thing. But them Iranians been known to upgrade their old stuff, so who knows how effective it is
I just have this feeling this isn't going to go according to plan... and we got our minesweepers going into that straight, seems crazy to me

[TheWatcher]

60. But According to a couple of Posters on DU, Everyone else's Military

Is shit, doesn't function, and ours is teh Rulez, an unstoppable, invincible juggernaut that wins by merely existing, so we shouldn't even worry about what anyone else has. We should all sit back and watch the carnage, and just bask in our mightiness, as we swing the mighty penis of artillery laden democracy all across the heathen lands.

Enough of this boring War stuff. We should concentrate on the more important things.

Like what's on American Idol, and Brittney's latest public flashing.

Or finding out if Anna Nicole will be bare-breasted in an Open Casket Viewing so those who didn't have the cash to pay for the Magazines back in the day can finally see what they were missing.

:sarcasm:

[oblivious]

62. That's a memorable metaphor.

[Sterling]

70. We do spend enough money that ours "should" be better?

Our military is the best at a lot of things. That however does not mean that we are invincible and should go around starting wars with the rest of the world.

I do however see that some here would prefer to see our military defeated and weak. So bad to the point they are willing to believe in the craziest stuff as long as it sounds like bad news for the US military.

[Porcupine]

78. Sometimes defeat is better than victory for a nation.

Imagine if Germany had been defeated by France in the early days of WWI or WWII. How many lives would that have ultimately saved?

What if the US had been able to get it's bombers into the air before the Pearl Harbor attack? They might have caught the Japanese carrier group and crushed it. How many Japanese lives would have been saved by an early humiliation?

The US is now in the position of repeatedly starting wars of choice in order to secure oil. (shades of Japan 1941) We are facing defeat in Iraq and a humiliating stalemate in Afghanistan. Now the Bush administration is trying to engineer an attack on Iran in order to bolster Israeli and Saudi interests in the region. Perhaps an early defeat would bring US forces home and focus the nation on domestic issues.

I don't want US sailors to be dead or injured. I would prefer that we remove the bulk of US Navy forces from the Persian Gulf. They are not there to help in the Iraq conflict. What they are they for is probably a planned mass murder to promote a political faction in the US. Victory in this case would be a tragedy for the nation.

[Sterling]

93. Sorry, We are not the Nazi's

I don't think a more powerful Iran armed with nukes is a good thing for anybody. Let us stick to the current reality on the ground and stop reaching for metaphors to support our arguments?

We are talking about Iran, whose leaders regularly deny the Holocaust, threaten to destroy Israel and still put homosexuals to death. We are certainly not talking about France. You think the world is better served by this Iranian government becoming an atomic power?

[Porcupine]

101. Over 2 Million Iraqi dead due to US war and sanctions

Over 2 Million refugees displaced due to the Iraq war. A war of choice. The US has nuclear weapons.

http://radioislam.org/historia/zionism/index_iraq.html

The Islamic world disagrees with you. They have a different count of the dead than the BFEE and they are going with their own numbers.

Israel is a fascist state that holds a population captive in conditions frequently compared to the Warsaw ghetto. It has nuclear weapons.

Pakistan is a fascist Islamic state that is proven to support the Taliban and tolerate Al Quaeda operatives within it's territory. It has nuclear weapons.

Why shouldn't the Iranians have nuclear weapons? Any claim of ours to a moral high ground is now a joke to the rest of the world. We are in the Middle East to steal oil; period.

Weapons systems exist that can attack US carrier groups without detection. Very slow, quiet underwater robots, small stealthy arial drones. The Iranians only have to blow up a single aircraft on the deck of a carrier to claim a victory. We have to eliminate every single bunker that they could threaten the Straits of Hormuz with. One tanker sunk in the right place and the US is screwed.

[Pavulon]

102. Weapon systems exist

to extinguish all human life in Persia. That is not going to happen. If they have nuclear weapons they will be treated like the north Koreans. Any overt military threat, like shooting rockets towards Hawaii during a shuttle launch, will be now met with nuclear retaliation. Missiles will cross in flight. There ordinance may go boom, ours will for sure.

That act of attacking a navy ship would start a war they would lose. Not a war where we win hearts and minds, paint schools, or build roads. That would start a war where we destroy public works, military targets and potentially kill cities.

Europe has no interest in a nuclear iran, France has overtly threatened the use of nuclear weapons. They fall under the range of the Iranian ICBM.

Iran signed the NPT if it wishes to withdraw from that treaty and build implosion bombs it can at any time. Until then it has to play by the rules.

[Porcupine]

105. Let's just go straight to the Nukes. That'll work.

The US could turn all of Persia into a glassy plain but other interested parties would object. Then our economy would go straight into the toilet.

I'm not sure how many stealthy whatever's that go boom Iran has. I'm sure they are trying to build more than they have. We don't get to nuke Iran and have commercial aviation or SUV's.

The idiot in charge, encouraged by Israel and AIPAC controlled Dem. Senators is probably going to do the stupidest possible thing. But don't think it will work to our advantage.

[Pavulon]

107. No one is nuking anyone

Europe has a massive interest in a non nuclear iran. The us will not launch a first strike. It will defend israel if it is hit first. Iran does not supply the us with oil. We buy from canada, mexico, and the saudis.

This is a repeater thread. Every month, war with iran. Search it out. So far no war....

[ShortnFiery]

119. The World is much more concerned about OUR Sanity, not Iran's

You've been listening to too much M$M propaganda.

The Iranians are HUMAN and they will use *nukes* for the same reason we do: as a deterrent.

If we attack Iran in any way, all hell's going to break loose across the Middle East Arena.

It's OUR EXECUTIVE BRANCH that is insanely sending a Third Carrier Group to the Persian Gulf in the OVERT mission to bomb the hell out of Iran.

If Congress does not stop the INSANITY of Our Unitary Executive's warmongering, The United States of America will be considered "The Nazi Nation" of the 21st Century.

[TheWatcher]

139. Bullshit. No one wants to see our Military defeated and weakened.

Our Military has ALREADY been weakened, stretched too thin, and depleted by these monsters who run our government.

It is merely used as cannon fodder to fuel endless war for endless war-profiteering.

I am not against the Military, my friend. My Grandfather was a World War II Vet, so get your assumptions straight.

I am pissed off at the way it is being USED.

They don't give a shit about our soldiers. They don't "Support The Troops." They didn't even provide them with the equipment or troop levels needed to get the job done.

This is about profit and control.

Our country NEEDS to be stopped from what we are doing.

The people running our country need to be REMOVED, legally and peacefully, tried, and incarcerated for the rest of their natural lives.

It's that simple.

What some of us need to do is quit bloviating about how tough we are, what bad asses we are, how our dicks are bigger than anyone else's, and quit fantasizing and Armchair Quarterbacking wars that have not yet happened and DO NOT NEED TO HAPPEN.

Wake Up.

This needs to end.

And OUR COUNTRY needs to stop itself before it comes down to the rest of the world putting a stop to it.

We need to clean house immediately.

[Strelnikov_]

73. The 'Religion Of Force'

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=164164

The first -- the bedrock faith of the Bush administration and its neocon supporters since September 12, 2001 -- is the religion of force. Our self-styled "wartime" Commander-in-Chief, and the Vice President head an administration that has long been in love not just with the American armed forces, but with the dazzling military possibilities that seemed open to them as leaders of the last standing superpower. Its high-tech destructive capabilities, they believed, gave them the power to go it alone in the world, shocking and awing a post-Cold War assemblage of lesser states into eternal submission. Force -- the threat of it, the application of it -- was the summa cum laude of their go-it-alone university of power (vividly demonstrated, at a theoretical level, in the single most important strategic document of these last years, their 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States of America).

. . .

In the case of a possible future assault on Iran, the larger fundamentalism of the Church of Force will surely combine with the only significant force the Pentagon has on hand -- air power. The belief in air power's ability to fell regimes and change the political essentials, to bring whole peoples to their knees, is long-lasting and deep-seated. Since well before World War II, we've been living with a belief system in which bombing others, including civilian populations, is a "strategic" thing to do; in which air power can, in relatively swift measure, break the "will" not just of the enemy, but of that enemy's society; and in which air power is the royal path to victory.

That this has not proven so; that, most recently, it did not prove so in Afghanistan, in shock-and-awe Iraq, or in Israel's air assault last summer on Lebanon matters little. Faith in the efficacy of air power (as opposed to its barbarism) is fundamentalist in nature and so not disprovable by the facts on the rubble-strewn, cratered ground.

[martymar64]

81. We have a weak spot

Most of our military might is dependent on satellites for targeting, communications, etc. The Chinese are now able to destroy satellites with missiles. They have successfully tested this capability.

Who is to say that the Chinese wouldn't intervene on behalf of their trading partner Iran in the case of warfare breaking out and strike a blinding blow to US forces? This could change the equation dramatically.

[Sterling]

96. Chinese wouldn't intervene on behalf of their trading partner Iran

China would have a lot to lose by such an action. It's really not China's style, they would be more likely to attack Taiwan while we are busy in Iran but even that is questionable China has a long view of world events and planning and seems more likely to wait and let us wear ourselves thin and pick up the pieces when all is said and done.

[martymar64]

117. They could take out our satellites in their action against Taiwan

If it disrupts our actions in the Middle East? Oh well . . .

[Pavulon]

134. That would start an open

war. The us would react if out satellites were attacked.

[martymar64]

145. Maybe so, but its a war we started

We attacked a sovereign nation and we're preparing to invade another one. We have become the Third Reich and every American is at fault, just as all Germans were to blame for Hitler. Bush wants to destroy the whole world and bring about Armageddon. If we continue on this path, it's only a matter of time before every other nation lines up against us and brings the war to our shores. History has proven that empires never last. The Egyptians, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Soviets and the Nazis, they all have fallen. And so shall we.

[kingoth]

66. it was "suggested" that Saddam had WMD's too...

[Solo_in_MD]

72. Then you have not been keeping current

Sunburns and its cousins are used as training targets by they USN and others. The Russians were glad to sell them. Read the prior threads as well.

Hezbollah had access to and used current production anti tank rounds and the do work. Then again, in urban situations, a WWII bazooka would have been effective. However, that is not the same as a SSMs and urban street fighting is not the same an attack against a flotilla

Russia has some very good equipment. They have not been doing much in the way of SSMs and have been focusing their investment in aircraft, some of which are quite respectable.

[sanskritwarrior]

77. The same junk

we lit up on our way to Baghdad in 03......Soviet equipment is just that......Junk.......Israeli stuff is 60's/70's platforms with newer technology bolted on......Disabling a merkava aint a challenge, disabling an Abrams on the other hand takes special warheads or a lucky hit on an angle in the armor. forgive me, I've fought Soviet crap in the hands of not well trained forces, it's laughable when people try to fear monger me about Soviet equipment.

[Porcupine]

136. 20 Abrams tanks were destroyed in Iraq to date.

That's a lot of very expensive hardware that mysteriously went bye-bye. You can believe that if an Abrams tank can be recovered after a crew lost and listed as damaged/repaired it is. Those tanks were destroyed.

Did "soveit junk" do that too?

[Pavulon]

138. Nope the crews do...

When a tank is damaged or breaks down and can not be recovered because of enemy fire it is destroyed by the crew or by other tanks. Not one tank has been lost to enemy tank fire in iraq to date..

[Porcupine]

140. What the AC breaks down and they trash the tank? Not likely.

Something that renders a tank immobile and beyond the reach of a recovery team is a victory for the other side.

Tank still destroyed. How much do those things cost?

[Pavulon]

142. A bunch

however they weigh more. So if they get stuck, throw a track, or break and people are shooting they are left and burned or blown up by other tanks.

[sanskritwarrior]

147. Exactly

to date not one single Abrams has been lost to enemy fire and the soviet equipment has and always will be crap.

[jollyreaper2112]

160. no shit

The Iraqis don't have tanks now. But what they do have are nice and big IED's. Set off a big enough explosion near a tank, you destroy it. That's happened several times. There are also ATGM's newly on the market that can defeat Abrams armor. There were talk of it during the unitial invasion. I haven't heard much of it since so one can assume that the (presumably) russian arms companies haven't sold any more to the locals.

[oblivious]

143. "disabling an Abrams ... takes special warheads or a lucky hit on an angle in the armor"

Really? Richard Clark claims even these homemade IEDs can disable an Abrams'

"They penetrate the armor of an M1 Abrams tank," Clarke says. "They're shape charges. They go through anything, and they are very lethal." There is currently no real defense against the weapons, he says.



Anatomy of a Bomb

The explosives also can be made from plastic and tin cans, and the rear is sealed with a back plate or concrete.
(ABC News)

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1692347&page=1

[VTMechEngr]

63. Which is exactly why we build Submarines!

Nuclear subs can hide off an enemy coast, and listen and observe enemy operations without being vulnerable to radar and missiles. And modern subs are extremely difficult to find, making it unlikely an enemy would be able to locate them and fire at them with a torpedo. The attack subs carry cruise missiles (non-nuke) that can hit most of the Earth's land surface.


When we discovered that missiles were too effective against our planes, we turned to stealth. For ships, we already have that machine.

[ohio2007]

67. But what if big oil tankers or container ships get hit by mistake ?

<snip>...can hit different kinds of big warships in all of the Persian Gulf, all of the Sea of Oman and the north of the Indian Ocean...<snip>

just saying, of the thousands of surface contacts on any given day in the Gulf, Sea of Oman and in the north Indian Ocean what are the odds they will get a lock on the very few "big warships"

[Solo_in_MD]

74. It won't be a mistake...

Even the maddest of the mullahs will not order a direct attack on a USN Battle Group. There are cheaper and more effective ways to do it, such as attacking shipping and blocking the straights.

[martymar64]

82. Then when the Straits of Hormuz are blocked

Then so is the supply line. What will happen when the Navy can't feed or resupply it's troops or the troops on the ground in Iraq? Persian missiles can still hit refineries in Kuwait, SA, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman and the UAE. They can also target Dohar, when our command structure resides. In such a target -rich environment, there's not enough Patriots to go around. Iran also has alot more foot soldiers that it can pour across the border into Iraq to kill US soldiers.
My point is don't be overconfident about technological prowess, it didn't win it for Hitler in WW2, it didn't win it for France at Dien Bien Phu, and it didn't win it for us in Vietnam. If we are foolish enough to risk ruining the economy of the entire world to fulfill our little wargasm, the rest of the world could possibly unite against us and make our lives a living hell. China and Russia are waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces.

[ohio2007]

84. An Iranian revolution will be the result of closing the straits

70% of their own livelihood ( ie, oil, import/export ) transits the straits.
mullahs can't afford to lock down so many coastal towns as that would bleed them dry. Their real power base lies in controlling Tehran and dispatching loyal forces into putting down insurrections by those who earn their living via open sea lanes would be putting nails in their coffins.

[jpak]

87. LOL!!!111

They will be dancing in the streets and throwing flowers at the feet of their new masters Cheney and Bush.

I've never heard anything like this before - amazing insight!!!111

[ohio2007]

111. here is some insight

the universe doesn't revolve around a chair in an oval office situated inside the DC beltway.

I pinched this map from another poster on another thread.
btw, Nice map find "oblivious" .
For those who are convinced the mullahs hold an iron grip on their own,united and rabidly loyal allah fearing subjects,
just have a look outside their beltway.
This map makes Tehran look more like a medieval city state and on the fringe are those who feel Shia is an inferior form of Islam.
The map doesn't show the mix located to the north in the ex Soviet republics where school children made news a few years back.
Chinese western province muslim issues are not part of the map either so,
we can turn a blind eye to what the Great Wal*Mart of China does out there in their quest for oil links.

Note that Oman (an Arab league country and member of their defense pact) is situated on the straits of Hormuz.
Their side is the deep water channel used by all but the smallest,shallow draft vessels.


I say again how can closing the channel help Iran ?
That would be like creating a pimple on the azz of China.
Do they want nudge China closer to an alliance with 'the great satan'?

it's a lose/lose situation with the UN deadline only ten days away now.

[ohio2007]

154. Bus bombed in southeast Iran, 18 dead

TEHRAN, Feb 14 (Reuters) - Eighteen people were killed on Wednesday when a bomb exploded next to a bus in the southeastern city of Zahedan, the official IRNA news agency reported.

IRNA said the bomb was hidden in a car by "armed rebels and attackers" and exploded as the bus, belonging to the ground forces of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, passed by. The agency initially said the bomb was in the bus.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2730204


The sunni dominated city is near enough the Paki/Afghan border to raise speculation as to where the drug dealers are getting their explosive expertise that threatens the central government in Tehran
support.

[Strelnikov_]

92. Pretty much the way I see it. Oil is our 'ball bearing' they will target

In other words, unlimited liquid-fuel powered personal transportation in the United States, just a memory.

On the plus side, we still produce a lot of oil (40% of our consumption) domestically. We won't starve. But with a 10 gal/month gasoline ration, I think SUV sales may take a hit.

Why am I so pessimistic, when the Persian Gulf region has survived a revolution and two major wars in the last 28 years without a catastrophic disruption? This time we are not talking nation-states locking horns. In the GOP’s ‘War On Terror’, a war to facilitate the acquisition of petroleum resources for their masters in ‘Big-Oil’, they have implemented a divide-and-conquer strategy of Sunni v. Shia. An attack on Iran, I am afraid, may spark passions that, as in Iraq, once unleashed, cannot be controlled.

And as for these posts that Iran will have domestic trouble if they close down Gulf oil transshipment/production. Now which of the two countries do you think will have more domestic problems:

- A populace where the majority, although desiring more freedoms, has just been subjected to a major bombing campaign, killing many of their countrymen, perpetrated by a superpower that has been aggressively hostile toward their interests the last 28 years during which time a majority of the population has suffered hardship.

- A populace where the majority is barely aware that there is a war going on, feel that the easy motoring fast-food life is a birthright, and inhabit a living arrangement that requires the copious consumption of petroleum products (relative to the rest of the world) to survive.

As a follower of Diamond and Tainter, the answer is clear. Who is entering into conflict by choice, has the most to lose, and is the most dependant on a thin lifeline to keep all aspects of their economy, already in hock to other countries, afloat. The question is, is our economy about to do a Humpty Dumpty . . .

Iran, on the other had, simply loses their access to foreign capital, for a time.


Now then, you know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the petroleum supply, the petroleum supply from the Middle East, sudden loss of the Middle East supply. Well now, what happened is . . one of our Presidents, he had a sort of . . .well, he went a little funny in the head . . you know . . just a little . . funny. And, ah . . he went and did a silly thing . . Well, I'll tell you what he did. He ordered his planes . . to attack Iran . .

[martymar64]

112. Thanks for your elaboration

The Straits of Hormuz is the string holding the Sword of Damocles over our heads.

[Sterling]

95. Iran could not "block" the straits, they could only cause havoc

to a small amount of shipping for a very short period of time. The poster who points out this slits their throat more than anyone else's is correct. I don't know if it would cause a full on revolt but it would not help their long term position at home or internationally.

[martymar64]

113. They can block the Straits

The Straits are extremely narrow and much of it is very shallow, too shallow for oil supertankers. If several of those supertankers were to sink right in the middle of the Straits, the movement of oil will stop. A revolt won't happen because there are no viable alternatives to the current government. The only alternative is the Pahlevi family and we all know what happened when they were in power. No one in Iran would want the return of SAVAK. They underwent much worse hardship during the Iran-Iraq war, where they were not in control of Abadan and much of that richest oil-producing region. They may encounter some additional hardships, but the US will encounter catastrophic hardships. We could look forward to getting NO OIL form Kuwait, SA, Qatar and Bahrain. Gas will shoot up to $10+/ gal. Think of the domestic repercussions that are likely to happen here. Much worse than anything Iran will experience. If you think differently, keep cheerleading for some more shock & awe and see what happens.

[ShortnFiery]

120. If our Idiot King gets away with bombing Iran, the present aftermath

in Iraq will look like a Boy Scout Jamboree when compared to all the death and destruction that we (it's our Idiot King) unleash THROUGHOUT THE WORLD! :grr: :nuke:

Taiwan? China will soon own your ass.

Korea? The US is tied up, how about another invasion?

Anyone else want to do some mischief? Invade? Occupy?

Go for it! Nobody is watching. ;) :puke:

[ohio2007]

123. I bet they can't and won't plug the straits

http://www.britannica.com/oscar/print?articleId=106298&fullArticle=true&tocId=22739
The narrowest point is 35 miles and as deep as 360 ft in that area.The channel acts like a wind tunnel. A real test in the hydraulics of those currents will be the challenge.
Ships have been hit by ( Soviet made ) Iranian mines in the past. It will take a lot of tankers to create such a "crime against humanity" or nature if you prefer and hope for the best that enough tankers could remain in the right places to actually plug the gap without being ripped apart by fire,water pressure or currents.

Would the Koran or allah permit such a crime against the environment?
I know the UN would condemn such actions in a heartbeat but they can't create a resolution of eternal damnation as punishment.

They won't close the straits this year,next year or the year after even though people here think it will happen as early as this April.
I say it won't.
So, who is "on the clock" saying they will by a certain date this spring or summer ?
LOL

[martymar64]

125. What about our threat to use NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

Which would be the greater crime against humanity. Plus to address the Straits, How much of that 35 miles is navigable by supertankers?

[ohio2007]

127. Do you have a link?

where we threatened to nuke the Iranians?
plus, as for your 2nd question,
Google search the Straits for some answers.

[martymar64]

129. The threat to nuke the enrichment facilities is out there

Where have you been?
If you don't want to back up your point about the Straits, then don't.
I don't waste my time on warmongers.

[ohio2007]

132. I provided a link

I am still waiting for you to provide the story we are going to nuke Iran.

hmmm I wonder if I should waste any more time on this chickenhawk talk


/screed

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ohio2007]

83. Thats cutting their own throats

the mullahs know 70% of their own trade passes through the straits of Hormuz. That is a self imposed imbargo that will piss off their own sea faring traffic people
Their side of the straits is too shallow for any big tanker traffic to transit.They would have to go to war with the Arab league if they closed the southern side of the straits.
It's a lose / lose situation.

The mullahs are in "dire straits" and all this saber rattling isn't going to get the US Navy to attack Iranian soil.

[martymar64]

115. It's our side rattling the sabers.

If another country were to park their warships in the Gulf of Mexico and have 200k troops fighting in Mexico, the same reaction would result from us. Their rhetoric is a direct result of our hostile actions. The Gulf nations may not like the Straits being blocked but what choice would they have? The US has a knife to their throat already. They don't have armies that could do anything about it. And besides, having a ringside seat, they will see that the US fired the first shot starting the whole bloody mess. Bush along with Lieberman, Hillary and Edwards are dead set on starting this war and the whole world sees it for what it is, naked aggression to steal Iran's oil using the whole nuclear issue as a fig leaf. Israel must be laughing its ass off at our gullibility.

[ohio2007]

126. But the UN said Iran didn't have a nuclear program at all.

Wasn't it a shock to the world when that the new president of Iran made the breaking news announcement ?

So a threat to the worlds environment is an acceptable inconvenient truth of the secret program.


I'm sorry but many feel the destruction of only a few tankers is not acceptable even if some folks think it scores a paltry precious few political points in the short term.

[martymar64]

128. Nuclear Power does not equal nuclear weapons.

I'm sorry you think that a little bit of hostile rhetoric from Iran is good reason to drop nuclear weapons on them. The UN wouldn't look too kindly at that.

[ohio2007]

131. ?

OK, now you are saying "we" are going to nuke Tehran in a few months.

I guess this means you will not provide the link where "we" threatened to drop nukes on the deniers of the Holocaust and covert nuclear development.

They refused to go along with the Russian plan of supplying all the material required to make the Russian built reactors work


in exchange for returning the spent material.


I thought it was a great idea,providing full accountability. Why do you feel it wasn't ?

[Strelnikov_]

130. Umm . . . What the fuck are you talking about?

And why the picture of President-elect Gore?

[ohio2007]

133. here

The pic was supposed to be from this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2723833

Anybody recall what happened to the price of oil after the SOTU address ?
talk of alternative fuels was in the speech and during the next couple of days "BAM"
the price of oil drops

ANd why was that ?
This oil dependency has to stop.
Iran will get their nuke power and they will have to live withinn the framework of the responsibilities that come with it despite what Chirac said about the mullahs "off the record"

[Big Pappa]

109. Besides

what is the range of these missiles. A carrier 500 miles off the coast is pretty safe.

[ohio2007]

110. I'm surprised this article from the official Iranian news source

hasn't been posted. It's guaranteed to get shorts in a bind ;)

General says Iran is mass producing stealth drone
Iran-IRGC-Plane
Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi said here Saturday Iran has started mass producing and using a stealth drone with a range of 700 kilometers.

In an interview with Iranian Arabic news network "al-Alam" the general said the drone can be used in reconnaissance operations, information gathering, picture dispatching and film shooting.


<snip>
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0702112361005051.htm

I suppose breaking news from "unbiased" western sources is only quoted.


This stealth drone/missile is a great way to 'accidently' sink comercial vessels when in the mission was hunting big game . Point the finger at...oh...say, the great satan and or the little satan, the enemies of islam and all that is good in the world.

[ShortnFiery]

114. We need to stop the Military Industrial Complex from making all our

foreign policy decisions for The People of The United States.

There's no reason other than WAR why THREE CARRIER GROUPS are in the Persian Gulf Region.

You can't blame the Iranians for reacting accordingly to THE FACTS. :shrug:

We can only hope CONGRESS can catch a clue before it's too late. :nuke:

[USA No. 1]

137. Bush isn't satisfied getting our boys killed on land...

Now he wants them killed at sea. When does all this craziness end?

[TheWatcher]

141. It Ends When we stop them.

When they are REMOVED from office.

When we take our country back.

[reprobate]

146. I'm afraid the end of the Bush administration will do nothing to end

the rule of the military-industrial-congressional government.

The problem in a Capitalist system is that money buys power. This leads to the Capitalist controlling the government. That's the problem we face today.

The real problem lies in the way we allow our politicians to finance their campaigns. They spend fully half of their time convincing corporate money to contribute to them so they can be re-elected. Some call it begging for bribes. And of course, every bribe demands payback. In the case of defense contractors that means huge amounts of money going out from us to them. Then those same tax dollars flow from the defense contractor to the politician. It's a vicious circle. And every contract they get gives them more power.

All this really started at the end of WWII. For four years the defense industry had a cash cow that gave freely the milk of power. Now Japan and Germany were defeated. They were staring at the milk flow ending so they HAD to find a new enemy. Lo and behold, there was Russia and there was Joe Mcarthy and his Red Scare.

They had their new enemy and the money flowed like a new niagara. So they bought the best government they could get, and they still own it. NOTHING will change until we remove the power of the capitalist from government and that won't happen until we change the way we finance elections and buy those politicians ourselves.

Remember that both republicans and Democrats raise their money from the same corporations so expecting either party to end the money flow is about as effective as pissing into the wind.

[TheWatcher]

153. You Sir, Get It.

And Thank you for correcting my generalization.

Very insightful Post. And it is much needed.

[Doondoo]

149. bump

[lovuian]

152. our warships are sitting ducks in that narrow strait

Its a trap

[hack89]

155. Which is why they won't be in the straits when the shooting starts.nt

[mc jazz]

157. but what if Iran blocks the straight?

or mines it. Then won't our ships be forced to enter the straight, at least minesweepers and then the ships to escort them if not the aircraft carriers. It's still a trap because they could force ships into the straight simply by blocking it

[ohio2007]

161. Oman will protest to the Arab league

that Iran has entered their territorial waters and declared war against them. Iran will then have to explain their actions at the UN as to the declaration of war or unblock and exit the side that is in Oman's territory.

[Scurrilous]

156. Iran Revolutionary Guards: Unit engraved emblem on U.S. ship

<snip>

"A commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guards said Wednesday that a commando unit has engraved the military organization's emblem into the side panel of an American warship stationed in the Persian Gulf.

Nur Ali Shushkari, the head of the Revolutionary Guards ground forces, told Iranian pro-government news agencies that the symbol was etched onto the ship by the crew of a submarine that had managed to reach the U.S. vessel without detection by radar.

Shushkari did not release specific details about the incident, but claimed that the operation proved that Iranian forces are following American fleet traffic in the region.

Shushkari warned the United States that if a confrontation arises, all American forces in the gulf as well as targets inside the U.S. itself would be targets for attack."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/826019.html