The U.S. neoconservative agenda to Sacrifice the Fifth Fleet - The New Pearl Harbor

[Bosnian]

The U.S. neoconservative agenda to Sacrifice the Fifth Fleet - The New Pearl Harbor

by Michael E. Salla, M.A., Ph.D.



The Bush administration has covered up and ignored dissenting Pentagon war games analysis that suggests an attack on Iran's nuclear or military facilities will lead directly to the annihilation of the Navy's Fifth Fleet now stationed in the Persian Gulf. Lt. General Paul Van Riper led a hypothetical Persian Gulf state in the 2002 Millennium Challenge war games that resulted in the destruction of the Fifth Fleet. His experience and conclusions regarding the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet to an asymmetrical military conflict and the implications for a war against Iran have been ignored. Neoconservatives within the Bush administration are currently aggressively promoting a range of military actions against Iran that will culminate in it attacking the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet with sophisticated cruise anti-ship missiles. They are ignoring Van Riper's experiences in the Millennium Challenge and how it applies to the current nuclear conflict with Iran.

Iran has sufficient quantities of cruise missiles to destroy much or all of the Fifth Fleet which is within range of Iran's mobile missile launchers strategically located along its mountainous terrain overlooking the Persian Gulf. The Bush administration is deliberately downplaying the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet to Iran's advanced missile technology which has been purchased from Russia and China since the late 1990's. The most sophisticated of Iran's cruise missiles are the 'Sunburn' and 'Yakhonts'. These are missiles against which U.S. military experts conclude modern warships have no effective defence. By deliberately provoking an Iranian retaliation to U.S. military actions, the neoconservatives will knowingly sacrifice much or all of the Fifth Fleet. This will culminate in a new Pearl Harbor that will create the right political environment for total war against Iran, and expanded military actions in the Persian Gulf region.

The Fifth Fleet's Vulnerability to Iran's Anti-Ship Missile Arsenal

The U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet is headquartered in the Gulf State of Bahrain which is responsible for patrolling the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Suez Canal and parts of the Indian Ocean. The Fifth Fleet currently comprises a carrier group and two helicopter carrier ships. Its size peaked at five aircraft carrier groups and six helicopter carriers in 2003 during the invasion of Iraq. Presently, it is led by the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier commissioned in 1961, and on November 2, began participating in a Naval exercise in the Persian Gulf. LINK.

The Fifth Fleet's base in Bahrain, is only 150 miles away from the Iranian coast, and would itself be in range of Iran's new generation of anti-ship cruise missiles. Also, any Naval ships in the confined terrain of the Persian Gulf would have difficulty in manoeuvring and would be within range of Iran's rugged coastline which extends all along the Persian Gulf to the Arabian sea.

Iran began purchasing advanced military technology from Russia soon after the latter pulled out in 2000 from the Gore-Chernomyrdin Protocol, which limited Russia's sales of military equipment to Iran. LINK. Russia subsequently began selling Iran military technology that could be used in any military conflict with the U.S. This included air defence systems and anti-ship cruise missiles in which Russia specialized to offset the U.S. large naval superiority. LINK

The SS-N-22 or 'Sunburn" has a speed of Mach 2.5 or 1500 miles an hour, uses stealth technology and has a range up to 130 miles. It contains a conventional warhead of 750 lbs that can destroy most ships. Of even greater concern is Russia's SSN-X-26 or 'Yakhonts' cruise missile which has a range of 185 miles which makes all US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf vulnerable to attack. LINK.

More importantly the Yakhonts has been specifically developed for use against Carrier groups, and has been sold by Russia on the international arms trade.

Both the Yakhonts and the Sunburn missiles are designed to defeat the Aegis radar defence currently used on U.S. Navy ships by using stealth technology and low ground hugging flying manoeuvres. In their final approaches these missiles take evasive manoeuvres to defeat anti-ship missile defences. So great is the threat posed by the Sunburn, Yakhonts and other advanced anti-ship missiles being developed by Russia and sold to China, Iran and other countries, that the Pentagon's weapons testing office in 2007 moved to halt production on further aircraft carriers until an effective defence was developed. LINK.

Iran has purchased sufficient quantities of both the Sunbeam and Yakhonts to destroy much or all of the U.S. Naval Fifth Fleet anywhere in the Persian Gulf from its mountainous coastal terrain.

Millennium Challenge War games

The "Millennium Challenge" was one of the largest war games ever conducted and war games involved 13,500 troops spread out at over 17 locations. The war games involved heavy usage of computer simulations, extended over a three week period and cost $250 million. LINK Millennium Challenge involved asymmetrical warfare between the U.S military forces, led by General William Kernan, and an unnamed state in the Persian Gulf. According to General Kernan, the war games "would test a series of new war-fighting concepts recently developed by the Pentagon." LINK. Using a range of asymmetrical attack strategies using disguised civilian boats for launching attacks, planes in Kamikaze attacks, and Silkworm cruise missiles, much of the Fifth Fleet was sunk. The games revealed how asymmetrical strategies could exploit the Fifth Fleet's vulnerability against anti-ship cruise missiles in the confined waters of the Persian Gulf.

In a controversial decision, the Pentagon decided to simply 'refloat' the Fifth Fleet to continue the exercise which led to the eventual defeat of the Persian Gulf state. The sinking of the Fifth Fleet was ignored and the war games declared a success for the "new war-fighting concepts" adopted by Gen. Kernan. This led to Lt General Paul Van Riper, the commander of the mythical Gulf State, calling the official results "empty sloganeering". In a later television interview, General Riper declared "when the concepts that the command was testing failed to live up to their expectations, the command at that point began to script the exercise in order to prove these concepts. This was my critical complaint." LINK

Most significant was General Riper's claims of the effectiveness of the older Cruise missile technology, the Silkworm missile which were used to sink an aircraft carrier and two helicopter-carriers loaded with marines in the total of 16 ships sunk. When asked to confirm Riper's claims, General Kernar replied: "Well, I don't know. To be honest with you. I haven't had an opportunity to assess what happened. But that's a possibility. The specifics of the cruise-missile piece. I really can't answer that question. We'll have to get back to you." LINK

The Millennium Challenge war games clearly demonstrated the vulnerability of the U.S. Naval Fifth Fleet to Silkworm cruise missile attacks. This replicated the experience of the British during the 1980 Falklands war where two ships were sunk by three Exocet missiles. Both the Exocet and Silkworm cruise missiles were an older generation of anti-ship missile technology that were far surpassed by the Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. If the Millennium Challenge was a guide to an asymmetrical war with Iran, much of the U.S. Naval Fifth Fleet would be destroyed. It is not surprising Millennium Challenge was eventually scripted so that this embarrassing fact was hidden. To date, there has been little public awareness of the vulnerability of the U.S. Fifth Fleet while stationed in the Persian Gulf. It appears that the Bush administration had scripted an outcome to the war games that would promote its neoconservative agenda for the Middle East.

The Neo-Conservative Strategy to Attack Iran

Neoconservatives share a political philosophy that U.S. dominance of the international system as the world's sole superpower needs to be extended indefinitely into the 21st century. In early 2006 neoconservatives within the Bush administration began vigorously promoting a new war against Iran due to the alleged threat posed by its nuclear development program. Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear development is lawful and in compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Since 2004, The Bush administration has been citing intelligence data that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons and must under no circumstances be allowed to do this.

Much of Iran's nuclear development has occurred in underground facilities built at a depth of 70 feet with hardened concrete overhead that protect them from any known conventional attack. This led to the Bush administration arguing in early 2006 that tactical nuclear weapons would need to be used to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. LINK This culminated in a fierce debate between leading neo-conservatives such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff which remained adamantly opposed. Seymour Hersh in May 2006, reported the opposition of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.' LINK

Subsequent efforts by the neo-conservatives to justify a conventional military attack have been handicapped by widespread public scepticism by the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program, and Iran's compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty according to Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). LINK.

ElBaradei cites U.S. military assessments that Iran is a few years away from developing weapons grade nuclear fuel that could be used for nuclear weapons. The Bush administration, frustrated by the determined opposition both within the U.S. bureaucracy, military and the international community to its plans has adopted a three pronged track strategy for its goal of 'taking out' Iran.

The first strategy is to drive up public perceptions of an international security crisis by warning of a Third World War if Iran's nuclear program is not stopped. In a Press Conference speech on October 17, President Bush declared: "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [Iranians] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." LINK. Bush's startling rhetoric was followed soon after by Vice President Cheney on October 23 who warned in a speech that the U.S. and its allies were "prepared to impose serious consequences" on Iran. LINK

The second strategy has been shift emphasis from removing Iran's nuclear facilities, to emphasizing its support for terrorism. Given widespread military and political opposition to attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities, the Bush administration is now depicting Iran as a supporter of terrorism in Iraq." LINK.

The change in strategy was given a powerful boost by the passage of the Kyle-Lieberman Amendment by the U.S. Senate on September 26 which designated "the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization" LINK . This would enable the Bush administration to authorize strikes against Iranian Revolutionary Guard facilities inside Iran on the basis that they are supporting Iraqi terrorist groups targeting U.S. military forces.

The third and most dangerous strategy used by the Bush administration is to sanction an alleged covert mission that would create the necessary political environment for a war against Iran. This is arguably best evidenced in the infamous B-52 'Bent Spear' incident on August 30, 2007 where five (later changed to six) nuclear armed cruise missiles were found en route to the Middle East for a covert mission. LINK

The nuclear warheads had adjustable yields of between 5 to 150 kilotons, and would have been ideal for use against Iran's underground nuclear facilities or in a false flag operation that would be blamed on Iran. However, Air Force personnel stood down 'illegal' orders that most likely came from the White House, and averted what could have been the detonation of one or more nuclear devices in the Persian Gulf region.

Consequences of Iran being Attacked

In an effort to intimidate Iran, the Bush administration has regularly placed two aircraft carrier group formations in the Persian Gulf, LINK. The size and timing of possible U.S. military attacks on Iran's nuclear and/or military facilities, will influence the speed and scale of an Iranian response. Iran's response will predictably result in a military escalation that culminates in Iran using its arsenal of anti-ship cruise missiles on the U.S. Fifth Fleet and closing off the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping. Iran's ability to hide and launch cruise missiles from mountainous positions all along the Persian Gulf will make all Fifth Fleet ships in the Persian Gulf vulnerable. The Fifth Fleet would be trapped and unable to escape to safer waters. The Millennium Challenge war games in 2002 witnessed the sinking of most of the Fifth fleet.

If an attack on Iran were to occur before the end of 2007, it would lead to the destruction of the USS Enterprise with its complement of 5000 personnel on board. Further losses in terms of support ships and other Fifth Fleet naval forces in the Persian Gulf would be catastrophic. An Iranian cruise missile attack would replicate losses at Pearl Harbor where the sinking of five ships, destruction of 188 aircraft and deaths of 2,333 quickly led to a declaration of total war against Imperial Japan by the U.S. Congress.

The declaration of total war against Iran by the U.S. Congress would lead to a sustained bombing campaign and eventual military invasion to bring about regime change in Iran. Military conscription would occur in order to provide personnel for the invasion of Iran, and to support U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan that would come under greater pressure. Tensions would rapidly escalate with other major powers such as Russia and China who have supplied Iran with sophisticated weapons systems that could be used against U.S. military assets. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping and total war conditions in the U.S. would lead to a collapse of the world economy, and further erosion of civil liberties in a U.S. engaged in total war.

Conclusions

The above scenario is very plausible given the military capacities of Iran's anti-ship cruise missiles and the U.S. Navy's vulnerability to these while operating in the Persian Gulf. The Bush administration has hidden from the American public the full extent of the Fifth Fleet's vulnerability, and how it could be trapped and destroyed in a full scale conflict with Iran. This is best evidenced by the controversial decision to downplay the real results of the Millennium Challenge war games and the dissenting views of Lt. General Van Riper over the lessons to be learned. This culminated in General Van Riper joining a group of retired generals in calling for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. LINK.

Neo-conservatives within the Bush administration are fully aware of the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet, yet have at times tried to place up to three carrier groups in the Persian Gulf which would only augment U.S. losses in any war with Iran. Yet the Bush administration has still attempted to move forward with plans for nuclear, conventional and/or covert attacks on Iran which would precipitate much of the terrible scenario described above.

A reasonable conclusion to draw is that neoconservatives within the Bush administration are willing to sacrifice much or all of the U.S. Fifth Fleet by militarily provoking Iran to launch its anti-ship cruise missile arsenal in order to justify 'total war' against Iran, and force regime change. A new Pearl Harbor can be averted by making accountable Bush administration officials willing to sacrifice the Fifth Fleet in pursuit of a neoconservative agenda.

Note: An expanded version of the above article is available at: LINK

About the Author:

Dr. Michael Salla is an internationally recognized scholar in international politics, conflict resolution, U.S. foreign policy and the new field of 'exopolitics'. He is author/editor of five books; and held academic appointments in the School of International Service& the Center for Global Peace, American University, Washington DC (1996-2004); the Department of Political Science, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia (1994-96); and the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, Washington D.C., (2002). He has a Ph.D in Government from the University of Queensland, Australia, and an M.A. in Philosophy from the University of Melbourne, Australia. He has conducted research and fieldwork in the ethnic conflicts in East Timor, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Sri Lanka, and organized peacemaking initiatives involving mid to high level participants from these conflicts. .......

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/11/08/01932.html

[Jedd Corpse]

They will do anything to make Iran look bad, Even sacrifice their own people. And Americans on here tell you Iranians that the US Soldiers value their lives that is why they wont stand and fight to the death.

Too bad their leaders and their leaders secret organizations don't give a rats *** about their lives.

[Conan]

Or maybe we don't see your silly missiles as a threat. http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l121/OBCConan/th1.gif

[Behrooz Boonabi]

This is what I have been saying all along. If a war starts, staying in the gulf will be a catastrophic mistake, I didn't realize it was intentional.

[Jedd Corpse]

Or maybe we don't see your silly missiles as a threat. http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l121/OBCConan/th1.gif

Why don't you ask a soldier what they would think about an Iranian missile if they were in the gulf. I am sure they wouldn't call it a joke.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Why don't you ask a soldier what they would think about an Iranian missile if they were in the gulf. I am sure they wouldn't call it a joke.

There are plenty of drop outs in the US military. They don't understand that there isn't any viable defense toward missiles. I think the generals understand this as well.

[Conan]

Why don't you ask a soldier what they would think about an Iranian missile if they were in the gulf. I am sure they wouldn't call it a joke.


What do you know about what they think.....you're soldier?

Behrooz BoonabiThere are plenty of drop outs in the US military. They don't understand that there isn't any viable defense toward missiles. I think the generals understand this as well.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=18394

deleted link...

[Jedd Corpse]

What do you know about what they think.....you're soldier?

I have friends who are...

[Conan]

I have friends who are...

So another words....you have no clue and just talking like you know it all.

[mustavaris]

There are plenty of drop outs in the US military. They don't understand that there isn't any viable defense toward missiles. I think the generals understand this as well.

What?

Care to elaborate.

Or have you missed something essential which has been going on since 1970s?

[Colt]

The old anti-ship missiles have pretty well been trumped by the Phalanx and it's colleagues (though they have a limit of how many they can shoot down in a given amount of time) but things like the sunburn have stealth and speed that keep the Phalanx from being able to hit them reliably.

[Sokuy30]

The old anti-ship missiles have pretty well been trumped by the Phalanx and it's colleagues (though they have a limit of how many they can shoot down in a given amount of time) but things like the sunburn have stealth and speed that keep the Phalanx from being able to hit them reliably.

It is not just those missles you mentioned there are more ,
Why u.s. just get the hell out of persian gulf and middle east let them do their things!
U.S. is nothing but pain in a **s.

[skhara]

Or maybe we don't see your silly missiles as a threat. http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l121/OBCConan/th1.gif

The Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles are a serious threat. That, they are! And there is little argument against it. Recently, the Iranians were able to test out a Chinese C-802 missile against an Israeli warship with success.

My only question would be whether the author is sure that Iran posses the Yakhonts and Sunburn missiles -- how does he know? Furthermore, does Iran posses an amount enough to destroy the 5th fleet?

[Colt]

It's rather well established that Iran has them. They've even been paraded.

What are you talking about regarding the Iranians using a C-802 against the Israelies? The ship off of Lebanon maybe? Hard to say what that was. The only thing anyone's claimed so far is that it was a well aimed Katusha. If it were a dedicated Anti-Ship missile it almost certainly would have broken the keel and sunk the ship.

[Sokuy30]

It's rather well established that Iran has them. They've even been paraded.

What are you talking about regarding the Iranians using a C-802 against the Israelies? The ship off of Lebanon maybe? Hard to say what that was. The only thing anyone's claimed so far is that it was a well aimed Katusha. If it were a dedicated Anti-Ship missile it almost certainly would have broken the keel and sunk the ship.
they are those "little' mobile ones , Iran has mother of all , wait and See!
My Dogs can defeat israel , they are the least of my concern. I just don't want U.S. nose bloodied!

[skhara]

It's rather well established that Iran has them. They've even been paraded.

What are you talking about regarding the Iranians using a C-802 against the Israelies? The ship off of Lebanon maybe? Hard to say what that was. The only thing anyone's claimed so far is that it was a well aimed Katusha. If it were a dedicated Anti-Ship missile it almost certainly would have broken the keel and sunk the ship.

OK - do they have a significant amount though? Also -- yes -- Lebanon. I have read that it was a C-802. Perhaps the report I read it from was a mistake.

[StateMachine]

OK - do they have a significant amount though? Also -- yes -- Lebanon. I have read that it was a C-802. Perhaps the report I read it from was a mistake.


It has been reported that it was the smaller Chinese missile, the C-801. You are correct that a C-802 would have sunk it.

[Amir_Kabir]

It has been reported that it was the smaller Chinese missile, the C-801. You are correct that a C-802 would have sunk it.

Agree as well, C-802 would have done alot more damage. Probably a jerry rigged version of some chinese design.

[burster]

Bosnian,

This whole issue of Sunburns, Yakhonets, etc. ad nauseum has been discussed before. Here is my post from back in February with info on a few of the US defenses capable of degrading a sunburn or yakhonets attack.

http://www.irandefence.net/showpost.php?p=125227&postcount=22

The U.S. neoconservative agenda to Sacrifice the Fifth Fleet - The New Pearl Harbor

by Michael E. Salla, M.A., Ph.D.



The Bush administration has covered up and ignored dissenting Pentagon war games analysis that suggests an attack on Iran's nuclear or military facilities will lead directly to the annihilation of the Navy's Fifth Fleet now stationed in the Persian Gulf. Lt. General Paul Van Riper led a hypothetical Persian Gulf state in the 2002 Millennium Challenge war games that resulted in the destruction of the Fifth Fleet. His experience and conclusions regarding the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet to an asymmetrical military conflict and the implications for a war against Iran have been ignored. Neoconservatives within the Bush administration are currently aggressively promoting a range of military actions against Iran that will culminate in it attacking the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet with sophisticated cruise anti-ship missiles. They are ignoring Van Riper's experiences in the Millennium Challenge and how it applies to the current nuclear conflict with Iran.

Iran has sufficient quantities of cruise missiles to destroy much or all of the Fifth Fleet which is within range of Iran's mobile missile launchers strategically located along its mountainous terrain overlooking the Persian Gulf. The Bush administration is deliberately downplaying the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet to Iran's advanced missile technology which has been purchased from Russia and China since the late 1990's. The most sophisticated of Iran's cruise missiles are the 'Sunburn' and 'Yakhonts'. These are missiles against which U.S. military experts conclude modern warships have no effective defence. By deliberately provoking an Iranian retaliation to U.S. military actions, the neoconservatives will knowingly sacrifice much or all of the Fifth Fleet. This will culminate in a new Pearl Harbor that will create the right political environment for total war against Iran, and expanded military actions in the Persian Gulf region.

The Fifth Fleet's Vulnerability to Iran's Anti-Ship Missile Arsenal

The U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet is headquartered in the Gulf State of Bahrain which is responsible for patrolling the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Suez Canal and parts of the Indian Ocean. The Fifth Fleet currently comprises a carrier group and two helicopter carrier ships. Its size peaked at five aircraft carrier groups and six helicopter carriers in 2003 during the invasion of Iraq. Presently, it is led by the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier commissioned in 1961, and on November 2, began participating in a Naval exercise in the Persian Gulf. LINK.

The Fifth Fleet's base in Bahrain, is only 150 miles away from the Iranian coast, and would itself be in range of Iran's new generation of anti-ship cruise missiles. Also, any Naval ships in the confined terrain of the Persian Gulf would have difficulty in manoeuvring and would be within range of Iran's rugged coastline which extends all along the Persian Gulf to the Arabian sea.

Iran began purchasing advanced military technology from Russia soon after the latter pulled out in 2000 from the Gore-Chernomyrdin Protocol, which limited Russia's sales of military equipment to Iran. LINK. Russia subsequently began selling Iran military technology that could be used in any military conflict with the U.S. This included air defence systems and anti-ship cruise missiles in which Russia specialized to offset the U.S. large naval superiority. LINK

The SS-N-22 or 'Sunburn" has a speed of Mach 2.5 or 1500 miles an hour, uses stealth technology and has a range up to 130 miles. It contains a conventional warhead of 750 lbs that can destroy most ships. Of even greater concern is Russia's SSN-X-26 or 'Yakhonts' cruise missile which has a range of 185 miles which makes all US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf vulnerable to attack. LINK.

More importantly the Yakhonts has been specifically developed for use against Carrier groups, and has been sold by Russia on the international arms trade.

Both the Yakhonts and the Sunburn missiles are designed to defeat the Aegis radar defence currently used on U.S. Navy ships by using stealth technology and low ground hugging flying manoeuvres. In their final approaches these missiles take evasive manoeuvres to defeat anti-ship missile defences. So great is the threat posed by the Sunburn, Yakhonts and other advanced anti-ship missiles being developed by Russia and sold to China, Iran and other countries, that the Pentagon's weapons testing office in 2007 moved to halt production on further aircraft carriers until an effective defence was developed. LINK.

Iran has purchased sufficient quantities of both the Sunbeam and Yakhonts to destroy much or all of the U.S. Naval Fifth Fleet anywhere in the Persian Gulf from its mountainous coastal terrain.

Millennium Challenge War games

The "Millennium Challenge" was one of the largest war games ever conducted and war games involved 13,500 troops spread out at over 17 locations. The war games involved heavy usage of computer simulations, extended over a three week period and cost $250 million. LINK Millennium Challenge involved asymmetrical warfare between the U.S military forces, led by General William Kernan, and an unnamed state in the Persian Gulf. According to General Kernan, the war games "would test a series of new war-fighting concepts recently developed by the Pentagon." LINK. Using a range of asymmetrical attack strategies using disguised civilian boats for launching attacks, planes in Kamikaze attacks, and Silkworm cruise missiles, much of the Fifth Fleet was sunk. The games revealed how asymmetrical strategies could exploit the Fifth Fleet's vulnerability against anti-ship cruise missiles in the confined waters of the Persian Gulf.

In a controversial decision, the Pentagon decided to simply 'refloat' the Fifth Fleet to continue the exercise which led to the eventual defeat of the Persian Gulf state. The sinking of the Fifth Fleet was ignored and the war games declared a success for the "new war-fighting concepts" adopted by Gen. Kernan. This led to Lt General Paul Van Riper, the commander of the mythical Gulf State, calling the official results "empty sloganeering". In a later television interview, General Riper declared "when the concepts that the command was testing failed to live up to their expectations, the command at that point began to script the exercise in order to prove these concepts. This was my critical complaint." LINK

Most significant was General Riper's claims of the effectiveness of the older Cruise missile technology, the Silkworm missile which were used to sink an aircraft carrier and two helicopter-carriers loaded with marines in the total of 16 ships sunk. When asked to confirm Riper's claims, General Kernar replied: "Well, I don't know. To be honest with you. I haven't had an opportunity to assess what happened. But that's a possibility. The specifics of the cruise-missile piece. I really can't answer that question. We'll have to get back to you." LINK

The Millennium Challenge war games clearly demonstrated the vulnerability of the U.S. Naval Fifth Fleet to Silkworm cruise missile attacks. This replicated the experience of the British during the 1980 Falklands war where two ships were sunk by three Exocet missiles. Both the Exocet and Silkworm cruise missiles were an older generation of anti-ship missile technology that were far surpassed by the Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. If the Millennium Challenge was a guide to an asymmetrical war with Iran, much of the U.S. Naval Fifth Fleet would be destroyed. It is not surprising Millennium Challenge was eventually scripted so that this embarrassing fact was hidden. To date, there has been little public awareness of the vulnerability of the U.S. Fifth Fleet while stationed in the Persian Gulf. It appears that the Bush administration had scripted an outcome to the war games that would promote its neoconservative agenda for the Middle East.

The Neo-Conservative Strategy to Attack Iran

Neoconservatives share a political philosophy that U.S. dominance of the international system as the world's sole superpower needs to be extended indefinitely into the 21st century. In early 2006 neoconservatives within the Bush administration began vigorously promoting a new war against Iran due to the alleged threat posed by its nuclear development program. Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear development is lawful and in compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Since 2004, The Bush administration has been citing intelligence data that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons and must under no circumstances be allowed to do this.

Much of Iran's nuclear development has occurred in underground facilities built at a depth of 70 feet with hardened concrete overhead that protect them from any known conventional attack. This led to the Bush administration arguing in early 2006 that tactical nuclear weapons would need to be used to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. LINK This culminated in a fierce debate between leading neo-conservatives such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff which remained adamantly opposed. Seymour Hersh in May 2006, reported the opposition of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.' LINK

Subsequent efforts by the neo-conservatives to justify a conventional military attack have been handicapped by widespread public scepticism by the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program, and Iran's compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty according to Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). LINK.

ElBaradei cites U.S. military assessments that Iran is a few years away from developing weapons grade nuclear fuel that could be used for nuclear weapons. The Bush administration, frustrated by the determined opposition both within the U.S. bureaucracy, military and the international community to its plans has adopted a three pronged track strategy for its goal of 'taking out' Iran.

The first strategy is to drive up public perceptions of an international security crisis by warning of a Third World War if Iran's nuclear program is not stopped. In a Press Conference speech on October 17, President Bush declared: "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [Iranians] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." LINK. Bush's startling rhetoric was followed soon after by Vice President Cheney on October 23 who warned in a speech that the U.S. and its allies were "prepared to impose serious consequences" on Iran. LINK

The second strategy has been shift emphasis from removing Iran's nuclear facilities, to emphasizing its support for terrorism. Given widespread military and political opposition to attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities, the Bush administration is now depicting Iran as a supporter of terrorism in Iraq." LINK.

The change in strategy was given a powerful boost by the passage of the Kyle-Lieberman Amendment by the U.S. Senate on September 26 which designated "the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization" LINK . This would enable the Bush administration to authorize strikes against Iranian Revolutionary Guard facilities inside Iran on the basis that they are supporting Iraqi terrorist groups targeting U.S. military forces.

The third and most dangerous strategy used by the Bush administration is to sanction an alleged covert mission that would create the necessary political environment for a war against Iran. This is arguably best evidenced in the infamous B-52 'Bent Spear' incident on August 30, 2007 where five (later changed to six) nuclear armed cruise missiles were found en route to the Middle East for a covert mission. LINK

The nuclear warheads had adjustable yields of between 5 to 150 kilotons, and would have been ideal for use against Iran's underground nuclear facilities or in a false flag operation that would be blamed on Iran. However, Air Force personnel stood down 'illegal' orders that most likely came from the White House, and averted what could have been the detonation of one or more nuclear devices in the Persian Gulf region.

Consequences of Iran being Attacked

In an effort to intimidate Iran, the Bush administration has regularly placed two aircraft carrier group formations in the Persian Gulf, LINK. The size and timing of possible U.S. military attacks on Iran's nuclear and/or military facilities, will influence the speed and scale of an Iranian response. Iran's response will predictably result in a military escalation that culminates in Iran using its arsenal of anti-ship cruise missiles on the U.S. Fifth Fleet and closing off the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping. Iran's ability to hide and launch cruise missiles from mountainous positions all along the Persian Gulf will make all Fifth Fleet ships in the Persian Gulf vulnerable. The Fifth Fleet would be trapped and unable to escape to safer waters. The Millennium Challenge war games in 2002 witnessed the sinking of most of the Fifth fleet.

If an attack on Iran were to occur before the end of 2007, it would lead to the destruction of the USS Enterprise with its complement of 5000 personnel on board. Further losses in terms of support ships and other Fifth Fleet naval forces in the Persian Gulf would be catastrophic. An Iranian cruise missile attack would replicate losses at Pearl Harbor where the sinking of five ships, destruction of 188 aircraft and deaths of 2,333 quickly led to a declaration of total war against Imperial Japan by the U.S. Congress.

The declaration of total war against Iran by the U.S. Congress would lead to a sustained bombing campaign and eventual military invasion to bring about regime change in Iran. Military conscription would occur in order to provide personnel for the invasion of Iran, and to support U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan that would come under greater pressure. Tensions would rapidly escalate with other major powers such as Russia and China who have supplied Iran with sophisticated weapons systems that could be used against U.S. military assets. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping and total war conditions in the U.S. would lead to a collapse of the world economy, and further erosion of civil liberties in a U.S. engaged in total war.

Conclusions

The above scenario is very plausible given the military capacities of Iran's anti-ship cruise missiles and the U.S. Navy's vulnerability to these while operating in the Persian Gulf. The Bush administration has hidden from the American public the full extent of the Fifth Fleet's vulnerability, and how it could be trapped and destroyed in a full scale conflict with Iran. This is best evidenced by the controversial decision to downplay the real results of the Millennium Challenge war games and the dissenting views of Lt. General Van Riper over the lessons to be learned. This culminated in General Van Riper joining a group of retired generals in calling for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. LINK.

Neo-conservatives within the Bush administration are fully aware of the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet, yet have at times tried to place up to three carrier groups in the Persian Gulf which would only augment U.S. losses in any war with Iran. Yet the Bush administration has still attempted to move forward with plans for nuclear, conventional and/or covert attacks on Iran which would precipitate much of the terrible scenario described above.

A reasonable conclusion to draw is that neoconservatives within the Bush administration are willing to sacrifice much or all of the U.S. Fifth Fleet by militarily provoking Iran to launch its anti-ship cruise missile arsenal in order to justify 'total war' against Iran, and force regime change. A new Pearl Harbor can be averted by making accountable Bush administration officials willing to sacrifice the Fifth Fleet in pursuit of a neoconservative agenda.

Note: An expanded version of the above article is available at: LINK

About the Author:

Dr. Michael Salla is an internationally recognized scholar in international politics, conflict resolution, U.S. foreign policy and the new field of 'exopolitics'. He is author/editor of five books; and held academic appointments in the School of International Service& the Center for Global Peace, American University, Washington DC (1996-2004); the Department of Political Science, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia (1994-96); and the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, Washington D.C., (2002). He has a Ph.D in Government from the University of Queensland, Australia, and an M.A. in Philosophy from the University of Melbourne, Australia. He has conducted research and fieldwork in the ethnic conflicts in East Timor, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Sri Lanka, and organized peacemaking initiatives involving mid to high level participants from these conflicts. .......

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/11/08/01932.html

[skhara]

Well apparently jews didn't get the "defense" memo. They seem to get it, before even the US navy does.

[Relikt]

The old anti-ship missiles have pretty well been trumped by the Phalanx and it's colleagues (though they have a limit of how many they can shoot down in a given amount of time) but things like the sunburn have stealth and speed that keep the Phalanx from being able to hit them reliably.
From wikipedia (Phalanx CIWS):

The Phalanx system has never been credited with shooting down any enemy missiles or aircraft.

February 25, 1991, during the first Gulf War, the USS Missouri and the Phalanx-equipped USS Jarrett were in the vicinity of an Iraqi Silkworm missile (often referred to as the 'Seersucker') that had been fired, either at Missouri or at the nearby British destroyer HMS Gloucester. After Missouri fired its SRBOC chaff, the Phalanx system on Jarrett, operating in the automatic target-acquisition mode, fixed upon Missouri's chaff and fired a burst of rounds (not destroying the incoming missile). From this burst, four rounds hit Missouri which was two to three miles (5 km) from Jarrett at the time. There were no injuries. The Silkworm missile was then intercepted and destroyed by a Sea Dart missile launched from Gloucester. Incidentally, this is the first validated, successful engagement of a missile by a missile, during combat at sea.

[Mxm]

ah relikt cut the ******** will you

[Relikt]

ah relikt cut the ******** will you
I am geting paranoid :biggrin1:. You are going and bulling my posts. You can write something about this thread not just bulling.

[zstar]

Carriers are giant floating coffins.

I doubt and system in this world can handle any anti-ship barrage that would overwhelm even the most advanced platforms.

[Tasia55]

Carriers are giant floating coffins.

I doubt and system in this world can handle any anti-ship barrage that would overwhelm even the most advanced platforms.

If Carriers are giant floating coffins, then why has none of them been sunk, or attacked since the 1940's? Support your statements with facts. A CBG is the most formidable war machine in the ocean. Just to get close to one, "During War Time", is suicide. I know all of us dream about how venerable a Carrier Group is, but we need to be real hear! Once I see a carrier group attacked with success, then I will be convinced, but till then, all of us countries around the world won't mess with them!
It's OK to dream and fantasize, but dreams and reality are two separate things.


Thanks!

[Behrooz Boonabi]

If Carriers are giant floating coffins, then why has none of them been sunk, or attacked since the 1940's? Support your statements with facts. A CBG is the most formidable war machine in the ocean. Just to get close to one, "During War Time", is suicide. I know all of us dream about how venerable a Carrier Group is, but we need to be real hear! Once I see a carrier group attacked with success, then I will be convinced, but till then, all of us countries around the world won't mess with them!
It's OK to dream and fantasize, but dreams and reality are two separate things.


Thanks!

Another fact is that a carrier group has never been at war with a country equipped to sink them. The carrier was an amazing invention and it still has its use against many advisories, but against a powerful missile force and torpedoes ships just cant get away from, it is to many eggs in one basket.

One thing is to use a carrier group, another thing is to use them like an idiot.

[Colt]

If you look at the WW2 experience carriers were extremely vulnerable and were sunk all the time by aircraft as well as submarines. 1 rocket going off nearly sunk the USS Forrestal and killed a lot of people.

[RH53D_AMCM]

COLT: There have been many accidents involving munitions aboard ships. The FORRESTAL, the ORISKANY, and the ENTERPRISE all suffered accidents during the Vietnam War. All of these accidents were due to two problems: 1) Improperly stowed and/or protected munitions and 2) Munition fuzes that were of an unsafe design. Both causes were addressed and the USN has had a good safety record thereafter. Munition failures and "cook-offs" have always been a problem for navies. One of the most spectacular and also utterly avoidable was the KURSK nuclear-powered guided-missile attack submarine (SSGN). The accident that killed the KURSK has NOT been addressed by the Russian Navy. Yet, the cause of the accident was the same as that which destroyed HMS SIDON while pierside in 1961 (date?). Failure to follow safety procedures in the handling of naval weapons can have disastrous results, such as the fire in Turret # 2 of the now-retired battleship USS IOWA. Some naval accidents involving munitions seem more like a science fiction story -- because once you read the report -- you say to yourself, "They cannot have been that stupid!"

One accident involved a Russian (then Soviet) KASHIN Class DDG in the Black Sea in the fall of 1973. Russian warships of that time did not keep their firefighting pipelines filled with water and fully charged; it reduced wear and tear on the pumping gear and pipes. But the KASHIN Class unit in question suffered a fire casualty in the same engineering space where the firefighting pumps for the ship were located. The fire quickly got out of control and soon the missile magazine for the after SAM launcher was involved. The rocket motors cooked off spewing unburnt rocket propellant over the aft end of the ship. Then the fumes from the rocket motors which had ignited were sucked back into the ship by large ventilators and the deadly fumes were spread throughout the ship. About the same time, the after 76-mm gun magazine exploded. The ship continued to have more of its weapons cook-off as fire engulfed them and the fires could not be fought. Out of a crew of 350, only 50 survived. There are several obvious lessons but those are for another day.

Contrast this catastrophe to the heavy damage to the SABALAN which was salvaged and eventually returned to service.

[Tasia55]

Well the Japanese were very successful at sinking a few U.S. carriers, however most of them were Cruisers or transport ships with flight decks added to the top. Also, the carriers that have been sunk, were hit most of the time with Kamikaze's, or dive bombers. The only air defense systems the carrier groups had against these fighters were anti-aircraft gun fire.
Now adays, a carrier group is protected with at least 2 or more L.A. class attack subs. If there are more it is classified. Also to help with sub-surface threats are destroyers that tag along with the group. For air threats, that includes planes or missiles, you have a several f-18's to defend against fighters, also with surface to air missiles that can be launched from every ship. For the final defense Phalanx will shoot down any missed missiles or planes that make it through. On top of all of this the aircraft carrier can launch several radar jamming planes to counter any enemy planes or missiles.

Cheers!

[Tasia55]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that to effectively attack a carrier group would require a large number of the world's advanced subs, military fighters, and warships by complete surprise during peace times.
Why? Because the American navy has the most advanced subs, military fighters, and warships in the world. I'm not trying to put anybody down, or put anybody up on a pedestal, but I go straight off true facts and logic.

[arri]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that to effectively attack a carrier group would require a large number of the world's advanced subs, military fighters, and warships by complete surprise during peace times.
Why? Because the American navy has the most advanced subs, military fighters, and warships in the world. I'm not trying to put anybody down, or put anybody up on a pedestal, but I go straight off true facts and logic.

Not exactly. All you need is a motivated and smart adversary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

[Tasia55]

Very, very true! I don't mean to play "devils advocate here", but how would you out smart the American systems? Like for an example....?

Thanks!

[arri]

Very, very true! I don't mean to play "devils advocate here", but how would you out smart the American systems? Like for an example....?

Thanks!

You can start with reading the threads here. This is what we discuss here everyday. Military assets, tactics, weapons and politics.

[Tasia55]

You can start with reading the threads here. This is what we discuss here everyday. Military assets, tactics, weapons and politics.

I try as much as I can, however with my business, it is very hard to keep notes. What do you think? How would you attack a carrier group?
I'm just interested thats all!

Thanks!

[Behrooz Boonabi]

I try as much as I can, however with my business, it is very hard to keep notes. What do you think? How would you attack a carrier group?
I'm just interested thats all!

Thanks!

Missiles are the best bet because they are cheap and no viable defense exists. Also, Hoot torpedo can be used because there is no way to avoid that kind of speed. In the Persian Gulf, a carrier group is just a floating death trap with no viable means of defense.

[mustavaris]

Missiles are the best bet because they are cheap and no viable defense exists. Also, Hoot torpedo can be used because there is no way to avoid that kind of speed. In the Persian Gulf, a carrier group is just a floating death trap with no viable means of defense.

I got a feeling.. someone talked like that back in 1990..1991:wub2:

It is not so simple.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

I got a feeling.. someone talked like that back in 1990..1991:wub2:

It is not so simple.

1) Saddam didn't have even somewhat suitable missiles.

2) I am not aware that he even tried to fight off the carrier group.

I honestly believe the carriers are for show and to raise the price of oil.

[RH53D_AMCM]

Actually, Saddam had EXOCET missiles which could have done some damage to aircraft on deck. Those aircraft are the reason for being of an aircraft carrier. So, there was a threat...Why didn't he try? I think that the Iraqi Air Force had been given a good drubbing by the IRIAF.

Remember that although many people are quick to point out that the U.S. provided Iraq with intelligence on the positioning of Iranian forces in 1980-1988...Positioning intel cannot tell you: How well trained are the pilots? How well motivated are the pilots? How well maintained are the aircraft? The maintenance personnel, the "ramp dogs", how well motivated are they? Availability of spares? Weapons? Replacement parts? You cannot tell that with a satellite.

Spies, or human intelligence, are needed for that sort of information. And no one in his right mind would share that kind of information with Saddam.

In the long run, the intelligence (if any was) provided to Saddam's Iraq proved to be of limited value. So why does anyone think current US intelligence has gotten any smarter in regards to Iran?

[arri]

Actually, Saddam had EXOCET missiles which could have done some damage to aircraft on deck. Those aircraft are the reason for being of an aircraft carrier. So, there was a threat...Why didn't he try? I think that the Iraqi Air Force had been given a good drubbing by the IRIAF.

Remember that although many people are quick to point out that the U.S. provided Iraq with intelligence on the positioning of Iranian forces in 1980-1988...Positioning intel cannot tell you: How well trained are the pilots? How well motivated are the pilots? How well maintained are the aircraft? The maintenance personnel, the "ramp dogs", how well motivated are they? Availability of spares? Weapons? Replacement parts? You cannot tell that with a satellite.

Spies, or human intelligence, are needed for that sort of information. And no one in his right mind would share that kind of information with Saddam.

In the long run, the intelligence (if any was) provided to Saddam's Iraq proved to be of limited value. So why does anyone think current US intelligence has gotten any smarter in regards to Iran?

Lets not forget that not only Iraq has next to no access to Persian Gulf, but also he respected US power and sat there waiting for the allies to stage and attack him on their own terms.

[Tasia55]

Missiles are the best bet because they are cheap and no viable defense exists. Also, Hoot torpedo can be used because there is no way to avoid that kind of speed. In the Persian Gulf, a carrier group is just a floating death trap with no viable means of defense.


I respect your answer! But, if missiles are going to be used, what are there range? From what platform would they best shot from? And doesn't the U.S. navy have a defense for incoming missiles?
Also, for a torpedo attack, how close would Iranian sub have to get to fire, and during a war time sanerio, wouldn't Iran have to worry about U.S. destroyers, subs, and torpedo helicopters?
I guess what I'm trying to saying is," A carrier group usually knows what there enemies abilities are." In this case wouldn't the carrier group stay too far away for any type of surface to surface threat? For missiles fired from aircraft, wouldn't the U.S. navy be able to track any incoming fighters or bombers and send interceptors to confront them?
Lastly, wouldn't the U.S. navy know that there is a possibility that Iran might step up sub threats, and in doing so, patrol the area with more L.A. class subs and sonar capabilities?
I'm not trying to disagree with you at all!! I guess the reason why I like to discuss these issues are to find logic and understanding, rather than vague statements. I hear some statements that the U.S. will do this and that with only limited and informative knowledge. Then I here a counter from Iranian sources that project the same. I'm just neutral!!

Your response is greatly appreciated!!!


Thanks!

[Behrooz Boonabi]

I respect your answer! But, if missiles are going to be used, what are there range? From what platform would they best shot from? And doesn't the U.S. navy have a defense for incoming missiles?
Also, for a torpedo attack, how close would Iranian sub have to get to fire, and during a war time sanerio, wouldn't Iran have to worry about U.S. destroyers, subs, and torpedo helicopters?
I guess what I'm trying to saying is," A carrier group usually knows what there enemies abilities are." In this case wouldn't the carrier group stay too far away for any type of surface to surface threat? For missiles fired from aircraft, wouldn't the U.S. navy be able to track any incoming fighters or bombers and send interceptors to confront them?
Lastly, wouldn't the U.S. navy know that there is a possibility that Iran might step up sub threats, and in doing so, patrol the area with more L.A. class subs and sonar capabilities?
I'm not trying to disagree with you at all!! I guess the reason why I like to discuss these issues are to find logic and understanding, rather than vague statements. I hear some statements that the U.S. will do this and that with only limited and informative knowledge. Then I here a counter from Iranian sources that project the same. I'm just neutral!!

Your response is greatly appreciated!!!


Thanks!

I suggest reading some other threads but I will throw you just a few bones.

Anti missiles systems at best are about 10% effective. The Persian gulf is also difficult to navigate due to many shallow areas. Most of Iran's missiles are practically too close in range to every carrier group just from land, never mind the navy. Iran's torpedoes are the fastest in the world, much too fast even for a fast torpedo evading carrier. This is why I believe the carrier groups will be far out of the gulf in event of a war, otherwise they will be used as a sacrifice.

[Tasia55]

I've been trying to to read up on as many threads as possible, but time and my business doesn't allow it, but I will try.
If anti missile systems are only 10% effective, for all countries I'm going to assume, then why do all military systems spend so much money on them? Also, does that mean your also implying that the Iranian anti missile system is also just as effective?
Secondly, If the Persian gulf is very hard to navigate due to so many shallows, wouldn't it be safe to say that Iranian subs would also have a very difficult time to maneuver because they need deeper water than a air craft carrier.
I know you claim that the Iranian torpedo's are the fastest in the world, but as indicated in my last statement, how close would a Iranian sub have to get to launch, what would it do to evade U.S. destroyers, L.A. class subs, and torpedo helicopters in such sallow waters?
How would Iran respond with fighters with limited range when a aircraft carrier is too far.
Also, 1 or even 2 subs against a carrier would be very difficult to sink. I know you say that the torpedo are fast, but it would take many torpedoes to sink a carrier. Even if they launched by surprise, the U.S. fleet would know were they were and attack.
I guess when you look at it...it would be a suicide mission for the Iranian subs.
I'm not trying to argue what so ever!! I love to read peoples statements and ask questions that all.

Thanks Behrooz Boonabi!!

[JEskandari]

I've been trying to to read up on as many threads as possible, but time and my business doesn't allow it, but I will try.
If anti missile systems are only 10% effective, for all countries I'm going to assume, then why do all military systems spend so much money on them? Also, does that mean your also implying that the Iranian anti missile system is also just as effective?
Secondly, If the Persian gulf is very hard to navigate due to so many shallows, wouldn't it be safe to say that Iranian subs would also have a very difficult time to maneuver because they need deeper water than a air craft carrier.
I know you claim that the Iranian torpedo's are the fastest in the world, but as indicated in my last statement, how close would a Iranian sub have to get to launch, what would it do to evade U.S. destroyers, L.A. class subs, and torpedo helicopters in such sallow waters?
How would Iran respond with fighters with limited range when a aircraft carrier is too far.
Also, 1 or even 2 subs against a carrier would be very difficult to sink. I know you say that the torpedo are fast, but it would take many torpedoes to sink a carrier. Even if they launched by surprise, the U.S. fleet would know were they were and attack.
I guess when you look at it...it would be a suicide mission for the Iranian subs.
I'm not trying to argue what so ever!! I love to read peoples statements and ask questions that all.

Thanks Behrooz Boonabi!!

there is one small different between Iranian and American subs .iranians are far too smaller than ocean going American subs .American subs cant submerge in Persian gulf so we even can use anti ship missiles against them but Iranian subs perfectly can submerge in these shallow water .
and i wont think a career need shallower water than a mini sub .
we are not investing on anti ballistic missiles defense we are trying to protect ourselves against cruise missiles which is far easier.
7km is the required range for hoot which is enough fo0r a mini sub to sneak in .and fire it's 2 torpedo then go at the surface of the sea and stay like a stone for several hours .now think what a havoc they made and a clever strategy is not to target the career first you target the escorts with mini subs then send heavier equipment for the career when it's defenseless uou even cann use missiles like zezal and fateh110 which each one carry more than 1000 bomb let first to severely damage the ships sensors and make confusion before the attack

[Colt]

First of all, ocean going subs can submerge as well as a mini-sub can. It just can't make use of most of it's capabilities regarding not being detected because it can not dive deep like it normally would. American subs never surface unless it's to get cargo and/or crew in or out of the boat.

Second, anti-missile defenses for ships these days are very good at hitting the anti-ship missiles from the 50s and 60s because those missiles fly slowly at a relatively high altitude. Modern anti-ship missiles such as the Sunburn anti-ship missiles are supersonic and fly very low in crazy patterns that make them extremely hard to hit. The Sunburn missile is considered immune to anti-missile systems. Others, like the C-802, aren't bad either.

Also, the carriers would need to stay 250km+ out into the Indian ocean to not be in danger of being hit by land launched anti-ship missiles. The Persian gulf is so narrow along it's length that Iran can hit pretty much anywhere a carrier can go. If you look at the geography being that far to the east of Iran is going to severely limit Time Over Target and cause a huge traffic jam at the aerial refueling tankers. That means US planes can only reach about 1/10 of Iran, it happens to be the least desirable portion of Iran to bomb, and they can't put sufficient numbers in a target area to prevent Iran launching serious fighter attacks against them.

[arri]

In addition to land based anti-ship missiles, Iran also has submarine, missile boats and aircraft that can be used to attack ships. They build their own c-802, C701 and silkworm with extended range. They also have some sunburn and yakhont supersonic anti ship missiles.

Their surface to surface missiles can hit anything with a 2000km range. That puts Afghanistan bases, Iraq bases, Persian Gulf oil facilities and US bases and Israel in range.

http://www.stratfor.com/images/middleeast/map/Persian-Gulf.jpg

[JEskandari]

First of all, ocean going subs can submerge as well as a mini-sub can. It just can't make use of most of it's capabilities regarding not being detected because it can not dive deep like it normally would. American subs never surface unless it's to get cargo and/or crew in or out of the boat.

Second, anti-missile defenses for ships these days are very good at hitting the anti-ship missiles from the 50s and 60s because those missiles fly slowly at a relatively high altitude. Modern anti-ship missiles such as the Sunburn anti-ship missiles are supersonic and fly very low in crazy patterns that make them extremely hard to hit. The Sunburn missile is considered immune to anti-missile systems. Others, like the C-802, aren't bad either.

Also, the carriers would need to stay 250km+ out into the Indian ocean to not be in danger of being hit by land launched anti-ship missiles. The Persian gulf is so narrow along it's length that Iran can hit pretty much anywhere a carrier can go. If you look at the geography being that far to the east of Iran is going to severely limit Time Over Target and cause a huge traffic jam at the aerial refueling tankers. That means US planes can only reach about 1/10 of Iran, it happens to be the least desirable portion of Iran to bomb, and they can't put sufficient numbers in a target area to prevent Iran launching serious fighter attacks against them.

interesting how you want to submerge a LA Class attack submarine in a place that is less than 50 meter deep.
there is no way American subs can submerge in Persian gulf .

[arri]

interesting how you want to submerge a LA Class attack submarine in a place that is less than 50 meter deep.
there is no way American subs can submerge in Persian gulf .

That's not the point. With so much traffic, tankers, boats, cargo ships, military ships and so on, they couldn't track a thing. One of them even collided with a tanker.

[PERSPOLIS]

Iranian Raad ASM can hit targets at 350 km range ...

can iran build a nuclear submarine ?

http://img.rian.ru/images/9111/89/91118924.jpg

http://img.rian.ru/images/9111/88/91118853.jpg

[skhara]

1) Saddam didn't have even somewhat suitable missiles.

2) I am not aware that he even tried to fight off the carrier group.

I honestly believe the carriers are for show and to raise the price of oil.

They are useful against weak enemies with no airforce or navy.

[Colt]

interesting how you want to submerge a LA Class attack submarine in a place that is less than 50 meter deep.
there is no way American subs can submerge in Persian gulf .

That's a rather drastic exaggeration. A Los Angeles class submarine is 22.08 meters tall. The Persian Gulf's center area is around 50-75 meters deep. That's 28-53 meters of wiggle room for the area that any American ships are likely to be operating in. No they can't dive deep, which destroys their sole claim to stealthiness, but they don't have to expose themselves to surface radar and anti-ship missiles.

[arri]

That's a rather drastic exaggeration. A Los Angeles class submarine is 22.08 meters tall. The Persian Gulf's center area is around 50-75 meters deep. That's 28-53 meters of wiggle room for the area that any American ships are likely to be operating in. No they can't dive deep, which destroys their sole claim to stealthiness, but they don't have to expose themselves to surface radar and anti-ship missiles.

They are exposed to every plane that flies, besides they can't track anything ,,,

[Tasia55]

Alright guys!! I did some digging and I'm still digging more!! I really don't believe anything on the Internet anymore due to propaganda!! I'm more of a person that believes in what I see! Anyway, what I found out so far about the super-cav. torpedo, or missile torpedo, is that the U.S. had these things in development back in the 1960's before reducing funding due to the ineffectiveness of them. What I read was that at such high speeds, these torpedoes can not maneuver fast enough. Also, these torpedoes can not use sonar due to the fact that they create a air bubble around the front of the cone in which distorts the ability to use sonar. Also they can't use radar, like aircraft, because of being underwater.
What I also read was that, today a conventional torpedo is the best way to attack any sub-surface, or surface threat. Reason being, is that when a missile/torpedo is launched, the noise and disruption in the water can be detected, and be tracked. With this, any enemy fleet can make evasive maneuvers that can be made. The slower a surface, or sub-surface element is, the more dramatic, or sharp maneuvers can be made. With very high speed objects in the water, sharp or dramatic maneuvers are greatly diminished.
This is why today, Russian, and the U.S. navy still spends most of it torpedo budget on conventional torpedoes. Conventional torpedoes, when launched, feature a tow line that makes it more guidable when the enemy makes a hard maneuver before the torpedo is able to lock onto its target. When the torpedo locks onto the target, these tow lines are basically cut to allow it to do its job at a reasonable range.
With a missile torpedo, a tow line can't be attached due to its high speeds making it a straight shot weapon.
What I found out also, is that the U.S. had the super-cavatasional torpedoes in development since the 1960's. Russia, also has a program that in most cases sold the technology to Iran, and China due to its weak economy.
When launched, these weapons are shot from the decks of, mostly, torpedo boats. In order to get close enough, they have to be in a range of 7Km. At that range they would be detectable to AWACS, and surface ships. This would result in a immediate response by fighters, or surface to surface missiles.
What I dug up on the, "sunburn, or krypton missile", is that it was a development between Russia, and the U.S. technology. The U.S. developed the missile under the Raytheon company for guidance, and ability. The Russians then took the technology and added to it, featuring scram jets, and jettison tanks, and started selling the technology to China at a premium price. When the U.S. found out what was going on they tried to buy back the missiles at $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 per unit. The Russians knew that they could make more money with China. This all happened during the Clinton administration.
When the U.S. finally figured out that they made a costly mistake due to its capabilities and threat to the U.S. navy, they began a defense program that defended these missiles. The Phaxlax system only has 2.5 seconds to react to these missiles and failed to shoot them down. The sunburn missile can travel at 1,500 mph at only 9 feet above sea level, before bringing devastation on a carrier deck or ship with its 750lbs warhead.
Side note, they can also carry a nuclear warhead!!!
At a diving speed, these missiles are much, much faster.
To counter them, the U.S. navy developed the Sea Ram anti-defense platform.
These missiles have been placed on all U.S. modern naval ships that comprise of 12 missiles per launcher.
Currently, during testing, they are 95% effective with 108 missiles defended against.
Very interesting! I don't care what happens between the U.S. and Iran. If anything does, it will be interesting to see technology at its best!! But lets all hope that peace prevails!!
I will research more, because I know that most data in this world of ours is nothing but propaganda!!
This includes the U.S. and Iran!!


Thanks Guys!!!

[Bosnian]

interesting how you want to submerge a LA Class attack submarine in a place that is less than 50 meter deep.
there is no way American subs can submerge in Persian gulf .

But frankly speaking, US may use smaller submarines, diesel or similar, even rented from EU countries. This way talking, it seems US do not have small submarines what is not true.

[arri]

Alright guys!! I did some digging and I'm still digging more!! I really don't believe anything on the Internet anymore due to propaganda!! I'm more of a person that believes in what I see! Anyway, what I found out so far about the super-cav. torpedo, or missile torpedo, is that the U.S. had these things in development back in the 1960's before reducing funding due to the ineffectiveness of them. What I read was that at such high speeds, these torpedoes can not maneuver fast enough. Also, these torpedoes can not use sonar due to the fact that they create a air bubble around the front of the cone in which distorts the ability to use sonar. Also they can't use radar, like aircraft, because of being underwater.
What I also read was that, today a conventional torpedo is the best way to attack any sub-surface, or surface threat. Reason being, is that when a missile/torpedo is launched, the noise and disruption in the water can be detected, and be tracked. With this, any enemy fleet can make evasive maneuvers that can be made. The slower a surface, or sub-surface element is, the more dramatic, or sharp maneuvers can be made. With very high speed objects in the water, sharp or dramatic maneuvers are greatly diminished.
This is why today, Russian, and the U.S. navy still spends most of it torpedo budget on conventional torpedoes. Conventional torpedoes, when launched, feature a tow line that makes it more guidable when the enemy makes a hard maneuver before the torpedo is able to lock onto its target. When the torpedo locks onto the target, these tow lines are basically cut to allow it to do its job at a reasonable range.
With a missile torpedo, a tow line can't be attached due to its high speeds making it a straight shot weapon.
What I found out also, is that the U.S. had the super-cavatasional torpedoes in development since the 1960's. Russia, also has a program that in most cases sold the technology to Iran, and China due to its weak economy.
When launched, these weapons are shot from the decks of, mostly, torpedo boats. In order to get close enough, they have to be in a range of 7Km. At that range they would be detectable to AWACS, and surface ships. This would result in a immediate response by fighters, or surface to surface missiles.
What I dug up on the, "sunburn, or krypton missile", is that it was a development between Russia, and the U.S. technology. The U.S. developed the missile under the Raytheon company for guidance, and ability. The Russians then took the technology and added to it, featuring scram jets, and jettison tanks, and started selling the technology to China at a premium price. When the U.S. found out what was going on they tried to buy back the missiles at $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 per unit. The Russians knew that they could make more money with China. This all happened during the Clinton administration.
When the U.S. finally figured out that they made a costly mistake due to its capabilities and threat to the U.S. navy, they began a defense program that defended these missiles. The Phaxlax system only has 2.5 seconds to react to these missiles and failed to shoot them down. The sunburn missile can travel at 1,500 mph at only 9 feet above sea level, before bringing devastation on a carrier deck or ship with its 750lbs warhead.
Side note, they can also carry a nuclear warhead!!!
At a diving speed, these missiles are much, much faster.
To counter them, the U.S. navy developed the Sea Ram anti-defense platform.
These missiles have been placed on all U.S. modern naval ships that comprise of 12 missiles per launcher.
Currently, during testing, they are 95% effective with 108 missiles defended against.
Very interesting! I don't care what happens between the U.S. and Iran. If anything does, it will be interesting to see technology at its best!! But lets all hope that peace prevails!!
I will research more, because I know that most data in this world of ours is nothing but propaganda!!
This includes the U.S. and Iran!!


Thanks Guys!!!

A lot of the things you dug up are not exactly right.

US never developed a super cavitation torpedo or had anything to do with supersonic anti ship missile. In fact, the US harpoon missile has a very poor record of hitting anything. There is no scram jet. They are either rocket powered or ramjet powered. Russia and China are years ahead of US in ASM tech. Even Iran is ahead in that area.

Super cavitation torpedo was created as a retaliatory weapon. Since it is much faster, when a soviet sub is shot at by an American one, 1) Russians can fire the skuval at the attacking submarine forcing it into violent maneuvers that might rip the control wire. 2) sink the attacking sub before its torpedo reaches its target. Super cavitation torpedo can also be guided using a wire.

[RH53D_AMCM]

ARRI: Actually the HARPOON does pretty well. However, that said, during Operation PRAYING MANTIS (April 19, 1988), STANDARD missiles were employed in the surface-to-surface role to sink the JOSHAN. Since any SAM used in this role dives on the target, it typically detonates above the target showering it with high-speed fragmentation. Somebody clearly not thinking fired a HARPOON at the JOSHAN when most of the ship was already underwater. Luckily for the men from the JOSHAN in the water, it missed.

Many modern ASCMs have a range-limitation feature so that if they DO miss, the jet engine or rocket motor shuts off or the missile simply flies into the water when it is clear that they have missed. The idea is not to endanger friendly or neutral warships or shipping.

[arri]

ARRI: Actually the HARPOON does pretty well. However, that said, during Operation PRAYING MANTIS (April 19, 1988), STANDARD missiles were employed in the surface-to-surface role to sink the JOSHAN. Since any SAM used in this role dives on the target, it typically detonates above the target showering it with high-speed fragmentation. Somebody clearly not thinking fired a HARPOON at the JOSHAN when most of the ship was already underwater. Luckily for the men from the JOSHAN in the water, it missed.

Many modern ASCMs have a range-limitation feature so that if they DO miss, the jet engine or rocket motor shuts off or the missile simply flies into the water when it is clear that they have missed. The idea is not to endanger friendly or neutral warships or shipping.

Operation PRAYING MANTIS :rawrrrrr3:

Firast of all, the claim that Joshan fired a Harpoon at the Americans is ****.

Second, several harpoons were fired at Sahand from a missile cruiser that just passed by. 2 were fired from A6 that hit, then they bombed it, then cluster bombed it until it was sunk.

Blood of 150 Iranian sailors are on American hands. Let's not forget that.

[RH53D_AMCM]

ARRI:

LOST IN TRANSLATION: Never said JOSHAN fired a HARPOON. I said that a HARPOON was fired AT the JOSHAN. There were other HARPOONs fired at SAHAND. YES. All HARPOONs missed. NO. There was one HARPOON fired at SAHAND that was way outside of parameters...Failed to guide in the direction of the target from basic failure to plot out its course. Miss or was the weapon simply dropped "stupid"? Take your pick...

[arri]

ARRI:

LOST IN TRANSLATION: Never said JOSHAN fired a HARPOON. I said that a HARPOON was fired AT the JOSHAN. There were other HARPOONs fired at SAHAND. YES. All HARPOONs missed. NO. There was one HARPOON fired at SAHAND that was way outside of parameters...Failed to guide in the direction of the target from basic failure to plot out its course. Miss or was the weapon simply dropped "stupid"? Take your pick...

Americans claimed that Joshan fired a harpoon first and that's why they sank it ... and that's ****.

[Nationstates]

[QUOTE=arri;306479]In addition to land based anti-ship missiles, Iran also has submarine, missile boats and aircraft that can be used to attack ships.


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

And we all remember what happened last time.

[arri]

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

And we all remember what happened last time.

that was 20 years ago. Wanna try it again?

[JEskandari]

But frankly speaking, US may use smaller submarines, diesel or similar, even rented from EU countries. This way talking, it seems US do not have small submarines what is not true.
they have but not in Persian gulf

[Tasia55]

A lot of the things you dug up are not exactly right.

US never developed a super cavitation torpedo or had anything to do with supersonic anti ship missile. In fact, the US harpoon missile has a very poor record of hitting anything. There is no scram jet. They are either rocket powered or ramjet powered. Russia and China are years ahead of US in ASM tech. Even Iran is ahead in that area.

Super cavitation torpedo was created as a retaliatory weapon. Since it is much faster, when a soviet sub is shot at by an American one, 1) Russians can fire the skuval at the attacking submarine forcing it into violent maneuvers that might rip the control wire. 2) sink the attacking sub before its torpedo reaches its target. Super cavitation torpedo can also be guided using a wire.


Your right!! I said scram jet, but I meant ram jet. But the U.S. did developer the early version of the sunburn missile. The guidance system was developed by Raytheon. The U.S. called it the Krypton missile. The Russians took the technology and went with it then selling it to China.
I did find out more on the super cav. program in the U.S. though. It looks like development started in the late 1960's, however all information on U.S. advancements were taken off the Internet several years ago. Who knows what they are doing no. The U.S. has and did develope a super cav. torpedo though.
Anyway, like I said before, it is too hard for me to determine what is truth, and what is fiction. A lot of this stuff is nothing but propaganda statements. I am more of a person that has to, "SEE IT TO BELIEVE IT". It's like the weather....the weatherman tells you that it going to be sunny tomorrow, but instead it rains. I don't even pay attention to the weather reports anymore, because most of the time they're wrong. I would rather look outside and make my own conclusions.

Thanks!!

[Colt]

When the weatherman says 20% chance of rain and it doesn't rain that doesn't mean he's wrong. ;)

[Tasia55]

If I don't see a cloud all day.....then yes.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

I've been trying to to read up on as many threads as possible, but time and my business doesn't allow it, but I will try.
If anti missile systems are only 10% effective, for all countries I'm going to assume, then why do all military systems spend so much money on them? Also, does that mean your also implying that the Iranian anti missile system is also just as effective?
Secondly, If the Persian gulf is very hard to navigate due to so many shallows, wouldn't it be safe to say that Iranian subs would also have a very difficult time to maneuver because they need deeper water than a air craft carrier.
I know you claim that the Iranian torpedo's are the fastest in the world, but as indicated in my last statement, how close would a Iranian sub have to get to launch, what would it do to evade U.S. destroyers, L.A. class subs, and torpedo helicopters in such sallow waters?
How would Iran respond with fighters with limited range when a aircraft carrier is too far.
Also, 1 or even 2 subs against a carrier would be very difficult to sink. I know you say that the torpedo are fast, but it would take many torpedoes to sink a carrier. Even if they launched by surprise, the U.S. fleet would know were they were and attack.
I guess when you look at it...it would be a suicide mission for the Iranian subs.
I'm not trying to argue what so ever!! I love to read peoples statements and ask questions that all.

Thanks Behrooz Boonabi!!

Well hello Bella, I think we covered this before.