It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US/Iran/Russia; S-300PMU/SA-10, Shahab-3/ss-26, Shkval/ Ekranoplan = Cuban missile crises repeated.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Today Iran announced yet another test of a new weapon platform.

It was a 4AM FOX broadcast, no link yet, but I will provide as soon as it will be available.


Found the link; "Iran: Stealth 'Flying Boat' Successfully Tested"

www.foxnews.com...


What was named a "secret weapon" is obviously a small Russian Ekranoplan, or WIG sea-skimmer.

Clearly intended to serve as a scaled down version of the Soviet "Lun" sea-skimmer Ekkranoplan missile carrier concept.

aquaglide.ru...

www.airbornegrafix.com...



There can be no doubt that the nuclear capable Shkval supercavitating torpedo is intended to be carried by this "new" Iranian Ekranoplan, thus extending the deployment range and bringing Shkval with in the strike zone of the US carrier fleet.

Considering the combined Iranian capabilities, including the S-300PMU/SA-10, Shahab-3 (SS-26 Iskander) and the Ekranoplan/Shkval, currently Iran posses a deterrent capability which US armed forced can not countermeasure.

What is most troubling, is that even though Iran claims that SHahab-3, Shkval and Ekranoplan systems are being domestically manufactures, the possibility of such claims to be valid are extremely remote.

Technology and most importantly the manufacturing culture required to produce such high-tech weaponry takes enormous economic investment and decades of development.

Patterns of such steady development programs have not being shown by Iran, rather a dramatic jump over a couple of development generations followed after Russian/Iranian negotiations.

What is more likely, is that Russia is supplying Iran with such weapons in order to prevent US colonization of the Middle East.

White House resistance justifies such a scenario, including the recent call for boycott of the "Big-8" summit in St. Petersberg by John McCain.

All sings point to a possible repeat of the Cuban missile crisis, with US naval blockade of Iran, including the blockade of Russian cargo ships, resulting in a diplomatic stand off, most likely on the ground of mutual insults which are surely to occur at the "Big-8" summit.

The history yet again might repeat itself with the US need for the Cassus Belli in order to justify an invasion of Iran, which will undoubtedly be politically and publicly supported by the fallout from anti- Russian media propaganda campaign.

Such developments yet again bring us to the escalation of world wide hostilities, and possibly to a brink of nuclear exchange.

Let us all hope and pray that this will not happen, and that the warmongering agenda of global conquest by the immoral minority will be defeated by responsible majority.

Edit:spelling

2nd edit: found the link

[edit on 4-4-2006 by iskander]

[edit on 4-4-2006 by iskander]




posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
There can be no doubt that the nuclear capable Shkval supercavitating torpedo is intended to be carried by this "new" Iranian Ekranoplan, thus extending the deployment range and bringing Shkval with in the strike zone of the US carrier fleet.

Considering the combined Iranian capabilities, including the S-300PMU/SA-10, Shahab-3 (SS-26 Iskander) and the Ekranoplan/Shkval, currently Iran posses a deterrent capability which US armed forced can not countermeasure.


2 Batteries of Iranian SA-10s has put the vice on the USAF? Are you kidding me?

The Shahab-3 is a scud missile with better range and better accuracy, and because it shoots further and more accurate it is now more of a threat than it was in 1991? If fired at Israel, it is more likely the Shahab-3 would kill Palistian's than Israeli's, since the anti-missile systems engage the missiles outside of Israel. Remember in Gulf War I, when the PAC-2 shot down scuds even though it wasn't designed for it? Well, today the Rapier and PAC-3 systems of the UK and US respectfully are designed to attack these missiles, and are not only more effective, but more accurate.

The Ekranoplan is a major threat? Particularly when combined with a torpedo that cannot manuever and only shoots straight at 7.5km? You think you might be overstating the military threat here a bit? It reminds me a little too much of the terrible disaster facing any Western Army facing the unbeatable 4th largest army in the world.... from Iraq in 1990.

Remember, the Ekranoplan was built when BVR radar was in its infancy, today these things would stick out like a 747 to modern radar. While you are impressed by all these new Iranian toys, I am impressed that Russia is able to get money out of technology that might look neat on TV, but has limited real military value. Do you realize Russia might be making millions if not billions off Iran on obsolete technology that simply 'looks' cool? What a crazy scam, I think it is official, Putin is a genious.

The threat from Iran is not military, it is political and economic. Remember, Iran was the military Saddam Hussain beat up, and now we are supposed to buy into the scary theory they are a great military power because cold war era projects of limited value are being advertised on TV?

Iran isn't even the toughest military in the Middle East. Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey are all clearly superior, by alot, in terms of military power. I think you are overstating capability if you think the US, UK, French, German, or any other Navy that is active in the Gulf region should be scared. Almost everything Iran has militarily is effective in a sneak attack against an unsuspecting enemy, but after the first bullet flies, the military value of these new toys against a prepared opponent is marginal at best.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by darksided
The Shahab-3 is a scud missile with better range and better accuracy, and because it shoots further and more accurate it is now more of a threat than it was in 1991? If fired at Israel, it is more likely the Shahab-3 would kill Palistian's than Israeli's, since the anti-missile systems engage the missiles outside of Israel.


you are incorrect. the shahab is not a SCUD type missile but of a completely different design. it has brand new guidence and a completely different engine. with a brandnew reentry vehicle. it is not the same. secondly the SCUD has a range of less then 800km the ones that saddam had where infact very slow compared to modern ballistic missiles. this missile has a range of 2200km+ and is much faster in its reentry then the SCUD also it has laser gyro rather then the standard guidence of the SCUDs.

secondly iran also has Rpaier missiles which have been modernised and upgraded infact they make there own improved copies of the rapier. and the rapier is being taken out of service from the british millitry or already has from what i have read.

secondly arrow and patriot have never actually intercepted a missile that goes 2000+km the only thing they have done is intercept simulatated missiles that simulate the reentry of the ballistic missile but is not an actuall ballistic missile fired. also note that they already know when the missile is fired and what direction it is comming in becuase all this is already pre-palnned in the test. they have never intercepted a long range ballistic missile like the shahab in real life.

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I am sorry but you are not only incorrect, your not even close.

The Shahab-3 is basically a next generation Scud. It is derived from the Nodong-1 and was built with cooperation from North Korea. Yes it looks different, but the only new technology introduced is the terminal guidence (accuracy) and booster technology (range). This effects the missile by allowing it to travel higher thereby shortening the period of time the missile can be shot down during the terminal phase. One problem though, it makes calculation of the final trajectory much easier, thereby making it easier to kill.

That is the reason why the announcement the other day of MIRV technology by Iran is important, it removes this known limitation of the Shahab-3 missile.

The Army's own report rearding the PAC-2 action during Gulf War I confirmed that Iraq Scud-B missiles intercepted in Israel and Saudi Arabia were intercepted during terminal phase speeds of mach 2.5 - mach 3.5. Mach 2.5 is 2,980 km/h, while mach 3.5 is 4,180 km/h.

Where did you come up with this "never actually intercepted a missile that goes 2000+km" nonsense?

You realize Lockheed Martin tests the PAC-3 system against what is called a PAAT missile, which means "Patriot as a Target." The PAAT drone hits supersonic speed within 20ft of launch, and intercept is conducted when the PAAT reaches speeds between Mach 3.5 and Mach 5. This isn't even private or secret information, its on the PAC-3 brochure.

As for the Rapier, by the end of the Iraq-Iran war, Iran could no longer field their Hawk, Rapier, and Tigercat missiles they had to rely on anti-aircraft guns. While they have probably found ways to repair some of them, how upgraded and modern do you really think they have been made considering they have had no access to parts or software? Considering the amount of money Iran has poured into Russia for what abouts to about 80 SAM launchers of various types for the last 12 years, it is unlikely there has been much cash left to refit 70s era equipment like you are saying.

The Rapier FSC (Field Standard C) air defence system is state of the art, and that is not what Iran has. The UK is one of the most experienced militaries in the world, having not only fought Gulf War I, OEF, and OIF like the US, but also the Falklands War which shaped much of the weapons used in Western militaries today. Their Rapier FSC is very effective in Iraq, and the Rapier tracking system is so advanced it has been modified in several cases to use on a 30mm gun in al Basra, able to shoot down mortar rounds and artillery shells in flight with incredible accuracy.

The US ran with the idea in the Baghdad green zone, which is why when you see some reporter reporting from the green zone on TV, and behind the reporter you also might see land based Phalanx CIWS systems that is able to shread a mortar round in flight.

When you look at the comparison between Western militaries, and then hang your hat on weapons like the Shahab-3 or Ekranoplan, it is pretty clear, militarily Iran isn't even in the neighborhood of the west in terms of military power. Economic and political power is where Iran has the leverage.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by darksided
I am sorry but you are not only incorrect, your not even close.

The Shahab-3 is basically a next generation Scud. It is derived from the Nodong-1 and was built with cooperation from North Korea. Yes it looks different, but the only new technology introduced is the terminal guidence (accuracy) and booster technology (range). This effects the missile by allowing it to travel higher thereby shortening the period of time the missile can be shot down during the terminal phase. One problem though, it makes calculation of the final trajectory much easier, thereby making it easier to kill.


what? its got a completely new rocket motor and has a complete new warhead and has a complete new reentry vehicle of russian design. and has a completely new laser gyro guidence system similar to the chinese m11 style missiles hence its a new missiles what you are getting confused about is that there are many different versions of shahab and the shahab 3D is the missile with a range of 2200km+ this is a completely different missile to the ones north korea gave iran. the sahab-3D is the missile that iran is most likely to use against israel and this missiles is completely different to the SCUD infact the latest versions are to be fitted with solid fuel motors hence its not even the same technology or components of a SCUD.

Shahab 3 is not a SCUD. diferent warhead, different guidence, different rocket motor, different missile.



Originally posted by darksided
That is the reason why the announcement the other day of MIRV technology by Iran is important, it removes this known limitation of the Shahab-3 missile.

The Army's own report rearding the PAC-2 action during Gulf War I confirmed that Iraq Scud-B missiles intercepted in Israel and Saudi Arabia were intercepted during terminal phase speeds of mach 2.5 - mach 3.5. Mach 2.5 is 2,980 km/h, while mach 3.5 is 4,180 km/h.

Where did you come up with this "never actually intercepted a missile that goes 2000+km" nonsense?


2000km range not speed. secondly scud-b has a range of less then 800km.
the further the range of the missile the harder it is to intercept becuase it also increases the incomming speed of the missile.


Originally posted by darksided
You realize Lockheed Martin tests the PAC-3 system against what is called a PAAT missile, which means "Patriot as a Target." The PAAT drone hits supersonic speed within 20ft of launch, and intercept is conducted when the PAAT reaches speeds between Mach 3.5 and Mach 5. This isn't even private or secret information, its on the PAC-3 brochure.


of course under perfect circumstances. where they already know what direction its in and when its going to happen.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
Shahab 3 is not a SCUD. diferent warhead, different guidence, different rocket motor, different missile.


John Pike, who has perhaps the best, most accurate source of information online regarding the subject, respectfully disagrees.

www.globalsecurity.org...

www.globalsecurity.org...


The Iranian Shahab-3 [alternatively designated Zelzal (Earthquake)] missile is said to be a derivative of the 1,000-1,300 kilometer range North Korean Nodong-1.


The nodong-1 is a scud missile. If you look up scud missile anywhere, the listings usually include the Shahab-3 as a modern version.

Maybe you disagree, but sticking a second stage rocket booster on a nodong-1 and improving the guidence and warhead doesn't make a nodong-1 scud missile a completely new missile, it just gives it a new name, called a Shahab-3.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Hi all, I have attempted to avoid the issue of double posting by focusing on my intended form of discussion for this topic. The questions to discuss lie not in technical capabilities of new Iranian family weapons, but in their possible implementation and resulting consequences to US attack on Iran.

I respectfully ask all participants to discuss technical aspects of these weapons on my other post on the Weapons forum, and in this thread to focus on the issues of such weapons effect on the US mission of War on Terror.

The weapons post can be found here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

In this discussion lets focus on the possibilities of US use of provocation tactics against Iran through invading their waters resulting in Iranian retaliation by the use of such weapons, their political effect, and success margins of such tactics use for justifying all out invasion.

Same as with opening of the Vietnam conflict based on falsified attack on US navy by Vietnamese patrol boats, and possible escalation of the Iranian conflict into a situation similar to the Cuban missile crisis, including embargo enforcement based on arms supply, and instigation of economic and political hostilities between US and Russian, use of of the media for propagandizing/manipulation of public opinion for incursion support, etc.

Thank you very much for respecting my point of view.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Same as with opening of the Vietnam conflict based on falsified attack on US navy by Vietnamese patrol boats, and possible escalation of the Iranian conflict into a situation similar to the Cuban missile crisis, including embargo enforcement based on arms supply, and instigation of economic and political hostilities between US and Russian, use of of the media for propagandizing/manipulation of public opinion for incursion support, etc.

Thank you very much for respecting my point of view.


I think Israel attacks first. Described in detail here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sorry for taking your thread off track. The Tonkin incident is an interesting analogy, one I believe may apply.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Strategically I do not see Israel attacking Iran. Iran's capabilities of delivering large multiple warheads directly on Tel Aviv is a serious deterrent.

In order to limit retaliation strikes, Iran's military infrastructure will have to be literally demolished in a single thrust, something only US is in position to do.

Israel will obviously fully support US strike against Iran, but only with guaranteed and full US commitment.

And in order to secure full US commitment, a serious incident has occur directly between Iran and US.

Possible losses to US fleet from the above mentioned weapons will spell absolute boom for Bushes administration, a gamble I doubt their are willing to take considering the debacle in Iraq.

Further more, even after successfully suppression of initial Iranian resistance, the guerrilla war in Iran will be much different then that of Iraq.

Iran is very well armed with modern weapons.

Shoulder fired SAMs in the thousands, modern guided anti-tank weapons, etc.

Even if Iran is blockaded, the fact that Iran is in fact domestically manufacturing serious gear, even such as AT-5 Spandrel, and considering that they had over a decade to prepare for US invasion, I'm sure that underground self reliant manufacturing facilities are in their hundreds, and will be able to continue arms production well into the conflict.

www.aeronautics.ru...

War with Iran will be extremely costly, and we're not just talking about Iran. If Iran is attacked, other then full cooperation with Iraq and resulting problems, other ME states will either openly or indirectly support Iran.

We just can't afford it, even from the opening act.

Naturally US fleet will stay well outside Iranian strike zone, but that will only hinder the invasion, and slow it down to a crawl.

Air strikes will focus on HARM missions, while effectiveness of preemptive cruise missile strike will be much lower do to heavy Tunguska-M deployment.

It'll be to pricey, something we're just not in position to afford, and possibly something Israel with force us to in to anyway.

I did check out your post, I'll get back to it later.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Considering the combined Iranian capabilities, including the S-300PMU/SA-10, Shahab-3 (SS-26 Iskander) and the Ekranoplan/Shkval, currently Iran posses a deterrent capability which US armed forced can not countermeasure.

:shk:
Yeah...sure thing...right....ok.
Your sources are for such an assertion?
I am sensing that Baghdad Bob has nothing on you.





What is most troubling, is that even though Iran claims that SHahab-3, Shkval and Ekranoplan systems are being domestically manufactures, the possibility of such claims to be valid are extremely remote.

You mean about as "remote" as your self-asserted claim that the US armed forces have no countermeasures against? Hmm...





Technology and most importantly the manufacturing culture required to produce such high-tech weaponry takes enormous economic investment and decades of development.

Umm, correct, but do you not find it ironic that the Iranians are manufacturing/producing weaponry that has already taken enormous investment and decades of development....by the Russians?





Patterns of such steady development programs have not being shown by Iran, rather a dramatic jump over a couple of development generations followed after Russian/Iranian negotiations.

Umm, the Russian connection...noted.





What is more likely, is that Russia is supplying Iran with such weapons in order to prevent US colonization of the Middle East.

"Colonization"? Okie dokie. :shk:





White House resistance justifies such a scenario, including the recent call for boycott of the "Big-8" summit in St. Petersberg by John McCain.

Link?





All sings point to a possible repeat of the Cuban missile crisis, with US naval blockade of Iran, including the blockade of Russian cargo ships, resulting in a diplomatic stand off, most likely on the ground of mutual insults which are surely to occur at the "Big-8" summit.

This is speculative on your part?
Just asking.





The history yet again might repeat itself with the US need for the Cassus Belli in order to justify an invasion of Iran, which will undoubtedly be politically and publicly supported by the fallout from anti- Russian media propaganda campaign.

Not seeing such, but time will tell, huh?





Such developments yet again bring us to the escalation of world wide hostilities, and possibly to a brink of nuclear exchange.

Speculative, especially when based upon a re-Cuban Missile crisis scenerio that has not happened as of yet.





Let us all hope and pray that this will not happen, and that the warmongering agenda of global conquest by the immoral minority will be defeated by responsible majority.

Please, enlighten us as to what is meant by your references of "immoral minority" and "responsible majority."
Thanks.






seekerof

[edit on 4-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
The thought has occured to me that the Iranians are revealing all these systems now in order to embarass the Russians, in retaliation for not backing them up at the UN. It seems unlikely they developed all these systems without any help from Russia.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Honestly, the US has been war gaming Iran attacking shipping in the straits for DECADES. Iran will hold no surprises for the US Navy.

Should the shooting start US air power based around the region will knock down Iran's air defense and sink whatever navy they possess.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Nuclear tipped shkval?? With a range of 7500 yards??! how/what/why?


And yes the Shahab-3 is not a 'scud' but still its CEP hasn't been highly publicised. Most sources place it at 2.5 to 3 km.
Except Wikipedia which is not a reliable source states a 'possible' CEP of 30-50 meters.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Seekerof, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I would also appreciate at least some sort consideration for the effort I put in my posts.

Before "rolling eyes" and bubbling with sarcasm, please take a moment and a little effort to at least look into the information which forum members share with the ATS community. It'll sure make it a lot more of a pleasant experience for everybody and even possibly stimulate people to contribute further.

Thank you for you understanding.



Jack Spencer of Heritage Foundation and David Miller of Jane's International Defense Review stated that it was so fast that even if a targeted NATO aircraft carrier or submarine detected an incoming Shkval, it would not have enough time to evade it or launch a counterattack.


www.satribune.com...



As there are no known countermeasures to such a weapon," states David Miller's April 1995 article "Supercavitation: Going to War in a Bubble," in Jane's Intelligence Review, "its deployment could have a significant effect on future maritime operations, both surface and subsurface, and could put Western naval forces at a considerable disadvantage.


diodon349.com...


Colonialism -

Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory beyond its borders by the establishment of either settler colonies or administrative dependencies in which indigenous populations are directly ruled or displaced. Colonizers generally dominate the resources, labor, and markets of the colonial territory and may also impose socio-cultural, religious and linguistic structures on the conquered population. The term also refers to a set of beliefs used to legitimize or promote this system, especially the belief that the mores of the colonizer are superior to those of the colonized. Though colonialism is often used interchangeably with imperialism, the latter is broader as it covers control exercised informally (via influence) as well as formally.


en.wikipedia.org...

Cuban millise crysis timeline -

www.timelines.info...


Carrying a tactical nuclear warhead initiated by a timer, it would destroy the hostile submarine and the torpedo it fired. The Shkval high-speed underwater missile is guided by an auto-pilot rather than by a homing head as on most torpedoes.


www.fas.org...


G8 McCain

feeds.bignewsnetwork.com...

How great would it be if certain participants of ATS forums actually had something useful to contribute to the community, instead of constant doubting, belittling and "calling out" anybody who present a point of view to the contrary of theirs.

edit: spelling

[edit on 4-4-2006 by iskander]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

Jack Spencer of Heritage Foundation and David Miller of Jane's International Defense Review stated that it was so fast that even if a targeted NATO aircraft carrier or submarine detected an incoming Shkval, it would not have enough time to evade it or launch a counterattack.


www.satribune.com...

This is one individual among a multitude of "expert" individuals. Hello?
I have posted on the the drawbacks to the Shkval torpedo in the past, with credible sourcing. ATS search is your best friend, and it is dern sure not worth me rehashing again. Further, your "expert" is only referring to evade and countermeasures: one--evade is relative for in detecting, countermeasures would be utilized and the US Navy has a redundant number of anti-torpedo and anti-missile countermeasures. Two, your article is outdated, not taking into account any new type of countermeasures that have undoubtedly been implemented by the US Navy since the articles release.






As there are no known countermeasures to such a weapon," states David Miller's April 1995 article "Supercavitation: Going to War in a Bubble," in Jane's Intelligence Review, "its deployment could have a significant effect on future maritime operations, both surface and subsurface, and could put Western naval forces at a considerable disadvantage.


diodon349.com...

Umm, hello...?
Your reference is 1995 (David Miller's April 1995 article)? You are aware that it is 2006....11 years later.
As such, to claim or assert, as you have, that there is no current (your insinuation) defence against such weaponry is totally bogus and unfounded.





Colonialism -

Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory beyond its borders by the establishment of either settler colonies or administrative dependencies in which indigenous populations are directly ruled or displaced. Colonizers generally dominate the resources, labor, and markets of the colonial territory and may also impose socio-cultural, religious and linguistic structures on the conquered population. The term also refers to a set of beliefs used to legitimize or promote this system, especially the belief that the mores of the colonizer are superior to those of the colonized. Though colonialism is often used interchangeably with imperialism, the latter is broader as it covers control exercised informally (via influence) as well as formally.


en.wikipedia.org...

Colonialism? Okie dokie x 2. :shk:





Cuban millise crysis timeline -

www.timelines.info...


Carrying a tactical nuclear warhead initiated by a timer, it would destroy the hostile submarine and the torpedo it fired. The Shkval high-speed underwater missile is guided by an auto-pilot rather than by a homing head as on most torpedoes.


www.fas.org...

Erm, I am well aware of the Cuban missile crisis.
As such, how about answer what I asked in reference to your re-Cuban missile crisis scenerio?

Originally posted by seekerof
This is speculative on your part?
Just asking.






G8 McCain

feeds.bignewsnetwork.com...

Thanks for the link, but having read it, it does not "justify" your scenerio.




How great would it be if certain participants of ATS forums actually had something useful to contribute to the community, instead of constant doubting, belittling and "calling out" anybody who present a point of view to the contrary of theirs.

I call it like I see it, and accordingly, I will refute, debate, and discuss.
Your own paranoia constitutes the mythical assertions of belittlement and calling out.
Having a contrary view is what has brought you here and has also allowed you to create topics. In doing so, there will be those who will have contrary views to yours.






seekerof

[edit on 5-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 12:49 AM
link   
If you feel you have the grounds to discredit the statement (not opinion), made by the professional (not as individual) employed by the most respected defense resource in the WORLD, you have got to know something we all don't, so please, tell us, how exactly does US navy plan to countermeasure Shkval? Be it 11 years later.

Disregard for ones effort is belittlement btw.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Please disregard my previous post.

As I have requested previously, please move all discussions on the weapons ability to my other thread in the Weapons forum.

Thank you.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 05:48 AM
link   
I think this is a bluff.

Though likely one based on at least pseudo-real operational considerations. For during Earnest Will and the Armilla Patrol efforts, the Iranian's discovered that they could not attack the USN or RN escorted units without taking undue losses based on the availability of helicopters and radar to precondition (don't cross that line) and if need be preempt (bam! Damn mosquitoes...) multiaxis threats to the tankers which (as PCIs) were required to come in and play raptor to the seismosaur with only what amounted to light cannon and rocket/ATGW based weapons. Sometimes even assaulting the vessel directly as a boarding action.

In a logical escalation (compareable to say the EBoat ops on the Tramway up thru 1943), this initial repulsive success led to a covert mining of the U.S.S. Roberts which in turn begat Earnest Will. An effort to 'clean out' the various RG controlled oil platforms and sink the last of the residual Imperial Navy.

Again an operation made possible by the ability of helicopters to extend the engagement footprint and axis of attack from seemingly unrelated supporting vessels (supposedly there were some rather interesting air to air and SEAD engagements by the USN as a part of this 'must hide the prep as well as protect the the attackers from retaliation' type sensor rollback and air supremacy efforts).

The Iranians then took to a commerce raider type operation in mining the /external approaches/ to Hormuz. And that is what ended PGW-1 as a failed effort to prosecute the Tanker War as a strategic strangulation effort. 'Saved by the Lloyds' as it were.

What I imagine they took away from this progression of losses was simply that you cannot secure forward bases against both air and surface attack when you have limited fleet assets and no project-forward DCA coverage capability.

Even as you must also be able to TRANSIT the maneuver/approach phases of the battle faster than an enemy air and NGS effort can create a virtual crossing of the T on firing axes to cripple even a boghammer runin at say 50-70 knots.

If this machine can do 150 KTAS, it can readily beat both the OH-58 and AH/MH-6 helos used off the back of DDG/FFG during EW/PC/PM. It may even put a serious crimp in the capability of even SH-60 and AH-64/AH-1W ability to generate countermaneuver into shortrange (Hellfire/Sidewinder/Penguin/Maverick) options. Which means, IF IT'S CHEAP, it can probably win through by simple saturation.

Given everyone's comments about hot:cold side LO and likely feature count compromises which would define radar detection against a fairly clean wave harmonic background, I don't think there is any real question that the aircraft can be detected however. The driving problem then becomes logistical vs. fires based. We have done similar things (Killing 'IR invisible' piston fighters with Sidewinders during the Phillipine flareupm and the heaviliy suppressed UH-60 Shootdown over Iraq etc.) so I don't think actual engagement is going to be much of a slow-vs.-fast problem either, again especially over zero surface-feature water.

At least as regards target acquisition vs. 'maneuvering' combat (poles on the order of 2-4 miles out) with much better radar AND heat weapons available now and the continued presence of longer wavelength E-2C and E-3A/B ACP platforms to provide the vector.

That only leaves, the question of how long and how far up the PG can we sustain CAPs sufficiently capable of providing slow-mover intercept without necessarily preempting (attacking the launch areas or recovery 'pens') with a landbased interdiction effort. Can we make the Iranian's look bad by making it seem like they came to find a fight? Does the WIG have unique support requirements in terms of a smooth breakwater for landing/takeoff, lift crane for slideway for extraction or other Key Signature elements? If not then you are down to tracking pickup-pulled launch trailers within radius-X of a risked vessel and again that /could/ be a little hard. If they can produce 200-300 of them. And/or they go with one-way suicide sled operations.

Seeing this massing happen in real time will then become critically important and if the Iranians can generate even a temporary battery overlap of S-300 class S2A 'alternative-FAAD'; things could get ugly with not just gas pass but ISR. Yet with Iraq as a fallback 'occupational' fixedwing position, it seems likely that they will not be able to achieve this preparatory effort short of just a massive screwup in the overlap of U-2S/RQ-4/Satellite coverage.

Which only leaves the question of what the Iranians plan to do IF they get in a position to start somethin' up. The Fajr-3 is nothing more than a local Katyusha clone which means it is both too heavy and likely too stupid to be fired from the mini-Ekrano shown, nor does the suggestion that the craft can provide it's own targeting terribly credible given the lack of obvious apertures and the need to calculate _ballistic envelope_ factors (that is part of what the 'weather radar' truck is for).

The other missile looks like a modified Sagger so that's nothing particularly capable either (though it is a lot closer to being something that the WIG could handle for weight).

My guess is that, if anything the Iranians want to stage a very short period combined arms lockdown as a function of gaining leverage sufficient to be applicable to a longer period of negotiated truce.

The only way I could see that working with the WIG is if it somehow carries a suitcase nuke (in which case again you may have to double fuel assumptions for range vs. radii conditions) and/or we are stupid enough to put a CVSF inside Hormuz instead of well out into the blue supporting our traditional inshore operations units, including SEAL boats and PCRs as well as the escort classes.

Yet even 'worst case', none of these things means much, on their own, in the long run, as they are just typical measure/countermeasure and Iran would be risking much to risk the inevitable wearing down of their projection elements on just pure-rebel-yell reasons.

If they were going to do something that massive I would instead be looking for more direct action type options within the local Gulf States as part of a MAJOR power play. And the instability just doesn't look like it's reached that point of kettle-boil yet.

Another option is the /potential/ employment of Shkvall as a CAPTOR or similar moored-mine area denial option with Shkval as a targeting solution solve (fast transit again) for a limited ISR capability via small craft or loaned satellite coverage.

Again, it is hard to imagine the Iranians going balls to the wall with such obvious toys so a third fallback option to consider is that they are ALL decoys designed to inflateable-porcupine create a defensive mindset specific to the justification for development of nuclear weapons in the very short term. If Shahab IV is ready and waiting for a decoy-assisted threat to Israel, the notion that we are on a separate clock for hostaging the greater ME or even Europe must be considered.

Iranian's aren't stupid like the Iraqi's were, having long displayed a more cogent mastery of combined arms warfare and deceptive maneurver-into-fires based tactical warfare. It's just a matter of considering whether they have a relevent strategic impetus behind the obvious or are satisfying a small force-large-ego need to put themselves on the map.

In this, I would look at the likely vs. potential effects of recent Iranian operations outside the gulf vs. the known operational capabilities of both Israeli sublaunched and U.S. air launched, conventional, CM shooters. The farther out they have to come to interdict the launch platforms, the less of a real (sustainable rather than one-shot surprise projection) threat they will form.

As long as they have to come 200nm or more, they are outside the range of any Gulf based mutual support while any coequivalency of AGM-129B or Israeli equivalent CM sphere of influence would cover all the way up to Tehran and beyond (assuming an unnamed Israeli system based on a scaled Delilah and thus BQM-74F).

I think this is what the Iranians specifically 'need to hear', publically, in terms of both counterforce untouchability and force on force decapitive preemption to the ultimate level. So that they go back to the negotiating tables in full faith rather than as Vietnamese as much as Russian huff-and-puff artists.


KPl.

[edit on 14-4-2006 by ch1466]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
ch1466 I've got to say I always enjoy reading your posts. Regardless of what your point of views is on any given topic, it's the read that I enjoy, and not jumping to agree or disagree like most ATS members.

So far my favorite post by you was about F-4s and Nam, good stuff there.

I'll be taking some time to ease into this one.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I believe that I read that Russia had supplied Iran with the
SS-N-22 "Sunburn" missiles.
If true then I think these missiles are up there with anything the US has got it terms of technology and the sunburn is practically impossible to defend against. This gives the Iranians the ability to inflict serious damage if used well.




top topics



 
0

log in

join