Iran is doing its best to have the naval power to be able to choke of the Strait of Hormuz as well as having control of the gulf. This is the small article about it provided by my April 2008 Sea Classics magazine, since they have no website I typed out the article for anyone to read.



[edit on 28-2-2008 by jojoKnowsBest]

The best gauges we have of how another naval conflict will pan out between the U.S. and Iran would be the Tanker War from 1987. It was a short battle but the largest naval conflict the U.S. was in since the WW2. It started by the Iranian Navy strafing the crew quarters of Kuwait tankers with machine gun fire, then radioing in "Have a nice day!”

Many different incidents led up to the short conflict resulting in some of Iran's finest naval vessels being decimated. Our side took some casualties as well.

Has Iran learned there lesson from the Tanker War, and there war with Iraq?

Remember the PT boat? They were originally designed for other reasons buy made amazing coastal raiders leading to the Japanese name "Devil Boats". They were pretty simple being made of mahogany, not plywood. Many were equipped with a Swedish 40mm Bofors gun with a 2 inch shell that could do some damage to the Japanese coastal supply ships. PTs were pretty simple vessels that were very effective in a number of roles.

I'm not a naval expert but I clearly see Iran stepping up its Navy. Could this be a problem for us or is Iran hopelessly inferior to the U.S. Navy?

This is a link to a Pakistan Defense website sizing up Iran’s navy. Near the bottom is an illustration of the fast attack craft.

www.defence.pk




[edit on 28-2-2008 by jojoKnowsBest]

and france sold saudi arabia some frigates - the US and Russian arn`t the only countries to supply weapons.

That article somewhat underestimates Iranian naval power. You might find this thread interesting www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Iranian Navy does not have the capability to project power beyond their own waters. If you were Iran and you had a hostile navy cruising within visual range of your coastline and threatenign you with force like the US is doing to Iran, wouldn't you step up your defensive measures.

I would suggest looking at a map of the Straight of Hormuz and imagaine how the US would react if Iranian aircraft carriers were operating in the Straits of Florida!! We would react harshly and rightfully so.

The Iranians have clearly developed a naval force with the intent of defending against a US attack by purchasing Russian anti-ship missiles and a multitude of craft capable of delivering them. The idea being that the harm the Iranian defense would do to the Carrier group in the Gulf would be a deterrent to a US attack. In fact, from everything I have read the Iranian reponse against our Navy would be devestating due to the types of anti-ship missiles they have. Or so I have read.

Don't be surprise! That's our right.just like you sold F16 to many countries

The Iranians pose more of a threat to international shipping and the global economy as they could very easily disrupt the flow of transport and commerce in the stright and even put a stop to it for a brief period of time. As far as the US military is concerned, our capability in the region is far to great for Iran to do anything but be a nuisance. I'm not saying there wont be any casualties or damage but nothing too sensational or anything we can't absorb. Iran's navy and military however would be left a shadow of their former self.

Who shouldn't be surprised at what?
What is your right?
What do F-16 sales got to do with this topic?


thanks in advance,
Planeman



[edit on 3-3-2008 by planeman]

Other than the fact the the Iranians are in possession of a qauntity of "sunfire" missiles that are capable of penetrating a carrier groups defenses I would agree with you. Most experts I've read agree that our ships in the Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz are sitting ducks and carriers have widely been considered ineffectual against reasonable military capabilites for the last decade. A carrier is fantastic against an unarmed 3rd world country or enforcing Empire or even in the distribution of aid but we may find that a nation with modern anti-ship capablities such as Iran, Russia, or China may be a harder nut to crack. The Soviets and then the Russians have spent tons of money figuring out ways to sink a carrier without spending a fortune. A supersonic missile that costs less than an
F-16 AND that performs evasive maneuvers once it reaches intercept range seems to be the solution.

Where I disagree is in the thought that Iran would make such a fool hardy move. They are already under scrutiny by the US even though they technically are not in violation of the IAEA agreements and they are currently encircled by our forces.

Iran is much more likely to "fight" us just the way they are. Using other currencies for the sale of oil and international trade. The only scenario I could believe them to interupt traffic in the Straits is in if in fact they are attacked pre-emptively and use that method as a means of self defense.

Truly, I see the US attempting to use military force in response to the world shifting from the USD as the accepted international currency. That and Obama's upcoming spending free-for-all will sink us far faster than a few Iranian gunboats.

My .02 cents.

reply to post by Tinhatman

---

its *sunburn* (nato reporting name)

www.globalsecurity.org...

and it allready has a replacement

en.wikipedia.org...

which the Indians have used as the basis of there missile the Brahmos

and in the small area of the Gulf - both of these systms would be lethal

but even so Iran also have


VA-111 Shkval


en.wikipedia.org... a short ranged but very high speed torpedo that contary to western sources is guided.

If a carrier or missile cruiser gets attacked by a group of attack craft what would be the Navy's best method in eliminating them?

If you have four or five attack craft and one Aegis Missile cruiser it may be hard to take out all those Thondars before they launch a few missiles.

My knowledge of our naval vessels is pretty novice, I know many of our ships are equipped with counter measures to confuse missiles, but one or two is different then maybe five or six fired all at once at one ship.

A carrier is another story, traveling in a group with many escort vessels. I had a friend who spent years working in the Bremerton Navy Ship Yards. He told me that destroyers purposely have deep hulls in order to sacrifice themselves to a torpedo, preventing it from hitting a carrier. A little off topic but I never heard that story anywhere else, didn’t know if it was true.

Since these fast attack craft are very maneuverable, I'm sure like a PT Boat, the Thondars would start zig zagging at 37 knots making them harder to hit with guns. Are ship to ship missiles any good at hitting smaller maneuverable craft?

I would expect the carrier would launch aircraft which would probably mean the end of those little Thondars. If they attacked at night it might make it a little more difficult. It would probably take more then one or two missiles to sink one of our super carriers anyways. Even many of the WW2 carries survivability is astonishing. With all the water tight compartments and ballast tanks our carriers are designed to take multiple torpedo hits and still float. If Iran had one of those little tactical nukes, China or Russia would have to sell it to them and they would have to get a very lucky shot.

Ever since the Battle of Midway the one who controls the sky controls the battlefield.

Thanks for the info and the correction!
Appreciate it.

Respectfully,
Tinhatman

They have never been used in combat and have never been tested against defensive systems similar to those found within a USN CBG. Test and evaluation results have also never been published.



See "Operation Praying Mantis". The Iranians neither have the numbers nor technological capability to compete with the US in conventional warfare, whether it's in the Straight of Hormuz or not. Carriers are very useful instruments of war as nothing can project and bring that kind of firepower to any spot in the world. As for these "experts", we'll see, a carrier in the Gulf and on in the Arabian Sea would be more than adequate.



In a full out war currently only one of those countries would pose a legitimate threat to a carrier battle group out in the open, and even then they would have a hard time sustaining it.



Says who, the Russians? I also have prime swamp land if you're interested.



Helicopters, UCAV's, fighters, SM-2 inherent SSM capability, guns, other small boats etc…



Granted they are not destroyed pier side in a preemptive attack, granted they make it past the air umbrella and granted they survive the multilayer defense of a CBG.



OFB goes something like this; take out launching platform, launch long range anti missile interceptors, launch medium range interceptors, countermeasures, close in weapon system etc..

All throughout this you would have a pervasive EW/Jamming effort going on in the background and hard countermeasures being taken (maneuvering).

The chances of multiple small boats like these making it within the bubble and getting close enough to detect and track a ship then launch their missiles is pretty small.



SM-2 can reach Mach 2.5 and pull 40+ G's. Take your pick.



Why would night make it more difficult? This isn't WWI, night or day it really makes no difference. USN systems are not dependant on sunlight, they work just as fine during the night.

Also, missiles will not sink a super carrier, they will put it out of action and might damage it considerably but they wont sink it. Your best bet would be multiple torpedoes in the keel. Carriers are designed to be the most survivable USN ships afloat.

China can sell Iran 50 of these and it wont stop the US NAVY. We are too far ahead of the curve on the water. Our subs could take out ALL of Iran in minutes. That is EVERYTHING. China is selling Iran the tech we had 30 years ago. But in the end the truth is this. If they hit a carrier they will get nuked. No doubt. The NAVY almost has a policy on that. I would bet my left nugget that they would launch "automatic" if a carrier got sunk.

What Iran needs to fear is th "quick launch" ........Which is this.....Iran gets lucky and catches the US NAVY sleeping. They sink a carrier. In response the prez gives a launch order for a nuke strike. Now the prez is told......subs can be ready to launch in 23 min.......Well the NAVY being the NAVY is PISSED as hell.........so they speed up the prep for launch and snap off the nukes in 12 min.....just in case the prez comes back after " soul searching" and wants to stand down.......IMHO knowing the NAVY pretty well that could very easily happen.

also above is correct....night or day is the same thing on a sub or most new ships. The NAVY would be hitting Iran from the other side of the earth if given the permission.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by TXMACHINEGUNDLR]

[edit on 4-3-2008 by TXMACHINEGUNDLR]

[edit on 4-3-2008 by TXMACHINEGUNDLR]

You should't be surprised at the deal.
What is your right,what is our right.
F-16 sales did have nothing to do with the topic! That's your American logic,gangster logic. When you point finger at other's own business,you always forget what you have done! Just like a Chinese saying:"only the officials can set fire,while common people can't light a lamp".You sale any weapon to any country you like,even to India in the morning and immediately to Pakistan in the afternoon!When they are killing each other with your tools,you are just checking you money!Despicable arms traffickers ! love peace at home,and love war abroad.Shameless guy,put your finger away,shut up!

westy come on now@



when you post an opinion about the F22 the same arguement is true - test results have never been published in full and the raptor has never seen real combat - and yet on paper its the best. quad pro quo.