Just Curious.

[aryan]

Will Iran be able to hold of US, Arab or Indian naval influence in the Persian gulf??
What kind of a future policy is Iran looking to develop its Naval Capabilities for power projection in the Persian Gulf.

[Nubian Warrior]

Will Iran be able to hold of US, Arab or Indian naval influence in the Persian gulf??
What kind of a future policy is Iran looking to develop its Naval Capabilities for power projection in the Persian Gulf.

I offered a similar post about the Bluffers Guide to the DPRK's navy. Well, it's pretty similar.

http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=19611

Researched analysis of current naval strike capability




OPINION/OVERVIEW

Iran has a modest naval presence characterized by outdated warships mixed with asymmetrical warfare doctrines which promise all manner of death and destruction to any and every other naval force on the planet.

I described it as modest because that’s what it is. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s substandard or unprofessional, but it is handicapped by less good equipment. On the world stage it would barely make the top thirty naval powers in terms of overall capability, behind such obscure countries as Chile and Denmark. Even locally it cannot compete with the Saudi or UAE navies except in the area of submarines.

Its popular enemy is USA and her Western allies, notably Britain. Whilst history is littered with tails of inferior navies beating much larger forces, characterized by defeat of the Spanish Armada, it is hard to contrive a scenario in which a top-five Western navy could be so incompetent as to loose to Iran.

However, Iran does have some interesting equipment and some very potent assets that could be a long standing and very real threat even to big name navies. Normally in a Navy the big units are perceived as offering the greatest threat to an adversery. In Iran’s case this really isn’t the way it is. Ranked in order of offering the greatest threat to a top rated navy, this is Iran’s profile as I see it:
1. Shore based anti-ship missiles, particularly C-802
2. Submarine or small boat laid mines, particularly the EM52 rocket mine.
3. Kilo class conventional submarines using torpedoes, rocket torpedoes and possibly anti-ship missiles.
4. Fast Attack Craft (missile and torpedo boats)
5. Iranian Air Force fighters armed with missiles or guided bombs
6. Everything else including the larger warships

Iranian naval power is divided between the Iranian Navy and the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, more properly called the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution romanised from Farsi as Sepah-e Pasdaran-e Enghelab-e Islami).

The IRGC is a separate branch of the military and has ground, air and sea branches, duplicating the main armed forces branches in function and equipment. The IRGC is differentiated from the regular armed forces by its ideological footing; it is conceptually at least fiercely loyal to the government, or rather the Islamic Revolution. Whilst this may have been true some years ago, the modern IRGC is really just another branch of the military vying for the same pool of recruits.

Externally the IRGC are generally perceived as more cavalier and amateurish than the regular Iranian Navy. This seems to hold true although military competency seems to have increased from the 1980s “tanker war”.

In general the Iranian Navy operates the larger warships whilst the IRGC operates smaller ones and less conventional types. It is the IRGC that is at the front of the popularized “asymmetrical warfare” doctrine. The IRGC is also responsible for most (all?) of the potent shore-based anti-ship missile forces.

For the purposes of this analysis I’ve lumped the Iranian Navy and IRGC equipment together. From an external viewpoint it’s all naval power.

Although the Persian Gulf is the primary area of operation, the Iran faces four seas: Persian Gulf, Caspian Sea, India Ocean and Gulf of Oman (the latter two also being called the Arabian Sea).

The Caspian Sea is very important to Iran because of oil/gas disputes, and Iran has recently bolstered and updated its forces there. A key problem is that the Caspian is landlocked and so larger warships cannot be relocated there at times of heightened tensions. This means that a standing fleet is required although many of the smaller fast attack craft of the IRGC could be transported there by road.

The combat worthy elements of the Caspian Fleet are three missile boats (SINA class, see below) and one missile armed corvette (Hamzeh class, see below). These warships have woefully inadequate air defences and given that their natural adversaries are Russia and former republics, the effectiveness of this fleet is very questionable.



LARGER WARSHIPS (CORVETTES etc)

Units
1 x Mowj Class, Iranian Navy, Iranian built
3 x Alvand Class, Iranian Navy, British built.
1x Hamzeh Class, Iranian Navy, Dutch built
2 x Bayandor Class, Iranian Navy, US built (gun armed, not illustrated)


Alvand Class Corvette

Quantity in Service: 3
Displacement: 1,540 tons full load
Dimensions: L 94.5m, W 11.7m, Dr 3.25m
Crew: 135
Speed: 40kt
Powerplant: 2 x Gas Turbines 23,000 shp plus two diesels 1900hp
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x 114mm Gun, 1 dual 35mm (manned) 3 x (manned) GAM-BO1 20mm cannon, 1 x Limbo ASW mortar (may be inoperable), 2 x triple 12.7mm lightweight torpedoes (Alvand only), 2 x 12.7mm HMGs (manned).

Of 1960s vintage, the remaining Alvand class corvettes have been partially rearmed most crucially with the generally capable C-802 anti-ship missile in place of the obsolete Sea Killer missiles.

Sensor fit and air defences are very poor by contemporary standards and the survivability of these boats in open conflict is seriously open to doubt.



Moudge Class Corvette

Quantity: 1
Displacement: 1,400 tons
Dimensions: L 94m, W 10m, Dr 3.25m (Actual dimensions may be almost exactly as per Alvand)
Crew: ??? (est 100+)
Speed: 28kt
Powerplant: 2 x 10,000hp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x 76mm Gun, 1 CIWS (20mm, indigenous?), 1 x dual AAA (35mm?), 2 x triple 12.7mm lightweight torpedoes
Helicopters: Landing pad only

Also commonly spelt Mowj and Mowaj, this indigenous corvette is essentially a reverse engineered Vosper Mk 5 (Alvand Class, see above). It has several Iranian adaptations, most significantly a purely diesel power pack which results in a significant drop in performance.

Another conspicuous difference is the addition of a helipad on the aft deck, requiring a repositioning of the anti-ship missiles to amidships. Above the bridge is what appears to be a CIWS similar to the US 20mm Phalanx. However at the rear of the ship the AAA appears to be a twin turret, possibly manned 35mm as on the Alvand class. The main gun is a reverse engineered OTO Melara 76mm automatic, an excellent general purpose medium gun albeit somewhat behind the current OTO Melara versions.

Unlike most contemporary corvettes, the Moudge does not feature a radar signature reducing hull form. In all fairness the air defences appear to be a significant improvement over the Alvands, but still someway short of the current norm for warships this size.

The Moudge does not appear to have an ASW sonar.



Hamzeh Corvette

Quantity: 1
Displacement: 580 tons
Dimensions: L 52m, W 7.65m, Dr 3.25m
Crew: ??
Speed: 15kt
Powerplant: 2 x 1,300hp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x main gun (20mm?), 2 x 12.7mm manned heavy machine guns

Originally the Government Yacht, the Hamzeh has been modified to carry C-802 anti-ship missiles and light defences. Main role probably remains training. The boat operates in the Caspian Sea alongside the SINA missile boats. Confusingly the first widespread pictures of her post-refit where accompanying an Iranian press article announcing the entry into service of the SINA type “corvette” Joshan, causing some confusion as to this boat’s identity. The pennant number appears to have changed also.

Despite a popular press photo showing an AB-212 helicopter, the Hamzeh does not appear to have a helipad.

[Nubian Warrior]

FAST ATTACK CRAFT (Missile/Torpedo)

Operational Units:
6 Kaman Class, Iranian Navy, French Built. (10 hulls)
10 Thondar (Houdong) Class, IRGC-N, Chinese built.
2 SINA Class, Iranian Navy, Iranian built (1 hull awaiting fitting out)
10 IPS-18 Tir Class, IRGC-N, North Korean built
10 IPS-16 Peykaap Class, IRGC-N, North Korean built
3+ Taedong-B/C class(s), ????, North Korean built
10 (est) C-14 “China Cat” class, ????, Chinese designed (locally built)


IPS-18 Tir Class Fast Attack Craft (Torpedo)

Quantity in Service: 10
Displacement: 28.16 tons
Dimensions: L 21.12m, W 5.77m, Dr 0.87m H 2.1m
Crew: 6
Endurance: 450nm
Speed: 52kt
Powerplant: 3 x 1200hp
Armament: 2 x 533mm (21”) torpedo tubes, 1 x manned 12.7mm HMG

Of North Korean origin, these innovative small fast attack boats are clearly designed with radar cross-section reduction in mind. A retractable radar mast further enhances their ability to hide amongst the clutter of small fishing boats and otherwise inconspicuous minor radar reflections. The stealthiness does not extend to the infrared spectrum though, with raw exhausts venting out of the rear of the boat. Nor is the only defensive weapons position well thought out in this regard, being a single pedestal mounted 12.7mm heavy machine gun which is externally crewed.

In the right circumstances these boats represent a serious threat, but they have limited sea keeping, endurance and sensors thus limiting their combat potential in a wider conflict.

They are potentially armed with Shkval rocket torpedo (range about 6-8km), or the Iranian YT534W1 modern heavyweight torpedo (estimated range about 20-30km), but quite possibly employ very basic unguided torpedoes.



IPS-16 “Peykaap” Fast Attack Craft (Torpedo)

Quantity in Service: 10
Displacement: 13.75 tons
Dimensions: L 16.3m, W 3.75m, Dr 0.67m H 1.93m
Crew: 3
Endurance: 320nm
Speed: 52kt
Powerplant: 2 x 1200hp
Armament: 2 x 324mm (12.75”) torpedo tubes, small-arms

Delivered from North Korea though often claimed as indigenous, the Paykaap is easily perceived as the little brother to the Tir class (see above) because it has similar origin and overall characteristics but is smaller and lighter armed.

It appears to have stealth characteristics although little attention has been paid to the IR spectrum. The torpedo tubes are mounted on either side of the cabin in a stealthy fairing. The slight bulge on top of the torpedo tubes is probably the compressed air cylinder used to eject the torpedo from the tube, and its position makes it very possible that the torpedo tubes are exactly the same as those on the Taedong-B (illustrated above).

The small size, high speed and low radar signature make this type a potent adversary, but it lacks any meaningful self-defence weaponry should an enemy attempt to engage it. Its lightweight torpedoes are probably inadequate to sink most warships.



Semi-submersible Fast Attack Craft

Quantity in service: 3 (est)
1 x Taedong-B “Kajami”
2 x Taedong-C “Gahjae”


Iran is reported to operate a small number of North Korean designed Taedong-B and Taedong-C semi-submersible attack craft delivered in 2002. At least one such boat, thought to be a Taedong-B “Kajami”, has been publicly displayed during war-games. This appearance substantiates previous media reports but beyond that much remains speculation.

Both types are believed to be equipped with lightweight 324mm (12.75”) torpedoes. Typical torpedoes in this size class have a range of between 6km and 10km. It is extremely unlikely that these boats will be refitted with the larger Shkval rocket torpedo or anti-ship missiles.

It is not clear whether the attack profiles of these boats is to lay in wait submerged and then attack at high speed on the surface, or vice versa to approach at high speed then submerge for the final stage of the attack. The boats can probably dive to about 3m depth using a snort mast which remains on/near the surface. The vessel is probably capable of about 40kts on the surface and about 10kts submerged.

Taedong-B:


It is reported that the Taedong-C class closely resembles the Peykaap class torpedo boat, and it may be that the Peykaap is itself the submersible boat, although that seems unlikely.

Although these boats offer some novel tactical opportunities for Iran, they are unlikely to be successful if operating against larger warships armed with their own anti-submarine torpedoes, or fast moving targets. The lightweight torpedoes are unlikely to sink even a modest warship although obviously a successful attack could immobilize even a large warship.



“China Cat” Fast Attack Craft (Missile)

Quantity in Service: 10 +
Displacement: 19 tons
Dimensions: L 13.65m, W 4.8m, Dr 0.7m
Crew: 10
Endurance: 300nm
Speed: 55kt
Powerplant: 2 x 1150hp
Armament: 4 x TL-10 or C-701 Kowsar light anti-ship missiles, 1 x manned cannon (20mm?)

10 C-14 missile armed catamarans were ordered from Chinese manufacturer CSSC in 2002, with local production. At least one vessel has been completed in a non-missile configuration and the type is offered in the Iranian defence industry’s export catalogue. The missile equipped boats appear to differ in detail from the CSSC demonstrators with a different (lesser) sensor fit.

The C-701 missile is of Chinese origin though manufactured under license in Iran. It has a 20-25km range and can be TV or Radar guided, making it ideal for littoral combat.

Many reports indicate that the China Cat may employ the Chinese supplied TL-10 anti-ship missile instead of the C-701 described above. The two missile types are generally similar in overall size and capability, albeit different designs. Both come with a range of seekers and minor sub-versions tailored to specific customer needs.

The boats pack an enormous punch for their size and have apparently superb sea keeping for their size (though by no means ocean going vessels), but their air defence is conspicuously lacking.



SINA Class Missile Boat

Quantity: 2 (plus 1 building)
Displacement: 300 tons
Dimensions: L 47m, W 7m, Dr 2m
Crew: ??? (est 31)
Speed: 35kt
Powerplant: 4 x 3,500hp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x 76mm Gun, 1 40mm AAA (crewed), 2 x 12.7mm HMG (crewed)

The first SINA class boat, Peykan, became operational in 2006 followed by a second unit, Joshan. Reverse engineered Combattante-II (Kaman class) boats the only obvious external difference is the main radar.

The 76mm is a locally produced version of the OTO-Melara 76mm gun fitted to the Kamans.


Kaman Class Missile Boat

Quantity in service: 6 (est). (10 total hulls still available)
Displacement: 275-300 tons
Dimensions: L 47m, W 7m, Dr 2m
Crew: 31
Speed: 36kt
Powerplant: 4 x 3,500hp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x 76mm Gun, 1 40mm AAA (crewed), 2 x 12.7mm HMG (crewed).

Delivered from France and previously equipped with US supplied Harpoon missiles, these boats were re-armed with the Chinese C-802 missile in the late 1990s. 10 hulls remain but only 6 are thought to be operational. One has been used for tests, being at one time equipped with Standard SM-1 missiles.



Thondar Class Missile Boat

Quantity in service: 10
Displacement: 205 tons
Dimensions: L 33.6m, W 7.6m, Dr 2.7m
Crew: 28
Speed: 35kt
Powerplant: 3 x 8,000bhp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x twin 30mm AAA, 1 x twin 23mm AAA (crewed)

Often referred to by their Chinese name, Houdong class, these boats were delivered from China in the mid 1990s, and are operated by the IRGC-N.


SUBMARINES

Operational Units:
3 x Kilo Class SSK, Iranian Navy, Russian built (not illustrated)
3 x Ghadir class SSC, Iranian Navy (?), Iranian built
1 x Nahong class SSM, Iranian Navy (?), Iranian built
1 x Al Sabehat 15 SDV, Iranian Navy (?), Iranian built
?? x ????"Attack Submersible-X"???? SSM, Iranian built


Ghadir Class Midget Submarine

Quantity in Service: 3
Dimensions: L 29m, W 2.75m
Displacement : 120 tons dived
Crew: ?
Endurance: ?
Speed (est): 11kts surfaced, 8kts submerged
Powerplant: Diesel-electric
Armament: 2 x 533mm (21”) torpedo tubes with 2~4 torpedoes, Skhval rocket torpedoes or 4~8 mines. Possibly submarine launched anti-ship missiles but unsubstantiated.

Of North Korean design, the IS-120 Ghadir (Qadir) submarine closely resembles the North Korean “P-4 Class”. One noteworthy feature is that the Ghadir appears to have conventional cruciform tail fins with conventional propeller instead of the North Korean sub’s unconventional control plane arrangement and co-axel twin propeller. Its mast and unusual snorkel (which folds backwards along the hull when not in use) is almost identical however. Estimates of the size of this submarine vary greatly.

These boats are credible littoral submarines well suited to mine laying, infiltration/Special Forces operation and limited anti-surface warfare. Their torpedo tubes could conceivably carry the Shkval rocket torpedo or even submarine launched anti-ship missiles which Iran reportedly has. But their sensor fit is almost certainly basic by contemporary standards limiting their potential against other subs and advanced warships. There is also no reason to suppose that they are particularly quiet and the shallow water of the Gulf is likely to leave them exposed to anti-submarine warfare.



Nahong Class midget submarine


Quantity in service: 1

A small midget submarine suited to mine laying and special operations with possible limited anti-ship strike capability. Armament is likely to consist of mines carried externally although it is possible that 533mm torpedoes could also be carried in this manner as is the case with similar submarines in WW2.

Mines could include the potent Chinese designed EM52 fast rising rocket mine which can be laid in deep water, attacking its target by firing a rocket up into the underbelly of the ship, so fast that evasive action is unlikely. The EM52’s rocket is unguided and is less sophisticated than some equivalent top-end naval mines, but it does offer Iran a serious threat to enemy shipping.

Believed to be operational in Caspian sea but not verified.


”Al Sabehat 15” Swimmer Delivery Vehicle (Submersible)


Quantity in service: 3(?)
Length: 8m
Crew: 2 + up to 7 additional divers
Weapons: up to 17 Limpet mines

A small “chariot” design typical of special forces insertion vehicles, the type is only suitable for coastal operations.

Can be launched from a ship or under-slung from a large helicopter (Sea King, Mi-8 Hip or Chinook).

I have identified at least three minor variations on this type by close examination of the few available photos.

????"Attack Submersible-X"????

Quantity in Service: ? 1
Dimensions: L 7m
Weight: (est) 3 tons (armed)
Crew: 2
Weapons: 21" (533mm) heavyweight torpedo, possibly type YT534W1

Recently paraded, this two man "wet sub" has a notch out of the bottom suggesting that it is designed to carry a single heavyweight torpedo semi-recessed. The two crew members use frogman apparatus. The clear nosecone appears to be for the driver to see where they are going when underwater, presumably crouched inside the hull. The small forward control planes are probably hand operated by the driver.

An interesting craft, it is not clear how the crew aim the torpedo with any degree of accuracy except at very short ranges.



BOGHAMMARS

Small craft, often based on civilian speed boats. Lightly armed with machine guns, MRLS, AAA, RPG or mines.

Example:

MIG-G-0900 (Boghammar)

Quantity: 20
Displacement: 6.4 tons
Dimensions: L 9.3m, W 3.45m, Dr 0.6m
Crew: 3
Endurance: ??
Speed: 25kt+
Powerplant: 2 x 1260hp
Armament: Typically 1 x 12.7mm HMG and 1x12 107mm rocket launcher (MRLS).

Typically of locally produced small boats that have been adapted for warfare, often being labeled as “Boghammars”. The MIG-G-0900 is reportedly a catamaran, and comes in several variants including a mini-passenger ferry. The military/paramilitary version is typically equipped with a 107mm MRLS.

The MRLS is probably the Iranian produce “Haseb”, a derivative of the Chinese designed Type-73 which has an effective range of 8.5km and has a HE-Fragmentation warheads. The rocket weighs 18.8kg rocket including the 8.3kg TNT warhead (or 6.4kg blast –fragmentation warhead), which produces a 12.5m blast radius. A 12 round salvo is fired in 8 seconds. It is not known whether the weapons mount is gyrostabilised for accuracy – if not accuracy would likely be appalling.

Alternative armaments include RPG-7 rocket propelled grenades or 106mm recoilless rifle.

These boats have an advantage in their small size and relative similarity to civilian types allowing them to hide among legitimate civilian fishing fleets. However their weapons are too light to be a serious concern to military vessels.

[Nubian Warrior]

SHORE BATTERIES (Anti-Ship Missile)

Operational Units:
100+ C-802/C-802A Noor
100+ HY-2 “Silkworm”
?? C-701T/C-701R “Kosar”
?? TL-10 “Kosar” (possibly only ship launched units)
?? Ra’ad, Iranian designed



C-802/C802A Noor

Range: 120-180km
Maximum number of missiles per launch vehicle: 3
Vehicle: Truck

Iran deploys C-802s using a Chinese designed truck launcher with up to three missile boxes which are fired over the left side of the trailer. A command shelter is mounted forward of the missile turntable. The truck itself may be locally sourced, possible an Iveco.

The C-802 family is the most potent of Iran’s anti-ship missiles being credited with generally good anti-jamming capabilities and high hit probability.

Third party targeting and mid-course update is required to hit targets over about 60km away.


”Kosar”

Also romanised “Kowsar”, this name refers to several short ranged anti-ship missile types of Chinese origin that Iran is producing. Clearly Iran is producing versions of both the C-701 and TL-10 families of missiles. Both types come in both TV and Radar seeker versions, with Infrared seekers rumored.

Both have generally similar capabilities although the C-701 is longer ranged and its radar version, unlike the TL-10 radar version, can accept post-launch re-targeting.

The TL-10 is thought to be employed on the China Cat missile boats whereas the C-701 has been showcased as a shore battery system in recent wargames. Both families are capable of shore, ship, helicopter and jet launch.


C-701R quad launcher mounted on Iveco truck:



Ra’ad

Range: 360km
Maximum number of missiles per launch vehicle: 1
Vehicle: Tracked

Developed from the HY-2 “Silkworm”, the Ra’ad (Thunder) is Iran’s first truly indigenous anti-ship missile in the minds of many observers’. Although China has developed turbojet versions of the HY-2 family, this missile does not resemble them.

It is launched from an HY-2 launcher suggesting backwards compatibility with the obsolete HY-2. The turreted launcher in question is identical to North Korean ones.

Comparison of Ra’ad (bottom) with HY-2:


The missile is claimed to have a 360km range which, given its huge fuel capacity, seems reasonable. Some estimates suggest that it is mildly supersonic but I think that’s unlikely. Another observation is that the missile is not radar stealthy (not that many are) – just pre-empting the claims that some might make. The large radome suggests an active-radar seeker.


HY-2 “Silkworm”

Range: 95km
Maximum number of missiles per launch launcher: 1
Vehicle: Truck or trailer, possibly some tracked launchers

An old missile supplied by China and subsequently locally produce, the HY-2 is still in widespread service with the IRCG, in both trailer and truck mounted launchers. Despite the useful range and huge warhead, the HY-2 is relatively slow and high flying making it easier to see and shoot down.

[Nubian Warrior]

AIRBORNE ANTI-SHIP CAPABILITY

Air Force (IRIAF)
32 x Su-24 Fencer, strike bomber, Russia

35 x F-4D/E Phantom-II, multi-role fighter, USA
10 x Mirage F-1, ground attack fighter, France (ex-Iraqi)

Iranian Navy
10~13 x SH-3D Sea King, helicopter, USA (28 delivered)
?? x Mil Mi-17 Hip (Naval), helicopter, Russia

12 x AB212, helicopter, Italy
3-5 P-3C Orion, maritime patrol aircraft, USA


Su-24 Fencer / Noor

Quantity in service: about 30. Not all may be upgraded to accept the Noor anti-ship missile
Missile: Possibly C-801K, or maybe a later version based on C-802.
Substantiation: Widely reported since mid-late 1990s, hard proof of capability remains elusive.

The Fencer is a very capable strike jet with credible avionics, well suited to maritime strike. If reports that it is operational with Noor anti-ship missiles are true then this represents are relatively potent capability.


Mil Mi-17 ‘Hip’ / Noor

Quantity in service: ?
Missile: C-802 Noor

At least one test launch has been publicized, but operational status unclear. The Noor missile fitted to the Mi-17 is a modification of the ground launched version normally fired from a box launcher. This means that the launch booster and the pop-out folding fins are retained. An advantage of retaining the launch booster is slightly longer range and the ability to fire the missile at very slow speed or hover, but the down side is a rather heavy missile that must exist the helicopter very calmly to ensure that the fins don’t hit the fuselage or pylons when they pop-out split seconds after launch.



SH-3D Sea King / Sea Killer (Fajr-e-Darya)

Type: Light short range anti-ship missile, helicopter launched
Range: Approx 20km
Guidance: Electro-optical
Speed: Mach 0.8

The Italian designed Sea Killer anti-ship missile was supplied to Iran with the Vosper Mk5 corvettes but was withdrawn from service in the early 1990s (replaced by C-802). However the type resurfaced in the late 1990s as the indigenous Fajr-e Darya programme, reborn as a helicopter launched missile. The programme is thought to have benefited from Chinese assistance, sometimes described by the Chinese designation FL-6. Although the missile has been paraded publicly in recent years, and seen mounted on Iranian Navy SH-3D Sea King helicopters, it seems to have been eclipsed by the Chinese C-701 and TL-10 missile types (see Kosar above).

The missile closely resembles the Italian Marte Mk2 missile because they are both derived from the Sea Killer. The European missile uses an active radar seeker and is generally more capable.


In my humble opinion, I believe that the IRIN forces will invite the enemy in and turn that whole area into a killing field so as to discourage the US. They will be able to hold off the US for a good period of time, but the US will eventually break them because of their mass production capability which Iran does not have right now. During every war that the US was engaged in, it was when the conflict was at its peak that their mass production of arms and military equipment increased. In lieu of this I believe that this would eventually turn into a full scale war with no end in sight. Let's pray that God is merciful enough to prevent this from happening.

[jamsadeghi]

I heard that Iran was adopting some kind of "swarming" policy towards the US carrier threat. Basically 1000's of relatively small UAVs from the air, LOADS of small, highly maneuverable speed boats from the sea, and barrages of missiles from the shore. I suppose it makes sense as a method (in theory at least). What got me interested was the the US apparently took this seriously enough to issue statements saying they were preparing for such an attack!

Does anyone know if these statements (by both sides) were actually made? Or is it just the usual propaganda (by BOTH sides! LOL)

[Nubian Warrior]

I heard that Iran was adopting some kind of "swarming" policy towards the US carrier threat. Basically 1000's of relatively small UAVs from the air, LOADS of small, highly maneuverable speed boats from the sea, and barrages of missiles from the shore. I suppose it makes sense as a method (in theory at least). What got me interested was the the US apparently took this seriously enough to issue statements saying they were preparing for such an attack!

Does anyone know if these statements (by both sides) were actually made? Or is it just the usual propaganda (by BOTH sides! LOL)

It is more than likey even though not stated. Many of us know that this is the DPRK modus operandi in a maritime conflict or engagement. But the difference between the DPRK and Iran is that the DPRK has more that enough ships and artillery to swarm the carriers and the aegis destroyers with the appropriate air support. Whether NK would be successful or not in that venture would have to be seen first. Most of the IRIN is a smaller replica of the DPRK's navy without the mass production factor. However, I don't think that Iran's navy would use the same tactic. I will guess that they will allow their coastal defense, subs and naval planes to defend their shores with the help of the TOR1's while using their small attack crafts as recons, supply line breakers and destroy oil tankers.

[Alex]

I heard that Iran was adopting some kind of "swarming" policy towards the US carrier threat. Basically 1000's of relatively small UAVs from the air, LOADS of small, highly maneuverable speed boats from the sea, and barrages of missiles from the shore. I suppose it makes sense as a method (in theory at least). What got me interested was the the US apparently took this seriously enough to issue statements saying they were preparing for such an attack!

Does anyone know if these statements (by both sides) were actually made? Or is it just the usual propaganda (by BOTH sides! LOL)

it's propaganda. if iran had such a tactic then we would't know about it.

and @Numbian warrior this you take this info from strategypage or I M F? coz it's very flawed and not att all accurete.

[Capricorn Edge]

I think the Iranians should invest in having a force of up to 8,000 gunboats, whith each fastboats in the Gulf manned by a crew where at least one member is armed with an advanced RPG. This would totally overwhelm USN ships in the Gulf.

[jamsadeghi]

it's propaganda. if iran had such a tactic then we would't know about it.

and @Numbian warrior this you take this info from strategypage or I M F? coz it's very flawed and not att all accurete.

Fair enough I guess...I wouldnt put it past EITHER administration to use the ideas of propaganda....but if its just talk then why did the US bother to respond? Was it just for their own public opinion??

And secondly, i've been thinking about the principle of "swarming" and it doesnt seem too difficult to implement...and logically it seems that the results would be good to say the least!...It seems to me that this idea might actually be a viable option for iran as a defensive move....what do u guys think??

[Musa a.s.]

Absolutely. How do you think the Blitzkreig(my original tactic) was so successful?

[Oriellien]

The weakness of the US would be when it has to go through small areas like Straits of Hormuz, where small boats can sneak up out of nowhere. Other then that I dont think other fleets in the region can hold it off.

[jamsadeghi]

I think the Iranians should invest in having a force of up to 8,000 gunboats, whith each fastboats in the Gulf manned by a crew where at least one member is armed with an advanced RPG. This would totally overwhelm USN ships in the Gulf.

That certainly would help the whole "swarming" thing...but i have to say, i dont think the hull of a USN carrier would be penetrated by just an advanced RPG. I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure each of those carriers goes through a HARSH hull integrity test.

maybe if each of the gunboats was armed with something more substantial then we might be talking...

[jamsadeghi]

Absolutely. How do you think the Blitzkreig(my original tactic) was so successful?

"my original tactic"!!????....LMAO!?...are u immortal or something?!

[Nubian Warrior]

That certainly would help the whole "swarming" thing...but i have to say, i dont think the hull of a USN carrier would be penetrated by just an advanced RPG. I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure each of those carriers goes through a HARSH hull integrity test.

maybe if each of the gunboats was armed with something more substantial then we might be talking...

1. Surface ships in the carrier-sinking fleet fire a large barrage of cruise missles. If you are the USN, at this time you would also fire a few SM-2s in ASM mode to fly out ahead of your cruise missles and hit the enemy escorting DDGs and FFGs to mess up their defences, or at least distract them.

2. Wave 1 of aircraft would consist of planes carrying anti-radar missles (HARMs, basically) and escorts. These would probably target the carriers escorts, for the purpose of clearing a way through the defences for the cruise missles.

3. Not far behind is wave 2 of aircraft, carrying ALCMs (Air launched cruise missles) and escorts. These would be used to put even more strain of the AEGIS system. Enough missles from different directions will overwhelm it, especially if wave 1 was succesful.

4. After the aircraft have returned to base and the cruise missles have impacted, assuming that the attack was quite succesful (majorly damaging or sinking all or most of the carriers escorts, and/or the carrier itself) another wave of aircraft is launched to finish the job with torpedos.

All of the air groups would have to very large, which is why this is really a plan for multiple carrier groups to take on each other or a single carrier. But it has a good chance of success if you have enough resources.

[Musa a.s.]

You have a military background don't you?

[Nubian Warrior]

You have a military background don't you?

If I did I'd probably be stuck in Iraq somewhere up ****s creek. No, I just love doing research because it gives me a sense of where the world is going, who's rising up among in the international ranks, and a hope for a world without war where peace and compassion would be the lasting effect.

[Musa a.s.]

You seem like you'd be a good military intelligence officer/strategist, not necessarily U.S. or the like.

[Vladimir80]

1. Surface ships in the carrier-sinking fleet fire a large barrage of cruise missles. If you are the USN, at this time you would also fire a few SM-2s in ASM mode to fly out ahead of your cruise missles and hit the enemy escorting DDGs and FFGs to mess up their defences, or at least distract them.

USN isn't going to wait to launch their strike when in SM-2 range of the enemy fleet. The problem with using SM-2 in surface search mode is it does not have nearly the range it has in air search mode, cut it by 2/3rds if you do that. Not to mention the warhead is a blast fragmentation which wouldn't do much of anything to a hardened warship. They will certainly save those missiles for air defence especially at $300,000 a pop given the ordinance their Hornets will be carrying.

2. Wave 1 of aircraft would consist of planes carrying anti-radar missles (HARMs, basically) and escorts. These would probably target the carriers escorts, for the purpose of clearing a way through the defences for the cruise missles.

The first thing IRIAF is going to do is launch her Tomcats and take out the E-2 Sentry with her AIM-54 copies. Considering the USN was stupid enough to retire their Tomcats with the similar capability they will be at an initial disdvantage losing several aircraft in the initial salvo and most likely including a Sentry or two. Without the eyes in the sky the USN will be almost as blind as her IRIAF counterpart.


3. Not far behind is wave 2 of aircraft, carrying ALCMs (Air launched cruise missles) and escorts. These would be used to put even more strain of the AEGIS system. Enough missles from different directions will overwhelm it, especially if wave 1 was succesful.

The next wave will be the F-4s, the remaning F-14s, and Mig-29s tangling with the remaining Hornets. If they throw enough at them they might just be able to grab air superiority (after taking MANY losses to AMRAAMs). They would then launch whatever cruise missiles they can muster to overwhelm the AEGIS shield. Once they have expended all their missiles the fleet is open to slaughter from the air.

4. After the aircraft have returned to base and the cruise missles have impacted, assuming that the attack was quite succesful (majorly damaging or sinking all or most of the carriers escorts, and/or the carrier itself) another wave of aircraft is launched to finish the job with torpedos.

One can assume that word of the heavy losses has reached USAF and they will be sending F-15/F-22s to come and save what's left of the fleet. At this point your battle is pretty much over.


All of the air groups would have to very large, which is why this is really a plan for multiple carrier groups to take on each other or a single carrier. But it has a good chance of success if you have enough resources.

Depending on how big the CSG is and how many aircraft you throw into it might just work. You will most likely lose most of your airforce though. :laugh4:

[Zraver]

USN isn't going to wait to launch their strike when in SM-2 range of the enemy fleet. The problem with using SM-2 in surface search mode is it does not have nearly the range it has in air search mode, cut it by 2/3rds if you do that. Not to mention the warhead is a blast fragmentation which wouldn't do much of anything to a hardened warship. They will certainly save those missiles for air defence especially at $300,000 a pop given the ordinance their Hornets will be carrying.

The SM-2's did a bang up job during Prayign Mantis, modern warships are not "hardened". The only reason a carrier has such signifigant durabiliy is its sheer size and double hull with baffles construction that create signifigant deadspace areas.



The first thing IRIAF is going to do is launch her Tomcats and take out the E-2 Sentry with her AIM-54 copies. Considering the USN was stupid enough to retire their Tomcats with the similar capability they will be at an initial disdvantage losing several aircraft in the initial salvo and most likely including a Sentry or two. Without the eyes in the sky the USN will be almost as blind as her IRIAF counterpart.

Unless the iranians initiate the conflict there will be a large USAF presence already ove rthe Gulf. They might not be alowed to strike offnesively at Iran do to GCC politics but they can be used to defend US assets. If the US is the party starting the dance then we can expect F-22's in orbit probalby over Iran waiting on on info from the E-2 and E-3 systesm to shoot down the Fendcers and hawk Armed Tomcats as soon as they go wheels up.

BTW the Iranian AIM-54 replacement is a airlaunched version of the HAWK. It is not superior to the AIM-120C




The next wave will be the F-4s, the remaning F-14s, and Mig-29s tangling with the remaining Hornets. If they throw enough at them they might just be able to grab air superiority (after taking MANY losses to AMRAAMs). They would then launch whatever cruise missiles they can muster to overwhelm the AEGIS shield. Once they have expended all their missiles the fleet is open to slaughter from the air.

if they are carrying heavy AShM they can't turn and burn to avoid AAM's to rachet up the Pk rates for the AMRAAM volleys. Plus the carries will have USAF F-15 and E-3 support. The Hornets have other (offnesive) jobs to do.



One can assume that word of the heavy losses has reached USAF and they will be sending F-15/F-22s to come and save what's left of the fleet. At this point your battle is pretty much over.

Unless iran launches the attack they will already be there.



Depending on how big the CSG is and how many aircraft you throw into it might just work. You will most likely lose most of your airforce though. :laugh4:


The death of the IIRAF for very little gain. Although if a CSG is in the gulf when the shooting starts the US has bigger problems than the IIRAF anyways.

Nubian Warrior

1. Surface ships in the carrier-sinking fleet fire a large barrage of cruise missles. If you are the USN, at this time you would also fire a few SM-2s in ASM mode to fly out ahead of your cruise missles and hit the enemy escorting DDGs and FFGs to mess up their defences, or at least distract them.

The Aegis ships are the backstop not the first line of defense. In a PG war where a CSG is still inside the gulf, unless Iran launches a suprise attack the USAF will be on station to act defensively to free up the Hornets for mub bug work. Iran doe snot posses a large or capable surface fleet in conventional terms. Thier few true warships in the confined waters of the gulf are sittign ducks. iran's streangths lay in other areas than air and large surface combatants.


2. Wave 1 of aircraft would consist of planes carrying anti-radar missles (HARMs, basically) and escorts. These would probably target the carriers escorts, for the purpose of clearing a way through the defences for the cruise missles.

wave 1 is raptor food, well the IIRAF Tomcats and Fencers are anyway. The APG-77 can tell what type of aircraft its looking at, so can the Hawk EYE and Sentry.


3. Not far behind is wave 2 of aircraft, carrying ALCMs (Air launched cruise missles) and escorts. These would be used to put even more strain of the AEGIS system. Enough missles from different directions will overwhelm it, especially if wave 1 was succesful.

See abovre but add Eagles to the mix plus the CSG Mig Cap, followed at last by the Aegis systems.


4. After the aircraft have returned to base and the cruise missles have impacted, assuming that the attack was quite succesful (majorly damaging or sinking all or most of the carriers escorts, and/or the carrier itself) another wave of aircraft is launched to finish the job with torpedos.

1- There won't be many aircraft left.

2- Modern fixed wing jet aircraft fly to fast to use air launched torps.


All of the air groups would have to very large, which is why this is really a plan for multiple carrier groups to take on each other or a single carrier. But it has a good chance of success if you have enough resources.

Each carrier has about 60 deployable combat fighters, plus the numerous USAF assets in the region. In an air battle that either starts accidentally or at the US's instigation then the IIRAF and IIRN are outnumbered.

Iran's steangths lay in its rocket mines which are a threat anythign in the water, the Thunds chokepoint with the large number so f medium and short range AShM, iran's few large AShM systems, and the FAC's and boghammers. indivually the FAC's and Boghammers are not a threat, and I think a surface group can fight off even alrge amounts of them. However they pose a huge threatto the VLCC/ULCC vessels via either firing or hijacking. Just one or two scuttled crosswise in the shipping lanes could block the gulf and its oil for months.

Stopping this is mission number 1 and only duringthe initial part of a war for the US. Everything else Iraq, the nukes anything must wait on the oil campaign. The US's best assets are the USMC with its ove rthe horizon amphibious capability. If they can take the missiel firing shores of Abu Musa while NAVY SEALS take the off shore platforms used by the IIRG corps then this threat is greatly lessened.

The F/A-18's need to hit the boat sheds, barracks, and workshops for the FACs and Boghammers to attrit these forces as much as possible in port. The FAC's and Boghammers probalby only have one major target of the USN with the rest being directed agaisnt the tankers. If the FACs and Bogghammers can sink the coalition minesweepers Iran wins- game over.

Iran's submarine fleet is most efective as mine layers not as active combatants. I don't think the Kilo's will last more than a couple of hours at the most in a war but the mini subs jsut have the range and payload to laymines in all the right areas. and becuase they are so small and quiet they are dammably hard to find if they can't be caught in port.

[Zraver]

Also, I expect iran will focus on inbound tankers. They are empty and so pose far less of an ecological threat to Iran it self. The goal is not just to close the strait as fast as possible, but to get it closed in a way that benifits Iran the most. Sinking empty vessels also keeps Iran from beign labled an ecological terrorist state and eqauted with Saddam's poisioning of the region in 91. The world won't really care about fault, but it gives Iran a bit of credability with the big energy consumers and the UN when peace talks replace war if Iran is sucessful. "We didn't want this war, we even acted in such a way as to minimize the damage in every way all the way down to the the samllest bird or fish, this war is all America's fault" or some such argument.

[jamsadeghi]

The SM-2's did a bang up job during Prayign Mantis, modern warships are not "hardened". The only reason a carrier has such signifigant durabiliy is its sheer size and double hull with baffles construction that create signifigant deadspace areas.




Unless the iranians initiate the conflict there will be a large USAF presence already ove rthe Gulf. They might not be alowed to strike offnesively at Iran do to GCC politics but they can be used to defend US assets. If the US is the party starting the dance then we can expect F-22's in orbit probalby over Iran waiting on on info from the E-2 and E-3 systesm to shoot down the Fendcers and hawk Armed Tomcats as soon as they go wheels up.

BTW the Iranian AIM-54 replacement is a airlaunched version of the HAWK. It is not superior to the AIM-120C





if they are carrying heavy AShM they can't turn and burn to avoid AAM's to rachet up the Pk rates for the AMRAAM volleys. Plus the carries will have USAF F-15 and E-3 support. The Hornets have other (offnesive) jobs to do.




Unless iran launches the attack they will already be there.





The death of the IIRAF for very little gain. Although if a CSG is in the gulf when the shooting starts the US has bigger problems than the IIRAF anyways.

Nubian Warrior


The Aegis ships are the backstop not the first line of defense. In a PG war where a CSG is still inside the gulf, unless Iran launches a suprise attack the USAF will be on station to act defensively to free up the Hornets for mub bug work. Iran doe snot posses a large or capable surface fleet in conventional terms. Thier few true warships in the confined waters of the gulf are sittign ducks. iran's streangths lay in other areas than air and large surface combatants.



wave 1 is raptor food, well the IIRAF Tomcats and Fencers are anyway. The APG-77 can tell what type of aircraft its looking at, so can the Hawk EYE and Sentry.



See abovre but add Eagles to the mix plus the CSG Mig Cap, followed at last by the Aegis systems.



1- There won't be many aircraft left.

2- Modern fixed wing jet aircraft fly to fast to use air launched torps.



Each carrier has about 60 deployable combat fighters, plus the numerous USAF assets in the region. In an air battle that either starts accidentally or at the US's instigation then the IIRAF and IIRN are outnumbered.

Iran's steangths lay in its rocket mines which are a threat anythign in the water, the Thunds chokepoint with the large number so f medium and short range AShM, iran's few large AShM systems, and the FAC's and boghammers. indivually the FAC's and Boghammers are not a threat, and I think a surface group can fight off even alrge amounts of them. However they pose a huge threatto the VLCC/ULCC vessels via either firing or hijacking. Just one or two scuttled crosswise in the shipping lanes could block the gulf and its oil for months.

Stopping this is mission number 1 and only duringthe initial part of a war for the US. Everything else Iraq, the nukes anything must wait on the oil campaign. The US's best assets are the USMC with its ove rthe horizon amphibious capability. If they can take the missiel firing shores of Abu Musa while NAVY SEALS take the off shore platforms used by the IIRG corps then this threat is greatly lessened.

The F/A-18's need to hit the boat sheds, barracks, and workshops for the FACs and Boghammers to attrit these forces as much as possible in port. The FAC's and Boghammers probalby only have one major target of the USN with the rest being directed agaisnt the tankers. If the FACs and Bogghammers can sink the coalition minesweepers Iran wins- game over.

Iran's submarine fleet is most efective as mine layers not as active combatants. I don't think the Kilo's will last more than a couple of hours at the most in a war but the mini subs jsut have the range and payload to laymines in all the right areas. and becuase they are so small and quiet they are dammably hard to find if they can't be caught in port.

Basically i think we're all in agreement that if Iran doesnt strike first then we've pretty much had it!

[Alex]

BTW the Iranian AIM-54 replacement is a airlaunched version of the HAWK. It is not superior to the AIM-120C


HAWK missile cannot possibly replace AIM-54. You only have to read about each missile performance to see what I mean. converted Hawks for F-14 gave IRIAF a powerful short range "alternative" missile while the aim-54 was being developed and reverse engineered. ACIG claims that iran has now atleast 150 reverse engineered aim-54's. iran started to work on reverse engineering aim-54's about 20 years ago.

[Vladimir80]

The SM-2's did a bang up job during Prayign Mantis, modern warships are not "hardened". The only reason a carrier has such signifigant durabiliy is its sheer size and double hull with baffles construction that create signifigant deadspace areas.

The hull and superstructure of anything above a corvette will take several hits just to cause any serious damage. It took 6 hits just to damage a FAC without sinking it. One harpoon could have done the job, but of course it missed.

When you're facing a massive airstrike and surface strike you're not going to waste your air defence missiles on wortthless attacks when you have air cover from a CVN... :sorry3:

Unless the iranians initiate the conflict there will be a large USAF presence already ove rthe Gulf. They might not be alowed to strike offnesively at Iran do to GCC politics but they can be used to defend US assets. If the US is the party starting the dance then we can expect F-22's in orbit probalby over Iran waiting on on info from the E-2 and E-3 systesm to shoot down the Fendcers and hawk Armed Tomcats as soon as they go wheels up.

If US CSGs are trying to transit the straights we can assume they are not ready to strike Iran just yet which places the ball in Iran's court. The UAE is not wanting to be viewed as too close to the US and Oman is buddies with Iran so those airbases are out. The USAF wil have to base a good distance from the straights and their overconfidence in their navy and unpreparedness for an Iranian all out quick strike would make the scenerio possible.

As Alex has pointed out IRIAF has 150 AIM-54 clones... the USN will take many losses including their airborne AWACs. The F-22s will take time to get to the battle based in Kuwait which is most likely place.

BTW the Iranian AIM-54 replacement is a airlaunched version of the HAWK. It is not superior to the AIM-120C

Read what Alex said...

if they are carrying heavy AShM they can't turn and burn to avoid AAM's to rachet up the Pk rates for the AMRAAM volleys. Plus the carries will have USAF F-15 and E-3 support. The Hornets have other (offnesive) jobs to do.

The US isn't planned for an all out assault at this point. They are prepared to transit the straights but Iran is the ones who decides the terms of the battle here. F-15s and E-3s won't be based close enough and by the time they get on site the battle will be over.


Unless iran launches the attack they will already be there.

That's the only way they're going to win any scenerio.

The death of the IIRAF for very little gain. Although if a CSG is in the gulf when the shooting starts the US has bigger problems than the IIRAF anyways.

What good is your air force if your not going to use it? If you can go head to head with the USN and defeat them in the Persian Gulf... what a blow to the US that would be. They would probably call a cease fire just so they can rescue the thousands of sailors in the water. Iran has to plan a strike where the F-22 isn't present until the late stage of battle. The only way that is going to happen is to strike first and do so with everything you have.

[Nubian Warrior]

The hull and superstructure of anything above a corvette will take several hits just to cause any serious damage. It took 6 hits just to damage a FAC without sinking it. One harpoon could have done the job, but of course it missed.

When you're facing a massive airstrike and surface strike you're not going to waste your air defense missiles on wortthless attacks when you have air cover from a CVN... :sorry3:



If US CSGs are trying to transit the straights we can assume they are not ready to strike Iran just yet which places the ball in Iran's court. The UAE is not wanting to be viewed as too close to the US and Oman is buddies with Iran so those airbases are out. The USAF wil have to base a good distance from the straights and their overconfidence in their navy and unpreparedness for an Iranian all out quick strike would make the scenerio possible.

As Alex has pointed out IRIAF has 150 AIM-54 clones... the USN will take many losses including their airborne AWACs. The F-22s will take time to get to the battle based in Kuwait which is most likely place.



Read what Alex said...



The US isn't planned for an all out assault at this point. They are prepared to transit the straights but Iran is the ones who decides the terms of the battle here. F-15s and E-3s won't be based close enough and by the time they get on site the battle will be over.




That's the only way they're going to win any scenerio.



What good is your air force if your not going to use it? If you can go head to head with the USN and defeat them in the Persian Gulf... what a blow to the US that would be. They would probably call a cease fire just so they can rescue the thousands of sailors in the water. Iran has to plan a strike where the F-22 isn't present until the late stage of battle. The only way that is going to happen is to strike first and do so with everything you have.

Good point. But let's not forget about what happened in WWII at Pearl Harbor. The US pretended not to know about the planned attack and invited them in instead. This gave the US a free pass to get into the war that would fill the factories and give many people opportunities for employment after a long economic depression. However, the times are different. The US is stretched to thin for a conventional war thus giving way to a dangerous alternative which they have stated as part of their military doctrine as to never lose a war.

I do not believe that Iran would act first w/o the US knowing about it long before unless someone in the IRGC breaks protocol and jumps the gun.

[Vladimir80]

Good point. But let's not forget about what happened in WWII at Pearl Harbor. The US pretended not to know about the planned attack and invited them in instead. This gave the US a free pass to get into the war that would fill the factories and give many people opportunities for employment after a long economic depression. However, the times are different. The US is stretched to thin for a conventional war thus giving way to a dangerous alternative which they have stated as part of their military doctrine as to never lose a war.

I do not believe that Iran would act first w/o the US knowing about it long before unless someone in the IRGC breaks protocol and jumps the gun.

I think the type of war the US will wage in this day and age is totally different than what they were willing to do in the days of the Great Patriotic War. The world will see the US has done nothing but kick Iran around and that a military strike is their right given the labeling of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. That is practically an act of war in and of itself. I have heard talk by US politicians recalling draft but the people say "go to hell." US does not have the will for a draft or full invasion... the days of their grandfathers is over. They are much more pacified now when it comes to total war.

[rabs]

They would probably call a cease fire just so they can rescue the thousands of sailors in the water.

After they destroy a a carrier and several ships? There will be crys for genocide, and the use of nukes in the streets, not a cease fire.

Ive yet to hear how the Iranians are actually going to attack the carrier effectively?

[Oriellien]

I think the type of war the US will wage in this day and age is totally different than what they were willing to do in the days of the Great Patriotic War. The world will see the US has done nothing but kick Iran around and that a military strike is their right given the labeling of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. That is practically an act of war in and of itself. I have heard talk by US politicians recalling draft but the people say "go to hell." US does not have the will for a draft or full invasion... the days of their grandfathers is over. They are much more pacified now when it comes to total war.

Two scenarios have nothing to do with each other.

[Kiaar]

I think the Iranians should invest in having a force of up to 8,000 gunboats, whith each fastboats in the Gulf manned by a crew where at least one member is armed with an advanced RPG. This would totally overwhelm USN ships in the Gulf.

If you buy 8,000 gun boats you need to maintain, crew, and arm them all.

Also, using RPG's would be suicide. Getting close enough to use them would cause tremendous casualties, and an RPG on a warship is more or less useless. You would need hundreds, if not thousands, to sink a single ship using an RPG with the size and armor that most US naval vessels are.

Edit: Hmm, I should have read more of this thread first. Didn't notice there were 3 pages already...

[Kiaar]

I think the type of war the US will wage in this day and age is totally different than what they were willing to do in the days of the Great Patriotic War. The world will see the US has done nothing but kick Iran around and that a military strike is their right given the labeling of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. That is practically an act of war in and of itself. I have heard talk by US politicians recalling draft but the people say "go to hell." US does not have the will for a draft or full invasion... the days of their grandfathers is over. They are much more pacified now when it comes to total war.

As was stated, two very different situations. America or its allies are in no real danger. There is no modern day Hitler with a large and very powerful military with advanced technology. Few Americans support the war in Iraq, and fewer would support any war with Iran. Most of those that would are those whos kids wouldn't be fighting or have delusions of self important and grandeur.

[Vladimir80]

Two scenarios have nothing to do with each other.

Not according to your Commander and Chief...

Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using."

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact
When this is the words of the man who has the power of the military at his fingers it has much to do with each other. :sorry3:

[Kiaar]

Not according to your Commander and Chief...

Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using."

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact
When this is the words of the man who has the power of the military at his fingers it has much to do with each other. :sorry3:

Yes, but as you very well know, he (Mr. President) is an idiot. He has a lot of power (unfortunately), but that doesn't mean whatever he says is right, as you would probably agree.

[Vladimir80]

Yes, but as you very well know, he (Mr. President) is an idiot. He has a lot of power (unfortunately), but that doesn't mean whatever he says is right, as you would probably agree.

It doesn't really matter when your president acts like a dictator. The American people want out of Iraq yet they are still forced to die for nothing. He is a lame duck and has nothing to lose in another election so he will do whatever he wants. If he wants to invade Iran he will.

[Kiaar]

It doesn't really matter when your president acts like a dictator. The American people want out of Iraq yet they are still forced to die for nothing. He is a lame duck and has nothing to lose in another election so he will do whatever he wants. If he wants to invade Iran he will.

It's not because he's a dictactor, it's because the democrats have no balls, and even if they did, they aren't much better.

Problem is most people are either too stupid, too ignorant, or don't care enough to realize any of this.

[Zraver]

What good is your air force if your not going to use it? If you can go head to head with the USN and defeat them in the Persian Gulf... what a blow to the US that would be. They would probably call a cease fire just so they can rescue the thousands of sailors in the water. Iran has to plan a strike where the F-22 isn't present until the late stage of battle. The only way that is going to happen is to strike first and do so with everything you have.

Attacking a CSG engaging in the right of free passage and murdering thousands of Americans will not bring about a ceasefire but the death of Iran. The USN rarely operates a carrier alone in the Gulf and despite what you think the airforce will be scrambling as soon as the AWACs, RIVETS, JSTARS, Humint, and satalites detect the sudden surge of Iranian military assets.

You can't just snap your finger sand surge a force big enough to threaten a CSG.

BTW any links to credible sources showing the Iranians witha sucessfully RE's AIM-154?

[Vladimir80]

Attacking a CSG engaging in the right of free passage and murdering thousands of Americans will not bring about a ceasefire but the death of Iran.

The US has already declared de facto state of war by listing the military of Iran to be a terrorist organization.

The USN rarely operates a carrier alone in the Gulf and despite what you think the airforce will be scrambling as soon as the AWACs, RIVETS, JSTARS, Humint, and satalites detect the sudden surge of Iranian military assets.

They only ever transit the straight in singles because they meet up with an already stationed carrier if they are working in tandem. The availability of carriers will hardly allow that to take place as they are generally coming from some other hot spot.

You can't just snap your finger sand surge a force big enough to threaten a CSG.

The naval and ground assets will already be in place... you can move IRIAF at a seconds notice.

[Zraver]

The US has already declared de facto state of war by listing the military of Iran to be a terrorist organization.

1- the IIRG is not the military of Iran, it is more akin to the SS of the Nazi party. it's first loyalty is to the political system not the nation.

2- The IIRG does engage in international terrorist acts according to a number of countries and international treaties. it also supplies other internationally recognized terrorist groups and states with weapons, funding, and training. labeling the IIRG as what it is, is calling a spade a spade.



They only ever transit the straight in singles because they meet up with an already stationed carrier if they are working in tandem. The availability of carriers will hardly allow that to take place as they are generally coming from some other hot spot.

But they never travel alone. CSG as self contained but not solitary assets.



The naval and ground assets will already be in place... you can move IRIAF at a seconds notice.

1- prestrike maintenance surge

2- delivery of live ordnance

3- canceling of leaves and passes

4- last minute pre-conflict recon and surveys via speed boats and UAV's

5- grading and emplacmeent of alternate SAM launching sites

6- issuance of civil defense directives

7- dispersal of C4SRI assets

and a hundred or a thousand other things.

The assets might be close but it will still take hours or more likely days to get everything ready. Iran can't risk a half baked attack that lets the carrier escape.


But then if you'd ever been in the military you'd know that you cannot just snap your fingers and go to war. It takes time if you want to do it right, and iran only gets one shot and then they get subjected to a beat down they cannot even comphrehend. If it doesn't go nuclear I will be suprised, but if the hulk of a CVN is already blocking the straits (and the runnaway reactor core is killing the local ecology) the US has nothing to lose since the oil is already blocked possibly for good (how do you recover a radioactive wreck?).

[Vladimir80]

1- the IIRG is not the military of Iran, it is more akin to the SS of the Nazi party. it's first loyalty is to the political system not the nation.

The IRGC is the largest part of the armed forces of Iran. It is more akin to the MVD of the Russian Federation. It's loyalty lies to the government which is that of the nation... duhr :err2:

2- The IIRG does engage in international terrorist acts according to a number of countries and international treaties. it also supplies other internationally recognized terrorist groups and states with weapons, funding, and training. labeling the IIRG as what it is, is calling a spade a spade.

According to George W Bush... :roflmao3:

But they never travel alone. CSG as self contained but not solitary assets.

Kitty Hawk is always alone as are most CSGs. They only pair up for something big and then they have to arrive on station to be paired up. Iran can strike before they unite... divide and conquer.


The assets might be close but it will still take hours or more likely days to get everything ready. Iran can't risk a half baked attack that lets the carrier escape.

Iran will have weeks to prepare as the US media can always be counted to name the patrol station of each embarked carrier. :roflmao3:

But then if you'd ever been in the military you'd know that you cannot just snap your fingers and go to war. It takes time if you want to do it right, and iran only gets one shot and then they get subjected to a beat down they cannot even comphrehend. If it doesn't go nuclear I will be suprised, but if the hulk of a CVN is already blocking the straits (and the runnaway reactor core is killing the local ecology) the US has nothing to lose since the oil is already blocked possibly for good (how do you recover a radioactive wreck?).

It won't go nuclear as Iran is an NPT signatory and it is forbidden in US policy to use nukes against NPT members unless one of their allies nukes US.

Doesn't Iran have ariel refueling? They can launch whatever they need from their bases without the slightest clue to CIA until they meet up with their tankers. They can then divert to the straights and CIA will only have seconds to spead the word. With lack of HUM-INT and some cleaver deception on the part of Iran they can hide anything from the most inept intelligence agency in the world.

[Zraver]

The IRGC is the largest part of the armed forces of Iran. It is more akin to the MVD of the Russian Federation. It's loyalty lies to the government which is that of the nation... duhr :err2:

It is no where near the largest part unless you count the unorganized militia. Nor is it like the MVD its loyalty is to the system of goverment currently in power it does not represent the people of Iran who repearedly and continually vote for moderation and freedom.



According to George W Bush... :roflmao3:

According to its own actions



Kitty Hawk is always alone as are most CSGs. They only pair up for something big and then they have to arrive on station to be paired up. Iran can strike before they unite... divide and conquer.

Has there only been a single CSG iun or near the gulf since march of 2003?



Iran will have weeks to prepare as the US media can always be counted to name the patrol station of each embarked carrier. :roflmao3:

Knowing the area, and knowin the physical location are two different things and those weeks of preparation are detectable.



It won't go nuclear as Iran is an NPT signatory and it is forbidden in US policy to use nukes against NPT members unless one of their allies nukes US.

don't be so sure


Doesn't Iran have ariel refueling? They can launch whatever they need from their bases without the slightest clue to CIA until they meet up with their tankers. They can then divert to the straights and CIA will only have seconds to spead the word. With lack of HUM-INT and some cleaver deception on the part of Iran they can hide anything from the most inept intelligence agency in the world.

a very limited capability, but all those planes forming up are exactly why RIVETs was created (thinking flying Kolchuga) it is a theater wide elint platform. Plus all those boats have to be manned, the subs have to surged after being armed with mines, missiles have to go through pre-flight ie the pre-combat maintenance surge etc.

Also prove the US lacks humint.

You can't hide all the signs of a mobilization for war, you can't even hide most of them.

[Alex]

Attacking a CSG engaging in the right of free passage and murdering thousands of Americans will not bring about a ceasefire but the death of Iran. The USN rarely operates a carrier alone in the Gulf and despite what you think the airforce will be scrambling as soon as the AWACs, RIVETS, JSTARS, Humint, and satalites detect the sudden surge of Iranian military assets.

You can't just snap your finger sand surge a force big enough to threaten a CSG.

BTW any links to credible sources showing the Iranians witha sucessfully RE's AIM-154?

ACIG is very credible. but if you want more here is a pic of f-14 with aim-54 which is from a few years ago. and the iranian version is a improved verion based on the reverse engineered aim-54

[Zraver]

Ok that shows what appears to be an AIM-54, how do we know its better than the original, or is it even an RE it might be an original. Iran did not fire off its entire supply during the Iran-Irag war and only recorded 8-40 AIM-154 kills for the entire war.?

[Alex]

Ok that shows what appears to be an AIM-54, how do we know its better than the original, or is it even an RE it might be an original. Iran did not fire off its entire supply during the Iran-Irag war and only recorded 8-40 AIM-154 kills for the entire war.?

by improved i meant it might be as original but it still has some changes.
it's not important if iran fired of it's entire supply or not since the missiles life has exeeded by now and can't be used anymore. i don't know how many kills was recorded but i will look into it can come back with answers.

[Zraver]

by improved i meant it might be as original but it still has some changes.
it's not important if iran fired of it's entire supply or not since the missiles life has exeeded by now and can't be used anymore. i don't know how many kills was recorded but i will look into it can come back with answers.

With regular maintenance and propellant changes the missiles should still be good.

[Alex]

With regular maintenance and propellant changes the missiles should still be good.

no. all missiles have a time limit. doesn't matter what you change. it must be replaced.

[jamsadeghi]

no. all missiles have a time limit. doesn't matter what you change. it must be replaced.

Well I guess you're referring to the explosive going off? Because I dont see the electronics or guidance systems deterriating within 30 years. Not is they are maintained.

[Zraver]

RDX is a very simple but stable explosive and has a long shelf life, the issue with missile age is the propellant. It will dry out and crack causing an uneven burn and possible detonation

[Oriellien]

Not according to your Commander and Chief...

Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using."

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact
When this is the words of the man who has the power of the military at his fingers it has much to do with each other. :sorry3:

And... you think most Americans feel the same way Bush does? Circumstances in the US regarding WWII and a potential war with Iran have nothing to do with each other :sorry3:.

It doesn't really matter when your president acts like a dictator. The American people want out of Iraq yet they are still forced to die for nothing. He is a lame duck and has nothing to lose in another election so he will do whatever he wants. If he wants to invade Iran he will.

You weren't talking about Bush you were talking about the average American. People didnt join the Army for WWII because the President told them too, if there were the same situations, there would be the same situations regarding average people ready for total war. However total war wont exist on this planet as long as nukes do, unless your talking about Africa.

[Alex]

here is some info about changes in the iranian made aim-54. takeing from ACIG.

the Iranians reverse engineered the whole system, and then made it self-sealed - i.e. it needs no supply of coolant (or, rather, heathing) fluid from carrier aircraft any more.

This already means that some details have been changed, despite "reverse-engineering" process.

Whether the US ECCM would be effective or not, that's, of course, one of the biggest secret about the Iranian "Phoenix".

AWG-9s on IRIAF F-14s have been upgraded in several aspects, but I feel less and less at free to reveal any details.