Iran Threatens to Close Strait of Hormuz [Archive]

Modern Elmo

30th Dec 2011, 03:16

U.S. Warships Cross Hormuz Despite Iran Threats

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Published: 29 Dec 2011 13:18

WASHINGTON - Two American warships have crossed through the Strait of Hormuz [ outbound] without incident despite Iranian threats to close the strategic oil route, the U.S. Navy said Dec. 29.

The U.S. aircraft carrier Stennis is seen where Iranian ships are conducting 10 days of wargames in the Persian Gulf, accoridng to Iranian officials. (Fars News / AFP via Getty Images)

The aircraft carrier John C. Stennis and the guided-missile cruiser Mobile Bay "conducted a pre-planned, routine transit through the Strait of Hormuz" on Dec. 27, said Fifth Fleet spokeswoman Lt. Rebecca Rebarich.

The U.S. military reported no friction with Iran's naval forces after Iranian leaders warned of possibly shutting down the vital strait if the West went ahead with more punitive sanctions over its suspect nuclear program.

"Our interaction with the regular Iranian Navy continues to be within the standards of maritime practice, well-known, routine and professional," Rebarich said in an email from Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain.

The U.S. warships paid a visit to the port of Jebel Ali in the United Arab Emirates before traveling through the strait to the Arabian Sea, where the vessels will provide air power for NATO-led forces in Afghanistan, she said.

In response to Tehran's threats, the U.S. military said Dec. 28 that any attempt to disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz would not be tolerated.

The U.S. aircraft carrier and cruiser made their through the narrow channel as Iran's navy was carrying out war games to the east of the Strait of Hormuz in a show of military might.

Iran's navy commander, Adm. Habibollah Sayari, said the aircraft carrier was monitored as it passed through the strait to the Gulf of Oman, according to Iranian state television.

...

U.S. Warships Cross Hormuz Despite Iran Threats - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8693919&c=SEA&s=TOP)

Wonder if there are any USN aircraft carriers left in the Gulf of Araby now?

grounded27

30th Dec 2011, 03:32

Seems to me Iran has been boasting to cash a check that is bound to bounce, a simple nationalistic rally. I give more respect to the silverback in the Congo pounding on his chest, in the jungle most know to leave him alone. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, thinks he is a player in the hood.... Son, he has no idea he is challenging an oldschool gangster...

parabellum

30th Dec 2011, 03:41

I hope work on pipelines from Kuwait, Eastern Saudi, Qatar and the UAE to a terminal on the Arabian Sea coast of Oman is well under way?

green granite

30th Dec 2011, 07:24

Do you think they could mine the Straits totally unnoticed...

They don't need to actually mine it, just by saying they have would almost certainly bring traffic to a halt.

parabellum

30th Dec 2011, 10:02

I would hope that Western mine detection was well up to the task?

manccowboy

30th Dec 2011, 14:11

If Iran shut the straits it would amount to giving the US the green light to invade.

Is Iran really that stupid?

glojo

30th Dec 2011, 14:18

I would hope that Western mine detection was well up to the task? My thoughts are that you might be asking a lot plus the opposition can always deploy more mines after each sweep.

Bottom line might be that Iran needs to export oil to survive and needs to import fuel to make the wheels go round. An embargo for the goose must surely apply for the gander! (As long as it is enforced better than Beira!)
If Iran shut the straits it would amount to giving the US the green light to invade.

Is Iran really that stupid? America INVADE Iran????

Shouldn't that be is America that stupid?

No doubt they could rapidly gain both air and sea superiority but INVADE????

Mach Two

30th Dec 2011, 14:24

It may be a green light, but there is no will in the Whitehouse to get involved in another "boots on the ground" operation. That nice Mr Obama is very keen to be seen to be extracting the US from all that overseas interventionism so that he can portray himself as a dove, bringing Johnny home and saving the billions having them away costs. Elections are coming. Five years ago, maybe. Today, I think it's highly unlikely.

Finningley Boy

30th Dec 2011, 15:19

I have every faith in Uncle Sam's "Green Machine" to take on such a task effortlessly and with heartily good humour!:cool:

FB:)

serf

30th Dec 2011, 15:21

The pipeline from Abu Dhabi to the coast is complete, not yet operational.

reynoldsno1

30th Dec 2011, 22:00

No mention has been given to the other side of the Strait i.e. the Musandam Peninsular, which is sovereign territory belonging to the Sultanate of Oman. There are defensive facilities there, and the Sultan has more friends than Iran ....

ORAC

31st Dec 2011, 12:02

The Corner: Krauthammer’s Take (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/286856/krauthammers-take-nro-staff)

From Fox’s Special Report with Bret Baier. Thursday, Dec. 29, 2011

On Iran’s threats to close the Strait of Hormuz:

Iran could be making a huge mistake here, because if the bluff is called, if it actually interrupts shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the United States Navy will respond, it will reopen the Strait and it could destroy the Iranian navy.

But worse than that is this. There’s been a huge debate, of course, in the U.S. and the West about… whether anybody should attack the military facilities, the nuclear facilities, in Iran. And of course the risks are high and reluctance is great in the United States because it would effectively start a war.

However, if the Iranians block an international strait, that’s a breach of the most elementary rules of international law. It is an act of war. And if America reopens the Strait and the Iranian navy attacks America, that’s essentially a declaration of war on us. And then the idea of declaring war is moot. And then it opens the chance that the United States might actually strike more widely than simply the Iranian navy and would hit other military facilities, and possibly nuclear [facilities].

Saddam in 1991 was a year or two away from acquiring nuclear weapons, and he made a mistake of starting a war in Kuwait. And as a result he never achieved that. If he had waited two years, he would have been [a] nuclear [power]. The Iranians are close. If they provoke a war here, they could be de- nuclearized and lose their entire strategic objective of becoming the hegemonic element in the region.

On the $29 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia:

It’s an old issue. When Reagan wanted to sell AWACS, there was a huge argument in the U.S. that it could be used against Israel or, if the regime changed and becomes radical, then ultimately against us. Nonetheless, the answer today as it was in Reagan’s day is: You want to — you have to — arm the Saudis and the Gulf states who are allies because the threat is Iran. And Iran as the hegemon in the region would be… hugely dangerous to the United States and all its allies.

Modern Elmo

31st Dec 2011, 15:20

You want to — you have to — arm the Saudis and the Gulf states who are allies because the threat is Iran.

You think the Saudis would do much actual fighting? I don't.

Saudi purchases of F-15's, M1 tanks, etc., is a means of buying the protection
of Uncle Sugar's armed forces. ... S.A has beaucoup M1 tanks, probably parked nose to tail in warehouses and brought out only for occasional parades ... Not got going to hurt anybody with 'em, except maybe Saudi dissidents.

One good thing that can be said for Saudi A. as opposed to Israel -- at least the Saudis pay for their American weapons, and don't resell American military technology to China.

mini

1st Jan 2012, 23:44

Scuttled

2nd Jan 2012, 04:24

Forgive my genuine ignorance. The Isrealis have sold American military technology to China?

parabellum

2nd Jan 2012, 05:02

Asia Times - Asia's most trusted news source for the Middle East (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FL21Ak01.html)

I think it depends what news report you read. US said it was in contravention of agreements, Israel said it was a routine upgrade approved by the US, discussions have been going on about it for years.

Scuttled

2nd Jan 2012, 05:40

Many thanks. Interesting reading.

Trim Stab

2nd Jan 2012, 07:43

Scuttled - try researching USS Liberty sinking if you want some more background into Israel's attitude to their milk-cow benefactor. Israel would stab the USA in the back again, if it suited them.

ORAC

2nd Jan 2012, 08:03

Deutsche.Welle: Obama signs 'toughest yet' Iran sanctions (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15638986,00.html)

Mounting tensions between the United States and Iran are likely to flare even further after US President Barack Obama has signed new sanctions against Iran's financial and oil sectors.

US President Barack Obama has signed into law tough new sanctions targeting Iran's banking and oil sectors. Effectively, the measures will force companies and financial institutions throughout the world to choose between the United States and Iran as their business partner. The sanctions, conceived to punish Iran for its nuclear program, are part of a $662 billion (511 billion-euro) defense spending bill Obama signed on Saturday, December 31, during his vacation to Hawaii.

Firms and financial institutions, including foreign central banks, could be barred from trading on US financial markets if they continue ties with Iran's central bank or oil industry. Iran's central bank is essential to processing income from Iranian oil exports.

'Toughest sanctions yet'

The Obama administration has called the sanctions America's toughest yet against Tehran. Until now, most sanctions have focused on preventing nuclear industry products from entering Iran. "Our intent is to implement this law in a timed and phased approach so that we avoid repercussions to the oil market and ensure that this damages Iran and not the rest of the world," said an unnamed senior US official quoted by Reuters news agency.

The measures have sparked fears that Washington could damage ties with Iranian trade partners China and Russia, and that global markets could reel if Iran fires back, sending oil prices sky-high. However, the measures will not go into effect for 180 days, giving Obama's administration nearly half a year to consider how to implement them. The president will also be granted discretion to give temporary waivers from the sanctions if he judges them to be in US national interest.

Securing oil

The international dispute over Iran's nuclear program - which the West suspects is bent on developing weapons capabilities - currently threatens to impact global oil supply. Iran announced earlier this week that it would begin testing missiles in the Strait of Hormuz, a move the US warned against. Iran also threatened that, if the US passed new sanctions, it would block the Strait, through which over a third of the world's oil tankers pass.

The US responded to the threats on Friday by announcing a $3.45 billion arms deal with Iran's neighbor across the Strait, the United Arab Emirates, in an effort to build up defenses against Iran. During 2011, the US also sold billions of dollars worth of missiles to neighbors Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

The Wall Street Journal reported in December that the US and European officials were seeking assurances from other major oil producers including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates that they would up their imports to the West and Asia if Tehran's energy sector came under tighter sanctions..............

Biggus

2nd Jan 2012, 09:15

Didn't US oil sanctions against Japan in 1941 lead to a certain "incident" with subsequent consequences.....

TBM-Legend

2nd Jan 2012, 09:28

why don't we see how their anti-missile defense works? A few practice Harpoons etc etc :ok:

Andu

2nd Jan 2012, 09:47

Yup Biggus -and it was oil that was the issue then too. With the Americans embargoing oil supplies to Japan, the Japanese were placed in a position of backing down completely in China (unthinkable at the time to a very proud nation) or 'going for broke' while they still had credible oil reserves. The only extraordinary thing was that the Americans were apparently caught unawares by the very predictable Japanese response.

One can only hope the Americans are not caught unawares by the (let's face it) equally predictable Iranian response. With the Americans (in Iranian eyes) not far from to bankruptcy and unable to pay to maintain a credible presence in the region into the future, the Iranians see themselves filling the power vacuum - and are every bit as proud as the Japanese were in 1941.

The Iranians also see themselves as having been main players in 'seeing the Americans off' from Iraq, in much the same role the Americans played in supporting the Afghans in 'seeing off' the Soviets from Afghanistan. (It doesn't matter if many Americans will disagree with that assessment - that's how the Iraqi - yes, Iraqi - and Iranian propagandists will sell it to their people, who'll gleefully believe every word of it.)

Obama also needs to look presidential as the November election approaches - and there's nuthin' quite like an attack on a already demonised enemy to make a man look presidental. The Americans are also just begging for an excuse they can sell to the rest of the world to clean up the Iranian nuke programme.

Interesting times ahead for all of us, I fear.

glad rag

2nd Jan 2012, 12:48

^^^^^^^^ :D ^^^^^^^^

Capetonian

2nd Jan 2012, 13:40

They've fired off a couple of test missiles today and clearly indicated that Israel is within range. **** is on the horizon and it's now only a matter of time before a live missile is fired in one or both directions and will home on to a target.

This time last year I was preparing to go to Iran on a business trip in February - I went feeling quite comfortable about it. I've just been asked to go again and do some work for the same company - this time I've said no, with some reluctance, as I don't feel it's safe.

Finningley Boy

2nd Jan 2012, 14:09

I don't think there is anytime during the last 33 years during which I would have felt comfy about going to Iran. It's all to easy to all foul of the inflexibility of the rules in such a place, with drastic consequences likely. I spent two years in Saudi Arabia, that was enough for one life time!

Every time I took to the road, I was ashen with fear at the prospect of running one of them over, an all to likely prospect, given their own lack af attention to road safety, both on foot and behind the wheel.:ok:

FB:)

WE Branch Fanatic

2nd Jan 2012, 18:27

I doubt that Iran would close the Strait, any Iranian response to tougher sanctions or an attack would be far more subtle. I would suggest that:

1. Blocking the Strait of Hormuz would be a highly provocative act, it would destroy any goodwill towards Iran by other Middle Eastern nations, particularly the Gulf states. Similarly Russia and China are unlikely to have anything other than an extremely dim view.

2. This type of extreme action would force the West to act. Strikes against targets on the Iranian mainland might become an option. Prudence will demand that Iranian naval, air, and missiles forces are hunted and destroyed.

3. Concentrating large proportions of Iranian forces around or in the Strait will make the task of finding and destroying them easier.

4. The Iranian coast is over 1200 miles long, so why make things easy for the US/West? Why not attack over a larger area? The Kilo submarines, for instance, would be more likely to survive in the Gulf of Oman or Iranian sea. Dispersed attacks would make things harder to counter.

5. More targeted actions, using weapons aimed an individual ships (tankers going to/from a certain nation, or with a certain nation of registration/flag, or the naval forces of the US or allies). Whilst still an act of war, international opinion will resist an all out assault against Iranian forces. The non reaction to North Korea's sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan demonstrates this.

6. If international opinion prevents offensive responses against Iranian forces, Western forces will be on the back foot in defensive roles with restricted ROE.

7. The amount of Host Nation Support provided to the West may be limited, either due to politics (Israeli/US strike first) or for fear of Iranian reprisals - Iran has lots of surface to surface missiles, and has various terrorists as proxies.

There are a lot of open source articles regarding these issues:

Closing Time (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IS3301_pp082-117_Talmadge.pdf)

US-Iranian Confrontation at Sea (http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/US-Iranian_Confrontation_at_Sea.pdf)

Iranian Mining of the Strait of Hormuz – Plausibility and Key Considerations (http://www.inegma.com/reports/special%20report%204/Iranian%20Mining%20of%20the%20Strait%20of%20Hormuz.pdf)

A list of vessels attacked during the tanker war (http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_209.shtml)

THE TANKER WAR AND THE LESSONS OF NAVAL CONFLICT (http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/9005lessonsiraniraqii-chap14.pdf)

Expansion of the tanker war in the Gulf to include Western navies.... (http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/9005lessonsiraniraqii-chap09.pdf)

twochai

2nd Jan 2012, 18:32

I'm an optimist on these things - I think it is all positioning on the part of the Iranians, before sitting down to talk (again).

Tehran - Iran declared Saturday its readiness to resume talks about its contested nuclear programmes with world powers, but the European Union reacted with caution.

Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Salehi said in a meeting with a visiting Chinese official in Tehran that Iran was ready to resume talks with the six world powers over its nuclear programmes.

The US response has also been remarkably restrained, so far, perhaps indicating a readiness to negotiate. However, having been burned by Iran in the past.....

Biggus

2nd Jan 2012, 18:57

One side can sit down at negotiations and appear ready and willing to talk, even if they have absolutely no intention of actually making any form of compromise...

Why?

Well it buys time, it gives you a chance for events to move on (world recession, collapse of the Euro) so you are no longer a high priority in world events, possibly in this case until US electioneering issues ties Obama's hands. It also buys you world opinion, after all, you aren't "being difficult", you are trying to be co-operative as best you can, you're the little downtrodden guy in all this....

It can be nothing more than another stratagem or ploy..... :=

Andu

2nd Jan 2012, 21:20

The US response has also been remarkably restrained, so far, perhaps indicating a readiness to negotiate.Translation into Farsi: weakness.

I think WE Branch Fanatic's assessment is about as close to the money as anyone's likely to get. I agree they will try something far more subtle than blocking the straits to all traffic. However, the wild card is how much the recently-introduced sanctions will hurt them, or more particularly, how long they can bear them? (The Japanese situation after the oil sanctions in late 1941 again come to mind.)

Unless the new sanctions have changed the whole shootin' match (or time line), the one thing the Iranians want is to stall any US/NATO move until they have their nukes up and running - and about one nanosecond after that, "negotiations" take on a whole new meaning.

But let no one understate the importance of the November US elections and what they may 'force' the Obama administration to do to get Barry re-elected.

Al R

3rd Jan 2012, 06:13

Time to consider fixing your domestic fuel tarrif..?

ORAC

3rd Jan 2012, 09:00

FT: Iran threatens US over aircraft carrier
(http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b9af14e0-35e8-11e1-9f98-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1iO654OBn)

TEHRAN, January 3 – Iran will take action if a US aircraft carrier which left the area because of Iranian naval exercises returns to the Gulf, the state news agency quoted army chief General Ataollah Salehi as saying on Tuesday.

“Iran will not repeat its warning ... the enemy’s carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasise to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf,” Gen Salehi told IRNA.

“I advise, recommend and warn them [the Americans] over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once,” the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Gen Salehi as saying.

Gen Salehi did not name the aircraft carrier or give details of the action Iran might take if it returned.......................

ORAC

3rd Jan 2012, 09:06

France: Europe must agree Iran sanctions by end-Jan (http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/wire-news/france-europe-must-agree-iran-sanctions-by-end-jan_644105.html)

PARIS (Reuters) - France urged its European partners on Tuesday to follow the U.S. lead and agree by the end of this month to impose an embargo on Iranian oil exports and freeze Iranian central bank assets, as tension with Tehran escalates.

Speaking ahead of a January 30 EU foreign ministers' meeting, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said it was time to toughen sanctions along the lines President Nicolas Sarkozy had proposed in late November. "France ... wants sanctions toughened and the president (Sarkozy) has made two concrete proposals on that front -- the first being the freezing of Iranian central bank assets, a tough measure, and the second an embargo on Iranian oil exports," Juppe told i>tele, a French news TV channel.

Washington is already in the process of imposing such sanctions, he said. "We want the Europeans to take a similar step by January 30 to show our determination," he said........ U.S. President Barack Obama signed new sanctions against Iran into law on Saturday.

"These will be European and American sanctions as we have the capacity to act in this domain," Juppe said.

If enforced strictly, the sanctions could make it nearly impossible for most refiners to buy crude from Iran, the world's fourth biggest producer........

glojo

3rd Jan 2012, 09:53

Ouch... Those talks are getting perhaps 'silly'??

If NATO were to blockade tankers chartered by Iran, then that really forces Iran to then blockade the Strait. I'll see your tanker and raise you my two tankers.

Regarding the carrier threat, I guess the US carrier decided to 'attack in a different direction' when this game of bluff and counter bluff started to esculate.

Once those Kilo submarines disappeared off the battlefield then it might be reckless to operate in a narrow stretch of water where there is NO hiding place. Far better to retreat (attack in a different direction) and then put a barrier between your carrier and any threat.

I have always thought this might be all talk but these unhelpful threats of embargo are not helping, I would perhaps suggest they are doing just the opposite.

Iran cannot blockade the Strait and still operate her tankers, why on earth make silly noises about blocking their ships!! This sounds more like children having the typical playground argument!!

What is going to be next? 'Withdraw your **** force, or else?' Gloom, not good and no doubt we will soon be hearing from SAM

Andu

3rd Jan 2012, 10:42

The Iranian warning to keep the carrier away is a good poker play in my opinion.

Meanwhile, those Iranian centrifuges are spinning and those Iranian scientists are almost certainly working triple shifts...

SASless

3rd Jan 2012, 12:17

Once those Kilo submarines disappeared off the battlefield then it might be reckless to operate in a narrow stretch of water where there is NO hiding place. Far better to retreat (attack in a different direction) and then put a barrier between your carrier and any threat.

One does not operate Carrriers in narrow bits of water and fly off aircraft for flight operations. One does position the Carrier at a distance from the target that provides for sea room to maneuver and in depths that minimize the advantage to diesel boats and Subs designed for Littoral waters.

If the Iranian Subs come out to play....the American Attack Subs will eat their lunch. I would be willing to bet the Iranian Subs are tracked every minute they are at sea with a big ol' can of whoop ass ready to be opened when needed fully loaded, aimed, and cocked.....and a finger on the trigger.

Archimedes

3rd Jan 2012, 14:26

Gen Salehi did not name the aircraft carrier or give details of the action Iran might take if it returned.......................

Provide the world's media with a live re-run of Op Praying Mantis? :confused:

glojo

3rd Jan 2012, 15:51

Hi SASless
Words of wisdom as usual, hence my comments about being

reckless to operate in a narrow stretch of water where there is NO hiding place. Far better to retreat (attack in a different direction) and then put a barrier between your carrier and any threat.

That battle group had to move out from that narrow waterway.

It had to get into a far more friendly environment but I am not as convinced as your good self regarding the locating and following of all the kilo boats. Yes it is common practice for a submarine to attempt to follow another and of course actually follow for considerable periods of time, BUT we are talking multiple small, quiet diesel boats. I am on your side and to an extent agree with you..

If and it is a big IF... if there is going to be a conflict then I still suggest submarines should have a bigger role.

Put in your sea wolf\virginia class to attempt to clear the sea of any threat to your Ohio class boats and then let these missile carrying monsters carry out their own 'shock and awe'

My concern would be so called merchant vessels mining the strait and our inability to keep the waterway clear of this awful ordinance.

The carrier\carriers HAVE to be kept safe for multiple reasons but can you imagine the ramifications if one were to be damaged or perish the thought sunk?

My prayers will be concentrated on praying that wiser heads win though regarding this situation and there will be no conflict.

Nice speaking with you
John

Green Flash

3rd Jan 2012, 16:18

Seems to me that there are a whole load of unsinkable aircraft carriers between Al Jabar and Masirah, that can take MPA, Tankers, AWACS, UAV's,GLMRS, cruise, integrated air defence sytems, logistics, bars, Sky Sports and Uncle Tom Cobbliegh and all, and all, and ........

Put up a carrier battlegroup as bait if you want, then spring the trap.

Often wondered why the JMC excercises were held where the were; looking at the geography (maritime ops in a long thin piece of water) it all now falls into place. NATO has been practising this scenario for YEARS.

Not_a_boffin

3rd Jan 2012, 16:31

They can also "take" Shahab, Sajjil and Fateh missiles, although for how long and at what cost...? No HAS big enough for the "heavies".

Green Flash

3rd Jan 2012, 16:34

Move the heavies back to the reserve carriers, let them fire what they want, take out the accurate stuff with SAM/Aegis/whatever, pause, .....

SASless

3rd Jan 2012, 19:15

From a trade magazine article....

Submarines with Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) systems represent perhaps the most dangerous threat ever to U.S. maritime interests. In the course of operations, diesel-electric submarines must come up to shallow water every few days to "snorkel" (that is, run their diesel engines to recharge their batteries and draw in fresh air). But AIP submarines can operate for up to 30 days at low speeds without surfacing. They, like regular diesel-electric submarines, are quiet when submerged--significantly quieter than the nuclear-powered submarines that make up the current U.S. attack fleet.

Some analysts argue that the Navy is not very good at locating diesel-electric submarines, especially in noisy, shallower waters near coastal areas. Exercises with allied navies that use diesel-electric submarines confirm that problem. U.S. antisubmarine units reportedly have had trouble detecting and countering diesel-electric submarines of South American countries. Israeli diesel-electric submarines, which until recently were relatively old, are said to always "sink" some of the large and powerful warships of the U.S. Sixth Fleet in exercises. And most recently, an Australian Collins class submarine penetrated a U.S. carrier battle group and was in a position to sink an aircraft carrier during exercises off Hawaii in May 2000. Thus, if a real opponent had even one such submarine with a competent commanding officer and crew, it could dramatically limit the freedom of action of U.S. naval forces in future conflicts.

The Navy cannot effectively use only its own submarines for ASW training. Because all of its attack submarines are nuclear powered, they are not valid surrogates for diesel-electric subs. They are much larger and have very different sonar "signatures" than the diesel-electric submarines found in other countries' fleets.

The US Navy has been doing exercises and research with several operators of conventional submarines for the past ten years or so...thus they are aware of the situation....and hopefully are better prepared than thought.

Info on the Iranian Kilo Fleet....

The three Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines were commissioned from 1992 to 1996. Iran allegedly paid USD600 million for each boat and they are all based at Bandar Abbas in the Straits of Hormuz (Tehran is reportedly contemplating the relocation of its submarines from the shallow waters of Bandar Abbas to naval facilities in deeper waters at Chah Bahar[11] in the Gulf of Oman). Two of the Kilo-class submarines are operational at any one time and they are occasionally deployed in the eastern mouth of the Straits, the Gulf of Oman or the Arabian Sea. The vessels are already halfway through their approximately 30-year lifespan and have not been overhauled, but they can still be considered to be at fair to good readiness levels.[12] Their utility in the Persian Gulf is, however, somewhat limited as Kilo-class boats require a depth of at least 164 ft and can therefore only access about one third of the Gulf.[13] Unique water conditions (water salinity and strong currents) in the Gulf further limit the boats' operational use unless the submarines are deployed to deeper waters in the Gulf of Oman or the Arabian Sea.[14]

Mike7777777

3rd Jan 2012, 20:10

Doubtful if one Kilo boat could achieve a torpedo firing solution on any US carrier in any realistic scenario.

Biggus

3rd Jan 2012, 20:37

Go active in a big way....

The biggest problem maybe having an ASW weapon that works in shallow water...

Andu

3rd Jan 2012, 20:47

As I said above, the Iranian general's threat warning the Stennis group to remain out of the Gulf was really good poker - for, if the current unpleasantness turns into a shooting war, out of the Gulf is exactly where the USN will want the Stennis and its support ships to be (which is exactly why they moved them from the Persian Gulf and into the Gulf of Oman last week).

When the Stennis remains exactly where the Americans want it, out in the open waters of the Gulf of Oman, the Iranians will be able to (and will!) beat their collective breast victoriously like a young pretender gorilla seeing off the old silverback - which will sell well on the streets in Iran (and in the Arab 'street' as well).

It remains to be seen if the political imperative will override military commonsense for the Americans. Military commonsense dictates that the carrier stays well clear of the confined waters of the Straits and the Persian Gulf. However, some suit in Washington may insist that politics dictate they must not be seen to back down.

Fox News yesterday reported that Obama watered down the original sanctions as placed before him, giving the Iranians 90 days before putting the full squeeze on them.

This is so obviously political - (US domestically, I mean) - factored around the November elections. Any military action taken this early in the year by the Obama administration could (and probably would) be overshadowed by later events, (and God only knows what they may be), dissipating Obama's 'warrior president' mantle, which his minders would just luuurrrve to be able to drape him in in the the weeks leading up to the election. A 90 day delay in putting the squeeze on the Iranians will be that much closer to the elections.

Meanwhile, those centrifuges keep spinning...

glojo

3rd Jan 2012, 20:53

Hi Mike,
Not sure of your point as the battle group would never put themselves deliberately into a position where they are an easy target. But my thoughts are there are LOTS of scenarios where the kilo would come out on top but every scenario I might put forward would see the very astute Americans put forward another half dozen or so to take away the threat. All realistic scenarios but no one is going to use a Nimitz class carrier as 'bait'

One does not operate Carrriers in narrow bits of water and fly off aircraft for flight operations. One does position the Carrier at a distance from the target that provides for sea room to maneuver and in depths that minimize the advantage to diesel boats and Subs designed for Littoral waters.

The Stennis was a target waiting to be sunk... the Americans correctly recognised that and sailed off over the horizon where all the trump cards change hands and are now held by the opposing players.

If the Iranian Subs come out to play....the American Attack Subs will eat their lunch.

Iran are now trying to get this major assett back to a location where they would get that 'realistic scenario'

Iran threatened on Tuesday to take action if the U.S. Navy moves an aircraft carrier into the Gulf

In other words "I have slept with your mother and she is butt ugly...." They are expecting the US to take the bait and steam full speed back through the Strait. It aint gonna happen :) :) but under estimate those boats at your peril.

Shallow water sat on the sea bed and waiting for your fish to swim by... Just like the conger eel that hides in the gun barrel of a ship wreck. :sad:;) Hopefully the Kilo boats will have an awfully long wait.

Do Nimitz class still carry full complements of Vikings or am I as usual completely out of date regarding air ASW assets?

TheWestCoast

3rd Jan 2012, 21:06

The S-3 went out of service in 2009. SH-60 and P-3 are now the only USN ASW aviation assets.

racedo

3rd Jan 2012, 21:09

Lots of posturing going on by both sides.

While attempts by the Kilo's would worry US Carrier group, the presences of fast missile boats, land based missiles, artillery plus some aircraft all letting go at the same time as a carrier transitted the narrowest point would give anybody a headache.

I have no doubt that one, two or three threats could be easily pushed back but could all be pushed back at the same time without suffering a catasrophic hit...........not sure USN would be willing to take those odds that an overwhelming attack could all be pushed back.

It only needs one hit to get through at the wrong place.

Nowt wrong with strategic withdrawal.

Mike7777777

3rd Jan 2012, 21:39

Not sure of your point as the battle group would never put themselves deliberately into a position where they are an easy target. But my thoughts are there are LOTS of scenarios where the kilo would come out on top but every scenario I might put forward would see the very astute Americans put forward another half dozen or so to take away the threat. All realistic scenarios but no one is going to use a Nimitz class carrier as 'bait'
glojo, for a torpedo firing solution, compare operational speed of carrier and Kilo boat. Kilo cannot catch carrier, therefore the Kilo can only lurk and hope that the carrier presents a firing solution. Effective lurking for one Kilo can only realistically occur in the Strait (best chance of encountering the carrier) but this is where the shallow water places the Kilo at risk. A dozen Kilo boats lurking in the Gulf of Oman could be a serious threat, one Kilo lurking in the Strait will probably be sunk before the carrier appears over the horizon.

dead_pan

3rd Jan 2012, 22:30

Wouldn't be surprised if the Yanks already know the general whereabouts of the Iranian subs and have in place assets to counter them as required. Its not like this scenario has just snuck up on them.

Navaleye

3rd Jan 2012, 22:38

Agree with the above. I spent a lot of time chasing the pukka soviet boats with success, not the noisy export model Jthe Iranians have. They only understand one thing - blood. They should be attacked immediately. Their Navy and air force could be quickly overwhelmed, the army would take its boots off and run. Then the mullahs and senior officers can be rounded up and shot by their own people. Call me an old liberal but it's the only way.:D

JFZ90

3rd Jan 2012, 22:43

Hopefully this is all just posturing, but it is worrying what havoc they could try and inflict with their kilos.

Makes me wonder whether these may end up doing something decisive....

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_P-3_Harpoons_Torpedo_Sidewinder_lg.jpg

...Murphy would suggest its likely given this has just happened....

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01813/nim_1813109c.jpg

rh200

3rd Jan 2012, 22:55

Nobody in, or out of there mind is going to premptively strike at a carrier group, unless they think that all out war is inevitable.

They immediatly loose the PR war by going first, and the obvious response is too great. I would think they would have a go if, one they where totally sure they where going to be getting a good smiting.

Or after some surgical strikes or other significant action by the US, in which case I would have thought the carrier group would not be in a vulnerable position due to the obvious risk.

Mind you there's always the chance of a good old fashioned balls up.

SASless

3rd Jan 2012, 23:22

Nobody in, or out of there mind is going to premptively strike at a carrier group, unless they think that all out war is inevitable.

Errrr....ahhhhh....I am not sure I would bet the Farm on that statement...as Army Dinner Jacket and the Mullahs are not exactly playing with a full deck by any reasonble standard.

When one truly believes in this Martyrdom crap.....they instantly are playing by a completely insane set of rules!

Granted the few might find themselves dragging millions with them down that path if they happen to loose off a Nuke sometime...but then the more the merrier to them!

alwayzinit

4th Jan 2012, 07:57

A very interesting situation indeed.................with The Alwayzs x 4 sitting in the UAE!

The " And don't come back" crap from Tehran is just the response to watching the historical reaction the USN has always had to when things start getting interesting.

(USN is rather like Bruce Lee splitting his trousers before going Ninja, Must have room to move. Yeeeee huh!:})

All the same I am about to raid the rainy day fund and get Mrs + 2 a break back home til the weather gets hot again and everyone mentally cools off!

As to Iran displaying their Naval Power the helo on telly, looked like a 30+ yr old UH-1 supplied by the US to the Shar flopping onto a deck t'other day...............mildly ironic.

Oh Happy New Year all !

Mike7777777

4th Jan 2012, 09:16

Even a US carrier group could not cope with an attack by 30+ small (tiny) attack boats, followed by several of those boats & 4 mini-submarines laying mines in the narrowist point of the Straight. That would effectively trap the US Fleet to be picked off at will. The crews of these small but deadly fast craft have a different mindset to us. They WILL die for their religion.

Please provide your evidence to support your claim that 30+ small boats can defeat a US carrier plus attendant support vessels.

SASless

4th Jan 2012, 09:35

Always....it was a Bell 212 if I remember the video correctly....which is almost exactly a UH-1N....which the USMC still operates as well.

The Iranians can be a bother....but it will be a short one if it comes to an all out dust up.

There are three Carrier Task groups in the area....not just the one.

Add in the USAF ability to move large numbers of aircraft to the area within just a few days....and the situation changes quickly.

I do not see the Israeli's using their Nukes....as that is a jar no one wishes to open except in self defense and then only in extremis.

Wiley

4th Jan 2012, 09:37

If I was a betting man, I'd probably be willing to lay a small wager that the Emirate of Sharjah, whether it likes it or not, by the end of the year and thanks to the USMC, may well be again in possession of the island of Abu Musa.

Currently occuppied by....?

Biggus

4th Jan 2012, 10:26

SAM,

Do you seriously consider that the USN isn't aware of the Iranian ORBAT, or that a US carrier group would place itself inside the reach of these short range attack boats if they thought there was a likelyhood of a hostile act, even a premptive one......

Still, at least the USN can thank you for pointing out the threat to them......

Also, when you say ..."I'll now leave this forum...." do you actually mean it this time?

Mike7777777

4th Jan 2012, 10:31

It's simple science old son, ..... etc
I don't recall any reports of Somalian pirates attacking a USN carrier. You don't appear to have any evidence to support your claim of the effectiveness of small craft against major USN assets and support vessels. Not even any reference to historical exercises.

As long as we've got that straight...

Training Risky

4th Jan 2012, 10:41

Is this the same SAMXXV who went on record on this forum to predict a major Israel-Iran conflict by the end of 2011...?

Where's your crystal ball now fella? Is it a bit cloudy?

Tell us the truth, you were really the Chief Clerk at RAF Little Snoring, 1958-1962, were you not?!:E

StopStart

4th Jan 2012, 10:51

I'm pretty sure you placed a bet with the nautical voice of reason, Tourist, and that you would never post on here again if you lost?

I suggest you make that prediction a bet.

I am willing to take that bet.

I suggest that the loser never posts on PPRuNe again.

Post your bet old son. Iran WILL be hit by the 8 Blu's within 6 weeks - delivered by USA B2's & followed up by Israli air strikes to say to the world "don't mess with Israel.

Watch & wait sir.

Tourist - the bet is on. - An Israeli airstrike (but it will actually be a US B2 strike) on Iran before Xmas 2011...

An honourable chap would would stand by his wager, do the decent thing and poke off. Surely you should be spending your time prepping your nuclear bunker anyway?

Quick brush up might be in order. The Iranians, North Koreans, Argentinians, Chinese, Russians and Scottish are coming!!

:hmm:

PS. I do believe it's illegal to store more than 20 litres of petrol domestically.... Although I suppose a hollowed-out Scottish Island complete with nuclear bunker and a laser capable of destroying the moon might not be considered "domestic". I assume that's where you live?

parabellum

4th Jan 2012, 11:18

High speed, heavily armed, lite boats are no match for a USN warship, they will simply be blown out of the water before they could become effective.

Would Iranian navy destroyers actually 'mix it' with USN ships, I doubt it.

Do the USN know exactly where each and every Iranian Navy Submarine is? I would put money on it.

Is the Iranian Air Force capable of taking on the USAF/USN? No.

Iran is Sabre rattling, suggesting it has sunk to the same depths as North Korea, "Placate me or I will scream".

Mike7777777

4th Jan 2012, 11:36

Point 1 is demonstrably wrong, please study the action of USS Greer in Sept 1941. Kindly go away and revise the subject matter before posting again, thanks.

andyy

4th Jan 2012, 11:50

To be fair to SAM (not easy, I know) but about 12 years ago the USN were seriously concerned when the IRGN practiced a Swarm attack against a CVN in the Gulf without warning. Deploying counter measures is OK if you have an expectation of the threat but on this occasion the swarm came from no where & there was no chance of deploying a defensive screen; in such a scenario it is likely that some boats would get through anyway, armed with anti tank weaponry or even as suicide boats packed with explosives.

I guess that vessels transiting the Gulf will need the protection of many friendly fast patrol boats and top cover from AH types, if the threat is considered credible.

Mike7777777

4th Jan 2012, 11:58

If there is a perceived risk of attack by small boats then the defensive screen would be in place.

glojo

4th Jan 2012, 12:03

Hi Mike,
You and I are envisaging completely different scenario regarding the capability of these twenty year old boats. Getting away from coastal waters will not be conducive to your long term health and I suspect the commanding officers of these submarines may want to live to see their grand children??

My thoughts are that they should only 'play' to their strength, namely they will have to stay in locations close to land. This is the EXACT location where any right minded commander of a US Battle Group will NOT put his fleet. Not going to happen.

It is plain wrong to suggest Iran does not have the ability to sink a battle group, both silly and naive, BUT......... I would very respectfully suggest that Iran is at best guilty of wishful thinking if they are of the opinion that the US Battle Group is going to make itself an easy target!! NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

I also accept that Kilo class submarines and other types are detectable, but when they are hiding, then detection is never going to be that easy. Talk to the gamekeeper and they will always brag about how easy it was to detect 'x' 'y' or 'z' but talk to the poacher and they could possibly show you pictures of a ship's propeller :sad: that may have allegedly been hunting them down. Did the USA put a high degree of pressure onto the Russian Government in attempts to stop the sale of these boats to Iran. America is fully aware of the capabilities of this type of submarine.

Detecting a vessel out at sea when it is making a loud amount of noise does not compare with something lurking on the sea bed close inshore where it is possibly under the umbrella of surface to air missile protection. The diesel electric submarine is a slow snail compared to a Nimitz class carrier but when it drifts with the tides or travels at speeds of 3 knots or slower, then it is a devil to detect.

We also seem to be forgetting this class of vessel is fully capable of laying mines in the main shipping routes maybe just hours before an expected convoy, or group of vessels is due or they could possibly lay them just after a shipping lane has been swept. This might not match your scenario but it is one that no doubt the US are taking very seriously.

I agree with a few of the points made by SAM although he appears to enjoy a more confrontational approach and are we now in the age of the armed UAV which might be used to remove a number of these boats plus do we (we being NATO) have the numbers that can remain on station just waiting for an opportunity to remove any other surface threat that dares to show itself?

The S-3 went out of service in 2009. SH-60 and P-3 are now the only USN ASW aviation assets. Thank you very much for the update. Are you confident any battle group has the ability to protect itself from underwater attacks? I accept it will have a submarine escort attached to the group but are these units better off working at speeds FAR slower than the operational speed of the carrier? (I am aware of the high speeds a submarine can achieve but is speed a hindrance when trying to detect a very quiet enemy?)

Nice debate but we should all remember we are not invincible and was it HMS Gloucester that shot down a missile that was intent on spoiling the day of the powerful battleship USS Missouri a ship that possibly got too close to the action? Was Gloucester also the only warship to shoot down an inbound missile with a missile? :)

The Americans have been the victim of any number of attacks on their warships, be they small boat attack or mines.... To suggest they are invincible is asking for a lesson in reality. is it going to happen? I have no idea??? My post should be looked on as asking questions or trying to stimulate debate.

YES Iran is capable of sinking a Nimitz class carrier BUT I am of the opinion it would be HIGHLY improbable and whilst they are in deep water then improbable might raise to probably impossible ;)

Blacksheep

4th Jan 2012, 12:19

How would the USN react to the sinking of a Nimitz class carrier? Tactical Nukes? Strategic? Whatever it is, such an event would precipitate an all-out, no-holds-barred attack on Iran and there's no guessing as to the eventual winner in such an uneven contest. You only have to recall the US response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. They took a lot of time working up the momentum but just look where it ended.

ORAC

4th Jan 2012, 12:29

Iran’s Hormuz Threat (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287076/iran-s-hormuz-threat-jim-lacey)

Expecting rationality from Ahmadinejad and the mullahs is not the best bet.

Blood & Treasure by Jim Lacey

For the past two weeks Iran has committed a sizable portion of its military to rehearsing how it would go about closing the Hormuz Strait. For the most part, strategic analysts yawned, and declared Iranian blustering to be an empty threat. Judging from the oil markets’ relatively muted reaction, it appears that most of the folks who bet big money on what happens in the Persian Gulf share this opinion. So what is this consensus based on? First and foremost, it relies on the belief that the Iranian leadership will make a number of rational calculations and decisions concerning their own and their country’s future. Personally, I am not sure of the wisdom of betting on the rationality of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a few globally disconnected mullahs.

As the “Iran is bluffing” crowd sees it, Iran does not the possess the military wherewithal to close the strait: disrupt traffic, yes; close it, no. Everyone also assumes that Iran’s leaders understand that closing the strait would mean that Iran’s own oil shipments would cease. As Iran’s oil exports account for a almost a fifth of its GDP and fund 60 percent of its national budget, even a temporary closing of the strait would be an economic catastrophe. Moreover, as Iran still relies on imports for much of its refined fuel, any closure of the strait would rapidly shut down huge segments of its non-oil economy.

As the Wall Street Journal pointed out last week, however, these Iranian exercises closely coincide with “the U.S. and Europe at last mustering the gumption to target [with sanctions] Iran’s multibillion-dollar oil industry.” If sanctions do put a serious crimp in Iran’s oil and gas exports, the mullahs may decide there is little difference between the West’s closing off their access to export revenues and their doing it themselves — except that in the latter circumstance the rest of the world would share Iran’s pain. As the political and economic situation in Iran moves from dismal to catastrophic, one can easily envision internal scenarios where closing the Strait of Hormuz begins to appears as a rational option.

It may be true that, even if Iran wanted to close the strait, its military, when confronted by the U.S. Fifth Fleet, would be incapable of doing so. One should not, however, be sanguine about this being the case. Iran has hundreds of ballistic missiles, three Kilo-class submarines, and a host of fast attack boats (armed with anti-ship missiles). There is no end to the mischief a clever opponent can make with such an arsenal. For instance, in the 2002 Millennium Challenge war game, retired Marine lieutenant general Paul Van Riper, playing the Iranian side’s commander, caused so much damage to the U.S. and allied fleet that the game had to be stopped (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html). Only after the fleet was resurrected from the bottom of the sea was the game able to continue.

Even this, however, misses the point. To create massive global economic dislocation, the Iranians do not have to keep the strait closed or even close it at all. All they have to do is make it difficult for ships to transit. On a daily basis approximately 15 supertankers make their way through the strait, carrying over 15 million barrels of oil — a sixth of the world’s supply. Any real threat to these shipments would see insurance rates skyrocket, assuming that shipping companies, captains, and crews even wanted to risk the trip.

Moreover, if the Iranians did try to close the strait, it is unlikely they would limit themselves to just that action. Rather, we could expect Iran to sow mines throughout the Persian Gulf, particularly just outside ports and within the shipping lanes. Saudi Arabia would probably have to endure a barrage of hundreds of missiles, most of them aimed at oil-shipment chokepoints, such as the stabilization plant at Abqaiq. These would be closely followed by as many air sorties as Iran’s 100-plus attack aircraft could launch before they were overwhelmed by U.S. airpower. All of this would be catastrophic to the global economy, and we have not even considered what damage Iran’s special forces or its sponsored terrorist groups might do. It is also worth noting that most of Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich areas are populated by Shias, who may have some sympathy for their co-religionists in Iran. Finally, we have not even considered the possibility that Iranian conventional forces, taking advantage of our withdrawal from Iraq, might move into Basra to interrupt Iraqi, and possibly Kuwaiti, oil shipments.

So, what happens if Iran does strike with its entire arsenal of options? For one thing, oil immediately spikes to $200 a barrel, and the price of gas tops $15 or $20 a gallon. This, in turn, will snuff out the nascent global economic recovery, and we can count on a sharp recession. How fast and decisively U.S. and other world leaders react will decide the deepness and length of this recession. A rapid release of the strategic petroleum reserves would soon bring down oil prices. Moreover, the world has enough oil in strategic reserves to make up expected losses from Iranian attacks for a little over a year. The United States, therefore, has that long to both demolish Iranian offensive capabilities and repair the damage. In short, if the world acts decisively, an Iranian attack would cause a severe, but short-lived, economic dislocation.

Of course, everything becomes harder if Iran possesses a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, everything becomes much easier if the West strikes first.

— Jim Lacey is the professor of strategic studies at the Marine Corps War College. He is the author of The First Clash and Keep from All Thoughtful Men. The opinions in this article are entirely his own and do not represent those of the Department of Defense or any of its members.

glojo

4th Jan 2012, 12:50

Iran deploys latest submarine assets to seek out the Stennis Battle Group

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/boat.jpg?w=324cc4c6

alfred_the_great

4th Jan 2012, 13:19

SAM's point 8 is also bollocks. If it's such a fearsome TG, I wouldn't expect an ocean-going tug to be with them on a permanent basis....

LowObservable

4th Jan 2012, 13:42

In open ocean, if I was an Iranian sub commander, I would be changing into my brown corduroy trousers before I so much as gave the order to flood a tube.

SASless

4th Jan 2012, 14:08

Some of Sam's points are at least somewhat true (not many), some are demonstrable false, but one rings very true and was very much understated!

10. Obama has not a clue what is going on in the Middle East.

Obama does not have a clue about anything...domestic or foreign and with any sort of good luck, wisdom of the American electorate (shaky ground there), and perhaps some Divine Intervention....he shall be out of office in January!

Mike7777777

4th Jan 2012, 14:57

glojo, the safest place for a Kilo is motors stopped, neutral buoyancy at 500 feet beneath several saline layers, can't be detected but can listen. The most dangerous place for a Kilo is in shallow, restricted waters, can be detected (perhaps even visually if the water is clear) but cannot hide at 500 feet beneath saline layers. With only one Kilo, the likelihood of a carrier sailing conveniently into a firing solution in the Gulf (as opposed to the Strait) is remote, hence the more effective use of 12 Kilos strung out in a picket line (history, repeat, etc). Re: mines, you're moving the goalposts! I've considered torpedo attack only. A Kilo is an expensive asset for mine laying.

It is plain wrong to suggest Iran does not have the ability to sink a battle group A battle group is considerably more than a carrier, but - for the Iranians - it's the carrier that needs to be the target. The lone Kilo's biggest problem is its relative lack of submerged speed, cannot stalk the carrier and get behind the screen. A working Alfa boat would cause a few headaches. And then it would stop working.

Mike7777777

4th Jan 2012, 15:01

The International Community sits idly by

How do you know this?

glojo

4th Jan 2012, 15:26

Old news maybe but the Song is arguably not as stealthy as the Kilo

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

Going for a song (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html) would seem to dispute what some folks are trying to suggest and in my experience this is DEFINITELY NOT the first conventional submarine to do this and was it wise for the Chinese to let the USA know what they could, or could not do?

Mike777
I have NEVER discussed taking on this battle group in any other location other than the actual Strait. I do however suggest that the laying of specialist mines is an excellent task for this type of vessel and certainly not as you state being 'an expensive asset for mine laying'

I have no idea how quiet or noisy any modern nuclear submarine would be when travelling at a speed capable of chasing down a nuclear carrier and her battle group, but from my time afloat speed and noise went hand in glove. More speed = more noise, less speed = less noise and far more capability at listening to the local radio :8:rolleyes:

I believe we have both made our points in a constructive and polite manner and I guess we shall have to agree to disagree.

We can all say the Song class boat was lucky to be in the right location at the right time but a hit is a hit no matter whether we are lucky or unlucky. Plus I will always say... The harder we train.... The 'luckier' we get.

Mike7777777

4th Jan 2012, 15:50

From the Flail article: which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan Sounds like deep water, the boat had probably been sitting at 500 feet beneath several saline layers...

Whiskey on the rocks (1981) demonstrates the dangers of a boat operating close inshore.

alfred_the_great

4th Jan 2012, 16:00

the safest place for a Kilo is motors stopped, neutral buoyancy at 500 feet beneath several saline layers, can't be detected but can listen

Explain for me, if you will, the physics that allows sound to reach a submarine under several layers yet the sound it produces can't be detected? After you've done that, pse explain where, exactly, these "several layers" exist.

PingDit

4th Jan 2012, 16:09

The majority of comments on here seem to be concentrating on the Iranian Kilo's and the Iranian fast attack craft.

KILO's - Are indeed very hard to detect. However, once you've got your 'claws' into them, it's not too difficult to hang on. If the 2 currently assessed to be at sea were to suddenly 'disappear' the finger may well be pointed at the USA but where would the proof be? As a consequence, if things did hot up dramatically, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them disappear off the Iranian ORBAT within minutes.

Fast Attack Boats - Make a lot of noise. The US Navy would see them coming acoustically from miles away. Any 'swarm' may be hard to deal with but could be feasibly overcome all the same (IMHO).

What if the US Navy simply enforced a blockade on Iranian naval assets thereby denying any (or further?) mining operations? If the Ianians then decided to militarily counter these efforts, I'm sure the US assets could adequately reply.

It's the potential nuclear threat we should be worried about....

glojo

4th Jan 2012, 16:17

Sounds like deep water, the boat had probably been sitting at 500 feet beneath several saline layers...

Totally agree and the Dutch did something similar in the Caribbean against the Roosevelt again a diesel powered submarine, although I guess we could argue that this was an exercise but the Dutch also sunk a number of the escorts including the nuclear powered submarine!

Lonewolf_50

4th Jan 2012, 16:52

In response to how listening from under a layer is a one way advantage.

The physics term is refraction. Not all sound travels in direct path. Add to that the FOM advantage of much LOWER ambient noise (self noise) and your detection calculus comes up FOR the sub most every time compared to any surface ship.

Air based detection is another matter.

Other physical terms include scattering ... any ASW primer should see you through the rest.

Depending upon a number of physical conditions, there can be surface ducts even in relatively shallow water, but sound propagation paths can change quite a bit between day and night due to a few degrees change in temp here and there in the mixing layer.

manccowboy

4th Jan 2012, 16:59

Hmmmm I remember someone saying scrapping Nimrod would come back to haunt Cameron :E

glojo

4th Jan 2012, 17:14

Explain for me, if you will, the physics that allows sound to reach a submarine under several layers yet the sound it produces can't be detected? After you've done that, pse explain where, exactly, these "several layers" exist. Technical question that would need long answers but the short answers are:
Being careful what I say... submarines can tow an array that may be at a different depth to the boat (one bit above and one bit below a layer) and this will assist in detecting who is about, plus once they know who is hunting them it is time to either scoot, shoot or hide.

Final question
Submarines are always monitoring and recording sea temperatures, alkalinity and sea pressure which will enable them to build up a picture of the various layers which in turn will then mask or help mask their presence.

Obviously this is a highly specialised topic and worthy of deeper discussion but suffice it to say the submarine has lots of very specialised equipment that helps it in this game of hide and seek. It is not unknown for submarines to 'disappear' under these layers and then simply scoot away.

To my knowledge a nuclear submarine can outrun a surface ship but so far it cannot out run a helicopter :) (humour)

akerosid

4th Jan 2012, 17:54

I think that one point that has been overlooked in this debate is the assumption that the Iranian govt is acting as one unit, i.e. Ahmedinejad and Khamenei on the same side. There are reported to be deep divisions between them and the Revolutionary Guards are not under A's control.

The increasing sanctions (soon to be added to by the EU) will put greater pressure on both A and K and will most likely give rise to increasing public unease, perhaps rioting.

I can't pretend for a moment to be an expert on military hardware (or software, for that matter), but I strongly believe that the most important battle (as far as the US and Iran are concerned) is psychological. The Iranian leadership is clearly under pressure domestically; totalitarian dictatorships generally deal with unrest in two ways; brutal suppression (which they're quite used to doing) and trying to focus attention on a foreign enemy, i.e. the US; the trouble is with the latter, that if you're going to spit venom and then do nothing, you only weaken your position domestically. This is why I think that we're in a new environment here; Iran's position, together with the imminent US election campaign means that the situation has changed significantly.

With regard to the small fast craft, these are clearly a threat, but in order to prepare and arm them in sufficient numbers to pose a threat, this would be seen on satellite imagery and I have no doubt that the US has satellites covering pretty much the whole of the Iranian coast, from Iraq down to Pakistan, together with air bases and other installations. Would they really be able to put together the numbers they need to pose a threat, without the US being able to anticipate an attack?

I don't see Israel attacking Iran; I think that it recognises the changing situation and if it could, it would probably like to provoke an armed conflict between Iran and the US; how to do it is the question! Could it intercept/ "amend" Iranian military codes to bring this closer? We know what it did with Stuxnet ...

I do believe, however, that we are entering a new and very dangerous phase in the simmering conflict between Iran and the US.

ORAC

4th Jan 2012, 18:14

Exclusive: EU agrees to embargo on Iranian crude (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/04/us-iran-idUSTRE8031DI20120104)

(Reuters) - European governments have agreed in principle to ban imports of Iranian oil, EU diplomats said Wednesday, dealing a blow to Tehran that crowns new Western sanctions months before an Iranian election. The prospective embargo by the European Union, along with tough U.S. financial measures signed into law by President Barack Obama on New Year's Eve, form a concerted Western campaign to hold back Iran's nuclear program.

Iran says the program is strictly non-military, but Western countries say a November U.N. report shows it has sought to build an atomic bomb. Talks between Tehran and major powers broke down a year ago.

Diplomats said EU envoys held talks on Iran in the last days of December, and that any objections to an oil embargo had been dropped - notably from crisis-hit Greece which gets a third of its oil from Iran, relying on Tehran's lenient financing. Spain and Italy are also big buyers. "A lot of progress has been made," one EU diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The principle of an oil embargo is agreed. It is not being debated any more."

A U.S. Treasury official said Washington supported the European proposal to ban purchases of Iranian crude and believes Tehran's oil revenues can be choked off without disrupting global oil markets. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will travel to China and Japan next week to discuss U.S. sanctions on Iran and the state of the global economy, the Treasury Department said.

The embargo will force Tehran to find other buyers for oil. EU countries buy about 450,000 barrels per day (bpd) of Iran's 2.6 million bpd in exports, making the bloc collectively the second largest market for Iranian crude after China. The news caused a spike rise in oil prices, with Brent crude peaking at nearly $114 a barrel in intraday trading, up nearly $2 from Tuesday's close.

Tehran insisted it would have no trouble: "We could very easily replace these customers," said S. M. Qamsari, International Director of the National Iranian Oil Co.

Mike7777777

4th Jan 2012, 18:18

Explain for me, if you will, the physics that allows sound to reach a submarine under several layers yet the sound it produces can't be detected? After you've done that, pse explain where, exactly, these "several layers" exist
I sense I'm walking into something here! The Kilo hovering at 500 feet makes very little sound, to the surface craft it is essentially silent. But the Kilo can hear the surface craft, unless the surface craft is stationary. I would think that a USN carrier makes lots of noise, I also doubt if it would sit dead in the water listening for submarines. Can the Kilo hover at 500 feet in the Strait? No, too shallow, as is the Persian Gulf. But the Kilo can hover at 500 feet in the Gulf of Oman. Saline layers reduce the effectiveness of active sonar. Is there a saline gradient from sea level to 85 fathoms in the Gulf of Oman, I should think so, the stuff pours out of the Persian Gulf. Is the gradient constant? Unlikely where bodies of water meet.

Just This Once...

4th Jan 2012, 18:52

Having seen what a US Navy launched SAM (VLS Sea Sparrow) does to a little fast attack boat I think I would rather be on the carrier!

alfred_the_great

4th Jan 2012, 19:12

Mike, Glojo,

I suspect that you both need to move away from a N Atlantic mind-set. But trust me, it's quite a mind bend out there....

Mike7777777

4th Jan 2012, 19:14

Please explain

Lonewolf_50

4th Jan 2012, 21:37

The water in the Persian Gulf is quite the challenge for ASW in acoustics.

That doesn't make it impossible, just hard.

Can anyone confirm that the Iranian Kilos ARE IN FACT including the AIP option?

I don't recall (it's been a few years) that mod being on the original offering, based on what was available to me, but it has been so long that perhaps something is going on in that regard.

Also, for a local/defensive situation like Iran is in, the Kilo need not be AIP to be very effectvive and difficult to deal with. See the difficulties with San Luis off the Falklands to see why that might be.

The problem Iran has is getting the buggers to sea. Once at sea, for a given period, they can manage a wide variety of mischief if operated by a capable captain and crew.

Hmm, any Iranian captains ever take the Perisher course?

glojo

4th Jan 2012, 22:13

No idea about the AIP conversion but it sounds unlikely. from what I am reading Iran is in the process of updating one of her Kilo class

The report also said Iran has encountered difficulties in operating Kilo, acquired in the early 1990s. In 2008, Iran began a modernization of the first Kilo, named Tareq, at the navy's base at Bandar Abbas in cooperation with the Russian shipyard Sevrnash.but whilst we all discuss that class of boat are we forgetting the fact that Iran has not only built its own mini\midget submarines it is also purchasing these small vessels from the likes of North Korea and no doubt suitable mines that can be deployed from them.

Iran has been building the Qaem-class submarine for coastal operations. The report said Qaem weighs 450 tons and can be equipped with torpedoes, naval mines, and missiles.
It should also be noted that Iran is also probably buying the type of torpedo that explodes underneath a ship as opposed from penetrating the hull!

Interesting read (http://grendelreport.posterous.com/iran-developing-fast-attack-underwater-capabi) which sadly is dated 2009 but still very relevant.

I await alfred_the_great's reply as all I have suggested is that the kilo class might be better used in that actual Strait and either lay in wait in the shallower waters OR it be deployed to lay mines in the main shipping lanes. As per the other posts these are really either questions or attempts at stimulating debate. What that has to do with the North Atlantic I so far fail to see, but who knows? :)

Mike7777777

5th Jan 2012, 06:21

The water in the Persian Gulf is quite the challenge for ASW in acoustics. How does the Gulf of Oman compare?

alfred_the_great

5th Jan 2012, 09:05

Worse!

Anyway, this thread is beginning to sound like a Patrick Robinson novel!

Mike7777777

5th Jan 2012, 09:17

Worse!

Anyway, this thread is beginning to sound like a Patrick Robinson novel!

Who is Patrick Robinson? I'm sure you can offer a valid and interesting contribution to this thread, please feel free to do so whenever you're ready.

hval

5th Jan 2012, 09:32

@ Mike7777777

A very basic introduction to sub surface vehicle detection & PGW/ Strait of Hormuz. Apologies for brevity of what I have written. The notes may not answer your questions but should point you in the correct direction for further information.

ASW in the Strait of Hormuz & Gulf of Oman

Detection Methods Could Include
1/ Gravimetric
2/ Active Acoustic
3/ Passive Acoustic
4/ Magnetic
5/ Surface water displacement (difficult to use as a tool - LIDAR)
6/ Infrared detection
7/ Cavitation detection - usually not possible if vessel moving at under 6 knots (ish)
8/ Chemical luminescence

Variables Affecting Detection
1/ Geologic stratigraphy (this has an effect on the reflection and refraction of acoustic waves)
2/ Salinity & localised salinity variations caused by fresh water surcharges and currents. Also effected by seasons, winds and evaporation rates
3/ Thermoclines & layers
4/ Magnetic variations
5/ Roughness of sea bed
6/ Closeness of coast lines and islands
7/ Tidal flows & river flows
8/ Horizontal and vertical turbulence caused by sea bed and adjacent land masses
9/ Water surface and bottom flow rates
10/ The paths taken by both active & passive sounds. These components comprise direct, reflective, surface paths and refractive paths.

Notes
Are you aware that there is research on using the cavitation of a ships propeller/s as an active, non directional source?

Strait of Hormuz has an average depth of 35 metres and a maximum depth of approximately 60 metres (25m to 40m range is the normal). The Gulf of Oman has a maximum depth of over 140 metres. The shallow depth of the Strait of Hormuz makes it easier to detect submarines.

The Strait of Hormuz is only about 40 miles wide, and is 34 miles wide at its narrowest point. The Strait consists of 2 mile wide channels for inbound and outbound tanker traffic, as well as a 2 mile wide buffer zone (6 mile width in total).

Thermohaline characteristics (density of water caused by temperature and salinity) and distribution also exhibit notable changes at periods shorter than a month

In the Strait of Hormuz the hydrological structure consists in a homogeneous mixed layer in the upper 30 meters overlying a stratified water column with the warm and salty core lying in the deepest part of the Strait.

The approaches to the Strait of Hormuz have reasonably homogenous temperature and salinity levels. This makes it easier to detect submarines in this area.

Much work has been carried out in the Strait of Hormuz, the PGW (Persian Gulf water) – this includes the Gulf of Oman) and Indian Ocean over a number of years in an attempt to measure these variables.

alfred_the_great

5th Jan 2012, 09:50

Mike, there are significant OPSEC considerations for the discussion of acoustic and non-acoustic detection of SSKs/SSCs.

Patrick Robinson:

Nimitz Class: Amazon.co.uk: Patrick Robinson: Books

and then

http://www.amazon.co.uk/HMS-Unseen-Patrick-Robinson/dp/0099269058/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_11

with possibly

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kilo-Class-Patrick-Robinson/dp/009926904X/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_5

After that, it all gets a bit silly. The problem being (like many books of this genre) the hero gets more and more powerful, thus the challenges more and more stupid!

ORAC

5th Jan 2012, 10:16

hval, look up the Debye–Falkenhagen effect (http://www.navysbir.com/n10_1/N101-037.htm).

glojo

5th Jan 2012, 10:26

Hi Hval,
nice post and nice to see that Infra red is on that list and I guess the shallower depths will help with the detection. . The hiding in shallower waters is fraught with risks especially if you loose the ability to protect coastal airspace with your surface to air.

Folks tend to forget just how shallow the sea can be and I am talking English Channel :)

What are your thoughts on Iran and its ability to lay mines?

Would this be an option as I believe or is it an easily detectable and removable threat?

I dread to think of how many minesweepers we have scrapped in the last two decades but no matter how many, it was too many :) (In my opinion)

Thanks to one subscriber I am sending my wife off to our local library to see if they stock any of the works by Patrick Robinson.

When questions are asked on this forum it is so pleasing to see the helpful replies that folks readily post. All I am waiting for is a manual on how to build a nuclear weapon :8:ok:

Great forum with lots of really nice folk.

Question
The EU plans on banning the importing of oil from Iran. What would the reaction be if Iran were to lower the price of its oil?

Would OPEC try to block this?

Would the EU stand firm and still boycott the cheaper oil?

Iran has already declared that the boycott by the EU would not have any financial impact on their economy... Do we believe that?

Nice thread
John

hval

5th Jan 2012, 10:33

Cheers Orac,

Fascinating. Was aware of the Debye effect (didn't know the name of the effect, nor many details), but am not aware of how good the detection systems currently are. Have used gravimetric and magnetic anomaly detection systems in the past. They were a sod to install, setup, calibrate and to use. Apologies for the swearing.

SASless

5th Jan 2012, 10:36

Is it true the US Navy has a total of twelve Mine Sweepers? Four seem to be deployed to the Persian Gulf area based in Bahrain?

A very good discussion on the US Navy and Mines.....

http://www.navy.mil/n85/miw_primer-june2009.pdf

hval

5th Jan 2012, 10:52

@ Glojo,

Thank you for your kind post. I unfortunately don't have the time to do justice to the questions asked.

As for mines. It is relatively easy to deploy mines, as long as much of the onshore prep work is carried out correctly. Mine detection and clearance is a right pain, and can be extremely time consuming. It is extremely difficult to be certain that a mine is "not there".

Iran is said to possess mine types including nonmagnetic, free-floating, and remote controlled mines, along with pressure, acoustic, magnetic, and rocket-propelled rising mines.

Mine laying actually causes problems for all sides. The Iranians may find it tactically better to use thier small fast craft as weapons. Even better, and cheaper, is the use of land based missile systems.

@SASless
The United States has loads of mine hunters, sweepers and the CH53E Sea Dragon. Not sure how many are currently deployed in the Gulf. Will this number be increasing?

Iran does not currently possess any AIP submarines.

Lonewolf_50

5th Jan 2012, 14:03

SAS, thanks for the link on the 2009 Mine Warfare primer. Good treatment of the subject.

The "maturity" of what is carried on the MH-60S remains in question.

I am hopeful that the various technologies and kit depicted have continued to improve in their ability to do what was advertised for such capabilty over a decade ago, yet routinely failed to deliver during RDT & E.

Too far out of the loop to know now, hopefully the improvements in processing power have helped some of the trons overcome some of the limitations imposed by the laws of physics.

Andu

5th Jan 2012, 22:38

Question: The EU plans on banning the importing of oil from Iran. What would the reaction be if Iran were to lower the price of its oil? The French, possibly through a third party, would buy the cheap oil.

FODPlod

5th Jan 2012, 23:43

Can anyone explain what happened to the post I made on this thread at 5th Jan 2012, 00:18 as shown in the Google cache here (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b1K3LMQEnwkJ:www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/472724-iran-threatens-close-straits-hormuz-6.html+%22we%27ve+bee+nere+before%22+kipion&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a)? It has mysteriously disappeared so I'll try again:
............................................................ ...........................................................

We've been here before during the Iran/Iraq 'Tanker War':Commons Written Answers to Questions - 10 November 1987 (http://yourdemocracy.newstatesman.com/parliament/defence/HAN12317559)

Minesweepers

3. Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many minesweepers or mine countermeasure vessels are immediately available for service within British territorial waters.

Mr. Ian Stewart: There are currently 40 mine counter measures vessels, including minesweepers, in service with the Fleet of which 33 are operational or engaged in preparing for service or trials or training. Except for the four Hunt class MCMVs attached to the Armilla patrol, all these 33 vessels are available for NATO and national tasks within European waters in the normal way.

Persian Gulf

14. Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the arrangements for co-operation between the Royal Navy and other Western navies in the Gulf.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Satisfactory arrangements have been developed, both locally and between capitals, for co-operation. Although the Royal Navy's Armilla patrol remains a wholly national operation, the United Kingdom is committed to close co-ordination with other Western navies also working to preserve international freedom of navigation on Gulf waters.

31. Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Royal Navy's mineclearing operations in the Gulf.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Four Royal Navy mine countermeasures vessels with afloat support arrived in the Gulf area in mid-September. They have carried out mine clearance operations at Fujairah, where they detected and destroyed five mines [laid by Iran], and off Dubai. They are currently involved in a further mine clearance operation off Qatar.

34. Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of British units and ships currently serving in the Gulf area and their length of service there to date.

Mr. Ian Stewart: It is not our general policy to give details of the operational deployments of Royal Navy ships. However, I can say that there are currently three destroyers-frigates, four mine counter-measures vessels and their afloat support in the area of the Gulf. Royal Navy ships have been serving in the area as part of the Armilla patrol since 1980; the MCMVs supporting the patrol arrived in the area in mid-September. Although there are no British military units currently in the Gulf area, a number of loan service personnel are serving in various countries in the region.

Armilla Patrol

47. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many merchant ships the Royal Navy's Armilla patrol has accompanied through the Straits of Hormuz since the start of the current year.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Up to the beginning of this month,the Armilla patrol has accompanied approximately 300 British merchant ships through the Straits of Hormuz this year.
In 1991, our MCMVs spearheaded the clearance of 1,300 mines laid by the Iraqis in the Northern Persian Gulf and in 2003 they cleared the approaches to Umm Qasr to permit the first delivery of humantarian aid to Iraq by RFA Sir Galahad. Today, the Royal Navy has only 15 mine countermeasures vessels (MCMVs) left, four of which are based in the Gulf as part of Op KIPION and rotated every 2-3 years.

Incidentally, it is the Strait of Hormuz, not the Straits.

glojo

6th Jan 2012, 05:19

Good morning Fodplod,
I have no idea if Mossad will allow this post but you are not alone in having contributions disappear. I can confirm that I at least read your previous post.

It is also fair to say I find every single post you write to ALWAYS be informative, constructive and very much appreciated.

By the way you are not alone in pointing out the singular as opposed to the plural regarding the straight:= :=;);)

Apologies to all if I appear argumentative or abusive.

Regards
John

HTB

6th Jan 2012, 09:17

So, we had 40 MCM vessels in 1987, and now we have 14 - have mines become less of a threat over the intervening years? Still, it's not all that gloomy, the USN appears to have...24 MCM vessels, so maybe mines really are no longer a viable weapon...:\.

Glo - there's nothing argumentative or abusive in what you say. In fact given that your profle shows being in Torquay (God's waiting room) and must therfore be at least 70, you are entitled to be argumentative/grumpy/abusive (now that's verging on abusive:p).

Oh Gawd, I've just seen that he's back from his electro-convulsive therapy session (FOD - it sems you are wrong; it is neither Straits nor Strait, but "Straight"...and probably narrow too)

Mister B

glojo

6th Jan 2012, 09:49

Hi Mister B,
:8Compared to some of my parishioners I am a teenager but thank you for your kind words :)

SAM
I see you are dangling your hook into even more radioactive waters and I guess your latest input will stir the pot.

I hear that Iran has just stated they intend holding more Naval exercises in the Strait.

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps plans to conduct its greatest naval wargames in the same region in the near future," Vahidi said Wednesday as he was speaking to reporters about the recent exercises of the Iranian Army's naval force in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman which ended earlier this week. By the way the Mossad comment should NOT be taken too literally;) :)

The Stennis Battle Group in my opinion has moved out to a safer location but what about the US 5th Fleet, they have made it perfectly clear that they will NOT allow Iran to impose any type of blockade.

Question
If nuclear depth charges were to be used in an attempt to clear mines then:

Would that clear them all?

What about shock waves and the effects to other vessels in the vicinity?

What about all the dozens of oil rigs\wells how will any type of detonation effect them regarding shock waves?

What about electronic equipment on these rigs?

What about contamination and who will foot the bill?

What nation will drop these mini nuclear bombs and then take all the flak because you can bet the media will call them 'bombs' and there will be no praise for the leader that authorises it?

I have NO knowledge of this type of weapon but the very mention of the word 'nuclear' sets off alarm bells.

You used a nuclear weapon on me, so I will use one on you!

Is this the first time you have predicted or mentioned the idea that someone might be using a nuclear weapon in the Middle East? ;)

ORAC

6th Jan 2012, 10:38

:p :E :ooh: It's funny, it's cynical.....and it's unnerving.....

The MarketOracle: Please Daddy-Cool Bomb Iran, Just One More War… And I Need The Money
(http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article32454.html)

Courtney Mil

6th Jan 2012, 11:46

Shame on you, Mister B! :=

SAM,

They can't destroy the Middle East yet, I haven't finished filming the wreck if the Thistlegorm in the Gulf of Suez. Perhaps Egypt will get away with it.

You may well be damned now. If the Saudis don't come and get you for your remarks, my conservationist friends will be round to explain the evils of dyanite fishing.

Checking spelling... ...and... Submit reply.

cazatou

6th Jan 2012, 11:49

I wonder if SAMXXV has ever considered a career in the Diplomatic Service?

HTB

6th Jan 2012, 11:50

SAM

For goodness sake take your medication at the prescribed intervals; it will help you identify the difference between a typo spolling mistake and a straightforward incorrect spelling.

If you were referring to me as an (ex) senior officer in the navy, you are way off the mark; I don't know what put that idea into your head. And, boy, if you think that was berating you, I can be far more direct without resorting to abuse.

For a start, there are numerous instances of incorrect apostrophe use in your post. Then, what on earth are "Armegoddon" and Christandom"? As for commenting on the actual content of the post, well drivel just doesn't do it justice.

I also find your anecdote about "fishing" with dynamite about as believable as one of your previous stories (on a diiferent thread) about big black men looking for man love and your deterrent of a large knife under the pillow.

If this upsets you at all, I really don't give a toss.

Mister B

HTB

6th Jan 2012, 12:57

Courtney

You're quite right, that was totally uncalled for (although we seem to have slipped into that time warp again where the response comes before the post).

SAM

I apologise unreservedly for my barbed remarks and impugning your lack of knowledge of the English language; I believe it is even becoming acceptable to split the infinitive in modern English usage.

As for what might happen in the next 6 months, would you care for a little wager?

Mister B

Courtney Mil

6th Jan 2012, 13:20

I was just so shocked to see you do that! Spelling it "therfore". I couldn't believe it. :eek:

HTB

6th Jan 2012, 13:32

Some of the keys are a bit sticky......
from peeling clementines at my desk and stray juice squirting all over the place - you should see my monitor screen, yuk!:E

Mister B

akerosid

6th Jan 2012, 13:44

Iran seems determined to ratchet up the pressure; it has announced new exercises for the Strait itself:

State media: Iran to hold military drills in the Strait of Hormuz - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/06/world/meast/iran-drills/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

Presumably the objective will be to freak out oil tanker captains by firing around, though not at, them, perhaps causing a traffic jam of tankers at both ends of the Strait; it won't be foolish enough (one assumes!) to actually fire on a tanker, but presumably one of the aims is to call the UK/US's bluff and ask what exactly they intend to do to keep the strait open.

It's another move on the chessboard ...

Lonewolf_50

6th Jan 2012, 14:15

B57 nuclear bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B57_nuclear_bomb)

Sea Kings, Vikings, and Orions dropping the B57 (called by some "a bucket of sunshine") was at one point in the cold war considered a viable ASW tactic.

However, you might want to note the following.
The B57 was produced from 1963 to 1967. 3,100 weapons were built, the last of which was retired in June 1993.

This roughly coincides with the follow on actions from an executive order signed by George H. W. Bush, president in 1991, to remove tactical nuclear weapons from US warships. Part of the peace dividend and post Cold War disarmament protocols and programs.

SAM, you are about twenty years out of date.

Also worthy of note: war is a political act, as are military acts of force short of war. The political fallout from dropping a nuclear depth bomb into the straits (if he had one to drop) is not something President Obama is willing to handle. There are allied nations in the Gulf Region who are absolutely not keen on their little pond glowing green in various spots.

Bet money on that one, my friend.

SASless

6th Jan 2012, 14:40

Obama and the Liberals continue to spend the way they are on bigger government....there will nothing but a few row boats and hand grenades for us to deploy to the region.

Hang on a mo'....tis an ill wind that blows no good....perhaps there is a consultancy opportunity close at hand? Anyone reasonably current on the use of DuPont Spinners for fishing?:oh:

500N

6th Jan 2012, 16:04

Happy new year to all.

SAM
It's good to see your research (or lack of) and theories haven't changed over the Christmas period :O

And when will you learn to not put time limits on your ideas, you leave yourself wide open in such a fluid landscape.

.And as for dropping a tacical nuke in the Strait's, well, enough has been said about that.

.

Courtney Mil

6th Jan 2012, 16:46

500N,

Good to see you back!! Happy New Year. I'll give you time to catch up with all the current threads. The following might give you an idea:

I see you are dangling your hook into even more radioactive waters and I guess your latest input will stir the pot.

Enjoy

COCL2

6th Jan 2012, 16:55

would there be any risk to the oil-bearing strata from underwater nuclear explosions around Hormuz?

Mach Two

6th Jan 2012, 17:04

500N and COCL2 back on duty! Just in time. Welcome back both of you, happy New Year. I hope the hunting was good 500N.

Way out of my field here, but I think the small device required for use as a depth charge would have a very minimal effect on the underlying rock.

Lonewolf_50

6th Jan 2012, 17:07

would there be any risk to the oil-bearing strata from underwater nuclear explosions around Hormuz?

Unlikely, if you are dealing in tactical nuclear devices.

Willard Whyte

6th Jan 2012, 17:51

So, will Stennis deliver the fishermen back to an iranian port.

US Navy rescues Iranian fishermen from Somali pirates - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/piracy/8998512/US-Navy-rescues-Iranian-fishermen-from-Somali-pirates.html)

Out Of Trim

6th Jan 2012, 18:33

Royal Navy sends its mighiest ship to take on the Iranian show of force in the Gulf

Didn't the Telegraph used to be a serious Newspaper? :ugh::ugh:

The 8,000 ton destroyer will carry 48 Sea Vipers that can also be used to shoot down fighters as well as sea skimming missiles. It will also carry a Lynx helicopter capable of carrying Sea Skua anti-ship missiles and is capable of embarking 60 special forces troops.

60 troops in a lynx; I've got to see that happen...!

Modern Elmo

7th Jan 2012, 02:41

Some history:

Tanker War 1984-1988

Part of the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s the Tanker War attracted much international interest and some US intervention. With Iran blocking Iraqi exports of oil via the Shatt-al-Arab waterway the war against Iran was turning against the Iraqis. Syria closed Iraq's pipeline to the Mediterranean and it looked like economics would straggle the Iraqi war effort. Despite the unpopularity of Iraqs government the other Arab states feared the fundamentalism of Iran much more and came to Iraqs rescue. Jordan opened Aqaba to Iraqi imports (mainly weapons) and new pipelines were constructed across the desert to the Red Sea and to Turkey. Iraqi exports went through Kuwait also and the Arab states also directly funded Iraq to the sum of about $60 billion.

The Tanker War started properly in 1984 when Iraq attacked Iranian tankers and the vital oil terminal at Kharg island. Iran struck back by attacking tankers carrying Iraqi oil from Kuwait and then any tanker of the Gulf states supporting Iraq. The air and small boat attacks did very little to damage the economies of either country and the price of oil was never seriously affected as Iran just moved it's shipping port to Larak Island in the straights of Hormuz.

In 1987 Kuwait persuaded the US to offer protection to its tanker fleet dragging the USA directly into the war. US warships soon began patrolling the gulf and on 17th May 1987 an Iraqi super-Etendard aircraft fired two exocet missiles at the USS Stark thinking she was an Iranian warship. Embarrassingly for the Americans the Stark's defences did not function and 37 US sailors died.

Whether or not the attack on the Stark was an accident remians an open question.

Also, the Stark's Phalanx system never got a chance to function because the Stark's commander did not function properly. One of the two Exocet warheads that penetrated the Stark apparently failed to detonate. Although badly damaged, the Stark was repaired and returned to sea for several more years.-- Elmo.

Iraq apologised for the incident and this was accepted. To ensure a repeat of the incident didn't happen again US, Iraqi and Saudi forces collaborated. Iran with some justification accused the US of helping Iraq. Iran began to sow the gulf with anti-ship mines. Several ships were hit, including the USS Samuel B. Roberts in April 1988. Tensions rose further when on 3 July 1988 an American warship shot down an Iranian airline in error.

Shooting down the Iranian Airbus was a low point for the modern USN.

The US retaliated to attack on the Stark and the damage to the by Samuel B. Roberts destroying Iranian warships and patrol boats further demonstrating to the Gulf states the American support of Iraq, embittering Iran, and illustrating how vulnerable military and civilian shipping is to attack in the Persian Gulf.

...

Tanker War 1984-1988 (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_tanker.html)

tonker

7th Jan 2012, 07:21

The Viper missiles are not fitted and released for service though! The 30 year old 4.5 Vickers will have to put on a good show, considering Phalanx isn't fitted either.

FODPlod

7th Jan 2012, 07:39

'No Higher Honor: Saving the USS Samuel B. Roberts in the Persian Gulf' (http://www.navybook.com/nohigherhonor/index.shtml) by Bradley Peniston describes salient events of the Tanker War in vivid detail. These include the Iraqi air-to-surface Exocet attack on the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate USS Stark (http://www.navybook.com/nohigherhonor/pic-stark.shtml) on 17 May 1987, the mining of the US-flagged supertanker Bridgeton (http://www.navybook.com/nohigherhonor/pic-bridgeton.shtml) during Operation EARNEST WILL (http://www.navybook.com/nohigherhonor/pic-earnestwill.shtml) on 24 Jul 1987, the capture of the Iranian minelaying landing craft Iran Ajr (http://www.navybook.com/nohigherhonor/pic-iranajr.shtml) on 22 Sep 1987, the mining of the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts (http://www.navybook.com/nohigherhonor/pic-ffg58damage.shtml) on 14 Apr 1988 and the subsequent retribution exacted by US naval forces on Iranian forces and infrastructure during Operation PRAYING MANTIS (http://www.navybook.com/nohigherhonor/pic-prayingmantis.shtml) on 18 Apr 1988. Click on the links for further details and photos.

http://www.navybook.com/nohigherhonor/art/prayingmantis5.jpg
The Iranian frigate IS Sahand (F 74) burns after being attacked by the
Joseph Strauss and A-6s. Sahand was hit by three Harpoon missiles,
Skipper rocket-propelled bombs, a Walleye laser-guided bomb,
and several 1,000-pound bombs
(U.S. Navy photo)

ORAC

7th Jan 2012, 08:13

Former CIA Chief: Iran 'Single Greatest Destabilizing' Force in 2012 (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/05/former-cia-chief-iran-single-greatest-destabilizing-force-in-2012/)

alfred_the_great

7th Jan 2012, 11:37

This thread is awesome, it's properly cheering me up!

pr00ne

7th Jan 2012, 12:37

tonker,

Do a little research and check your facts before posting. You are wrong on both counts!

PL instead of T?

SASless

7th Jan 2012, 12:49

The Iranian frigate IS Sahand (F 74) burns after being attacked by the
Joseph Strauss and A-6s. Sahand was hit by three Harpoon missiles,
Skipper rocket-propelled bombs, a Walleye l@ser-guided bomb,
and several 1,000-pound bombs

If there is any truth whatsoever in the caption I quoted.....WTF!

Why are we looking at a photo of a burning hulk and not of an oil slick on the surface of the sea?

Either...Iranian ships are very toughly built or our weapons are Tinker Toys!

The third option...and far most likely to be true...is the caption is pure bolderdash!

Note for the Record: The USS Samuel B. Roberts carries on the name of a very brave Ship and Crew from the Taffy 3 Battle during the Philippine Invasion during WWII.

"Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" is an absolute must read for anyone that is interested. Destroyer and Destroyer Escorts against Destroyers, Cruisers, and a Battle Ship....and prevailed!

Tourist

7th Jan 2012, 13:01

We used to make decent solid warships, that's all.

Tourist

7th Jan 2012, 13:55

Out of Trim

"The 8,000 ton destroyer will carry 48 Sea Vipers that can also be used to shoot down fighters as well as sea skimming missiles. It will also carry a Lynx helicopter capable of carrying Sea Skua anti-ship missiles and is capable of embarking 60 special forces troops.

60 troops in a lynx; I've got to see that happen...! "

I think you need to learn to read in English, perhaps?

racedo

7th Jan 2012, 13:55

Given that an the assumption is everything will be focused on one area then how robust is the Suez canal to a couple of deliberate sinkings and the safety and security of pipelines taking oil away from the Gulf.

Funnily enough I see big Russki presence in Syria very soon and a big Chinese one in Iran..............ultimate stalemate for all concerned.

Lonewolf_50

7th Jan 2012, 16:26

SASless, I'd take with a grain of salt the claims in the caption.

"The Iranian frigate IS Sahand (F 74) burns after being attacked by the Joseph Strauss and A-6s. Sahand was hit by three Harpoon missiles, Skipper rocket-propelled bombs, a Walleye l@ser-guided bomb, and several 1,000-pound bombs."

That said, air launched torpedoes would have made short work of that ship, since the old adage remains true:

" It is easier to sink a ship by letting water in through the bottom than trying to let all the air out through the top. " :cool:

Churchills Ghost

7th Jan 2012, 19:41

Easy Street

7th Jan 2012, 20:31

I am curious as to what strategy might be under discussion between No. 10 and the White House (NATO aside) re: Iran and what thinking prevails as to who would lead any potential strikes (from the West) and which targets might be considered.I suspect that Iran themselves, not to mention Russia, China and a host of other nations are also extremely curious about the current thought process in the White House (perhaps only mildly interested in No. 10!) and would lap up any suggestion of a target priority list! For "Experience-based speculation" can unknowingly stray close to "informed opinion" and perhaps inadvertantly to "the facts" and there you have an undesirable topic of discussion, in my view.

Even though we might consider ourselves outside of the 'inner circle' of planners, our knowledgeable views and opinions on 'live' situations are of great value in building an intelligence picture. Why lay things out on a plate for them?

HTB

7th Jan 2012, 21:31

Tourist

Post 150 - lost your sense of irony?

Or perhaps you're American or German, where this subtle aspect of English humour is not generally recognised:E

Mister B

atpcliff

7th Jan 2012, 22:57

Iran won't close the straights.

About 1/2 or so of their economy depends on their exported oil, which they would not be able to export and/or sell if they did this.

In addition, they export huge amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel, due to their lack of refineries. Their economy would also shut down due to the lack of these imported transportation fuels if they closed the straights.

cliff
HHN

racedo

8th Jan 2012, 15:08

Interesting that China has stated that "a single countrys domestic law should not be the remit for deciding Who trades with Whom and imposition of sanctions in International trade".

I see China as continuing to import Iranian oil and any blockade which stops or attempts to stop this may get them involved in supporting their national interest.

Is China about to get a public military base in Iran ?

Mike7777777

8th Jan 2012, 19:55

A very basic introduction to sub surface vehicle detection & PGW/ Strait of Hormuz.
Thanks. Kilo boat looks to be far too big to operate in the Strait, probably needs something the size of a vintage U-class
The approaches to the Strait of Hormuz have reasonably homogenous temperature and salinity levels. This makes it easier to detect submarines in this area. Where the water from the Strait meets with the Gulf (or Sea) of Oman would probably offer the best protection for a (fictional) picket line of Kilos: sufficient room for manoeuvring plus changes in salinity and temperature for concealment.
Are you aware that there is research on using the cavitation of a ships propeller/s as an active, non directional source?
Not certain how will this help locate a Kilo hovering at 500 feet.

Re:Patrick Robinson: Thanks, but it might be fiction!

Nuclear depth charges? The mind boggles.

Tourist

8th Jan 2012, 20:01

Go this thread is full of an even higher level of uninformed dross than normal for Pprune.

A Kilo is not big. It is really small, and ideal for the area in the right hands and serviceable.

The kill radius of a bucket of sunshine is absolutely tiny.

I suspect that is why they were withdrawn. They were simply not as effective as Active/passive ASW plus a torpedo.
I reckon you would need thousands if your approach to sweeping the Straits of Hormuz was to be successful using a random scatter technique.

Seriously guys, if you have no knowledge at all, why post as if you do?

Mike7777777

8th Jan 2012, 20:06

Go this thread is full of an even higher level of uninformed dross than normal for Pprune.
A Kilo is not big. It is really small, and ideal for the area in the right hands and serviceable.

The kill radius of a bucket of sunshine is absolutely tiny.

I suspect that is why they were withdrawn. They were simply not as effective as Active/passive ASW plus a torpedo.
I reckon you would need thousands if your approach to sweeping the Straits of Hormuz was to be successful using a random scatter technique.

Seriously guys, if you have no knowledge at all, why post as if you do?

Kilo approx 2500 tons, U-class approx 550 tons.

Edit: quotes

glojo

8th Jan 2012, 21:46

I go along with Tourist and I still maintain that this location is a dodgy area for the conventional type operations for submarines. How many US submarines have been involved in collisions in that eaxct area??

With the utmost of respect to most folks although my memory is quite hazy.. we are talking of depths that on average are no greater than about 40 metres (just over 130ft??) Again I am fairly sure that like any narrow shipping routes there are sea lanes going through the strait and because it is so narrow you will be steaming on one side through national waters belonging to Iran. I stand to be corrected on this but that is how it was. Ships bound in one direction are pasing very close to Iran plus thgere are LOTS of small islands which by definition are hunks of land rising out of the sea.

I am guessing (NEVER served on submarines) the boats owned by Iran are not maintained to the same standards of these in the west and they will not be best suited to dodging huge great tankers as these things take up a lot of,space and I would certainly not fancy passing underneath these vessels in a boat that might not be well maintained, or a crew that might be inexperienced. I would not want to do it on the best maintained vessels :)

I have NEVER advocated these Iranian boats would be used in a conventional Western manner, I have certainly NEVER suggested they would be capable of playing evasive games with the west, but they are capable of hiding in these coastal waters and possibly try to hit out at vessels that came within striking distance of Iran, OR.... they might be used to deploy those nasty mines...

I have tried my hardest to just suggest that it is NOT in the interest of Iran to blockade the Strait but I have also tried to answer a question that to me had nothing to do with this specific incident. Namely thermal layers and the evading of detection.

My experience is from way back in the early 1970's and I FULLY respect that times have changed and the age of sail has gone.

I would like to think that if Iranian ships or boats were to leave the sanctuary of coastal waters then sadly they would possibly become 'ground bait!'

If this is Tom Clancy or any other author then so be it but I am NOT saying ANYTHING will happen... I am NOT saying submarines from Iran WILL DEPLOY or WILL attack shipping. I am like most other folks just speculating :) (nothing better to do)

SASless

8th Jan 2012, 21:54

Even with a Nuke Torpedo or Depth Charge....one has to know where to send it to in order to score a kill. Ergo...it would assume finding the Sub is the first order of business. You cannot find it...you cannot kill it.

So the Kilo's have been scooting around for years laying sea bed mines...as well as other barge type surface vessels. Even if we knew the location of every single mine....removing them would be a lengthy process.

As the Iranians would know where the mines are...and when they will be armed...they would still be able to operate large surface vessels would they not?

For the armchair experts here......I am not an expert on Mine warfare or Littoral Combat...but I do live around the corner from a Holiday Express Motel.

glojo

9th Jan 2012, 10:40

As the Iranians would know where the mines are...and when they will be armed...they would still be able to operate large surface vessels would they not?Good question but apart from mines that break free from their tethers (anchor cabling) The navigational lanes are just two miles wide, (one lane with all ships travelling in the same direction) as you can imagine that is NOT very wide and will be VERY easy to blockade

I have always been in the corner that believes we are not about to get involved in any military conflict between the west and Iran. I have tried with all my posts to ask questions as opposed to predict, or suggest anything may, or would happen.

What has now caught my eye is that I see that Iran has gone public regarding the trial of an alleged US spy. Is it correct to suggest this man has been identified as an ex US Marine reservist with a duel nationality? He was allegedly employed by the CIA and was believed to have been tasked with trying to infiltrate the Iranian Intelligence Ministry. It looks like by going public Iran is now putting this person in front of the World’s media in an attempt to deliberately provoke the US government? (question NOT statement)

Iran has ‘dared’ the US Navy to attempt to sail the Stennis Battle Group back through the Strait, this challenge has hopefully been ignored, so is this there next attempt to incite the US to react? (question NOT statement) What are the benefits of Iran provoking the west? Why take the risks of a confrontation that could probably see the military arm of the Iran military greatly diminished?

Now we see America having an alleged spy being put in front of TV cameras and we are told this person has been sentenced to death! Will the US stay quiet? Will they go public and make an exchange? Will the US now increase the tension between Iran and the west? How will this trial influence any decisions regarding the closure of the Strait.

Is there a possibility that we might see an air denial corridor imposed on Iran?

ORAC

9th Jan 2012, 10:43

Iran says it will close Strait of Hormuz if crude exports blocked (http://rt.com/news/iran-ready-block-strait-hormuz-361/)

Tehran’s leadership has decided to order a blockade of the strategic Strait of Hormuz if the country’s oil exports are blocked, a senior Revolutionary Guard Commander said as reported by Iranian press. The strategic decision was made by Iran's top authorities, Ali Ashraf Nouri said, as cited by the Iranian Khorasan daily. "The supreme authorities … have insisted that if enemies block the export of our oil, we won't allow a drop of oil to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. This is the strategy of the Islamic Republic in countering such threats," Nouri said.Until now, there had been no official confirmation of Iran’s military having direct orders to block the Strait. However, Tehran has been threatening to block the strategic waterway – one of the world's most important oil routes – if the West slapped more sanctions on its oil exports or risked hostile military act of any kind.

US to respond if Iran blocks Gulf (http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=321250)

WASHINGTON: The US will respond if Iran tries to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz at the entrance to the Gulf, Defence Secretary Leon Panetta warned yesterday, saying such a move would cross a "red line".

"We made very clear that the US will not tolerate the blocking of the Straits of Hormuz," Panetta told CBS television. "That's another red line for us and that we will respond to them."

Panetta was seconded by General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said Iran has the means to close the waterway, through which 20 per cent of the world's oil passes. "But we would take action and reopen the Straits," the general said on the same show, Face the Nation

racedo

9th Jan 2012, 11:19

What has now caught my eye is that I see that Iran has gone public regarding the trial of an alleged US spy. Is it correct to suggest this man has been identified as an ex US Marine reservist with a duel nationality? He was allegedly employed by the CIA and was believed to have been tasked with trying to infiltrate the Iranian Intelligence Ministry. It looks like by going public Iran is now putting this person in front of the World’s media in an attempt to deliberately provoke the US government? (question NOT statement)

Its not new as he was arrested in September and the Iranians kept quiet provoking the Americans to publicise a supposed plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador in October.

His arrested was 1st publicised in December and discussed on here.

glojo

9th Jan 2012, 12:35

Thanks for that Racedo.

Was that report referring to the death sentence as per this latest update (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45923397/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/#.TwrrltWa_FE) or did it state he had been put on trial? I had tried searching but have so far failed miserably, clearly this will be down to operator error.

I put in this man's surname and got the result

Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms..

son of brommers

9th Jan 2012, 14:37

according to this, Iran condemns American to death for spying - timesofmalta.com (http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120109/world/iran-judge-condemns-american-to-death-for-spying.401706) he's been tried and sentenced to death..............

SASless

9th Jan 2012, 16:39

US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says Iran has the capability to close the Strait for a short while but that the US Military has the ability to re-open it.

No discussion was made about how that would be done or what the ramifications of said closure would be.

It might be a good time to buy huge amounts of shares in DuPont and some of the other boom time companies.

FODPlod

9th Jan 2012, 16:57

Speaking of the Stennis group:Anyone for Stennis? First Sea Lord visits US carrier in Gulf (http://www.navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/3211)
BRITAIN’S most senior sailor flew on to one of the most powerful warships in the world for a first-hand look at front-line carrier operations. First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope joined the USS John C Stennis, a 100,000-ton leviathan supporting operations in Afghanistan, to help pave the way for Britain’s next-generation carriers...

The carrier is also home to one Fleet Air Arm aviator, Lt ‘LOThAR’ Collins (‘Loser of the American Revolution’, a callsign given him by his American comrades), who’s flying a single-seat F18 strike fighter from the Stennis’ deck with the ‘Tophatters’ (Strike Fighter Squadron 14) on missions over Afghanistan. Lt Collins is one of numerous Royal Navy pilots flying with the Americans. Their experiences will be crucial as the Senior Service looks to re-learn the art of carrier strike operations ahead of Her Majesty’s Ships Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales entering service later this decade...

No aircraft carrier experience would be complete however without the live launch and recovery of fast jets, and what better way to gain a first hand perspective of the utility of carrier strike than from the cockpit? In the experienced hands of Cdr Vorrice ‘Heavy’ Burks USN (Commanding Officer of the ‘Black Aces' – Strike Fighter Squadron 71) Admiral Stanhope proceeded to “kick the tyres and light the fires”, strap himself into the back of a twin-seat F18 and accelerate off the front end. Safely recovered, and having “buzzed the tower”, Admiral Stanhope reflected on his experiences aboard the flat-top:

“Being catapulted from 0-150 knots in a couple of seconds is certainly a tick in the ‘Taskbook of Life’.

“We know carrier aviation is a hugely-complex business and we will get there again; the Royal Navy will once more be able to project an unhindered fixed-wing strike capability anywhere that the government wants UK power and influence to be felt.”

glojo

9th Jan 2012, 17:11

I really love the names the US give to pilots LOThAR that is a classic and long may this type of banter continue. Excellent link.

When I served on the Centaur we carried out exercises with the Enterprise which I guess was quite ironic, we were the smallest Royal Navy carrier and she was the largest US carrier... We looked like one of her liberty boats!!

What a good move to get the First Sea Lord so heavily involved and respect to him for taking the opportunity to go up in an F-18. It would be nice if senior politicians were with him, but would they risk getting so close to the action? :E.

SASLess you are a heartless man :ok:

Mike7777777

9th Jan 2012, 17:45

“We know carrier aviation is a hugely-complex business and we will get there again; the Royal Navy will once more be able to project an unhindered fixed-wing strike capability anywhere that the government wants UK power and influence to be felt.”

Depressing to think that in my lifetime we've gone from Buccs, F4s and Gannets (the complete fixed-wing maritime strike force?) to possibly borrowing a French flat top, as long as it's OK with the French. What do "they" do with my tax money?

racedo

9th Jan 2012, 18:10

What do "they" do with my tax money?

Bribed millions to do nothing
Paid for policiticians expenses
......................would add more but lost the will to continue.

Mike7777777

9th Jan 2012, 18:41

The decrepit Kilo class submarines are the last of the US/UK/NATO worries. Their positions (two only - one is in port @ Bandar - & incapable of putting to sea) are known by the minute by the US. How you know this? Only a Kilo has enough firepower to inflict serious damage on a USN carrier, probably. (Stennis = 100,000 tons = big bugg@r)

Lonewolf_50

9th Jan 2012, 19:01

Tourist, I suspect that either you forget Dustbin, or never experienced the joy of explaining it use, or lack thereof, for exercise purposes.

The bucket of sunshine tactic was built around the use of "good ASW" for tactical localization of the submarine target, and use the depth bomb in lieu of a torp, for whatever reason.

What the hell do I know, with an ASW warfare specialty? Did you intend to deliberately misread my reference to the B57?

It was once considered a viable tactic. With that choice, innumerable Nuke Weapons Handling and Safety inspections (NWTPI and others) burned tens of thousands of man hours in our fleet ... I do not like to recall the pain, actually ...

Tourist

9th Jan 2012, 19:31

Lonewolf

I was refering to the suggestion from the resident chimp that :-

"I have no idea what the US capability is today of dropping nuclear depth charges, but mine clearance could be carried out within <1 hour by dropping 2+ nuclear depth charges in the Straight. Any Iranian submarines, divers, fast patrol boats & surface vessels would either be destroyed (if underwater) or totally disabled & probably sunk if on the surface"

I'm sure as and ASW warrior you can still remember the frankly amazingly low kill radius of the bucket.

HalloweenJack

9th Jan 2012, 19:35

I hope you gentlemen dont mind an observer interupting, but earlier in this thread it was commented on little data from an underwater nuclear shot - well shot baker from operation crossroads was a small (23 kiloton) sub surface test - detonation was at a depth of 90 feet with the seabed at 180feet.

the results are well documented , as it the `charlie` shot , cancelled at the time , but later tested as a deep shot (effects calculated as 30kt because of the depth) under operation wigwam; detonated at 2000 feet it completly destroyed the unmanned submarines, used at range for the est.

i believe the recordings are on a film somewhere , although i cannot remember the name.

Lonewolf_50

9th Jan 2012, 19:51

Aah, Tourist, I see what you were getting at.

Amen, Deacon! :ok:

With that in mind, you can get a "mission" kill rather than a "hard kill" depending upon depth, aspect, and how well maintained a sub is at greater range, but given the size of the area underconsideration (20-30 miles across) you still need to localize a target before you were to consider that little bucket, were one available.

The assertion that such a weapon removes from play target localization was, as you note, risible.

Jack: thanks for that as well.

500N

9th Jan 2012, 19:58

Resident chimp

You should have spent more time at school learning the three R's.

GrahamO

9th Jan 2012, 20:59

Ignorant question from me if I may .....

Given the sensitivity of the world to dropping nukes, anywhere, any time, for any reason, are there any conventional equivalents which could be used to clear the channel of mines, mini subs etc ?

If nukes were not available, how would one clear the channel of anything hostile in a relatively simple, easy strike ?

ORAC

9th Jan 2012, 21:20

I would put forward a proposition.....

No one can understand why, if they are on the point of developing a nuclear weapon, Iran would instigate a war a war in which it could be destroyed.

However. Consider if, through whatever sources, they have 1 or 2 warheads already available, and can claim to use them in self defence.

I'll leave the target list open, I can think of many.

The current Gulf status quo would be destroyed forever, the oil price would go through the roof, and the European/American influence in the region would disappear....

Sources? Ignoring their own, imminent stocks, Pakistan, N. Korea and other areas could have provided the required material. Unusable until their own weapons were imminent.

Just saying.......

Tourist

9th Jan 2012, 21:20

SAM

"I used to go fishing with my dad off Mawgan Porth bay in Cornwall. He had a friend who had a licence for dynamite. We used to go out in a rowing boat & dad would chuck a stick of dynamite into the sea. Every fish within about 50 metres would float to the surface & we would go into the water on roaps with a life-bouy, fill them with fish & sell them in Newquay"

Firstly, no you didn't. You made that story up because you have heard of it being done.

Secondly, submarines are not a type of fish. Seriously. Look it up.

Oh, and thirdly, didn't you promise to never post again if you lost the bet with me about armageddon before christmas day 2011?
You do realise that you lost that bet, don't you?

COCL2

9th Jan 2012, 21:23

So is it coincidence that over the same weekend
the Russian Fleet arrives at the Eastern Med
the Iranians announce further naval exercises
the Iranians also launch "wargames" along the Afghan border, including "targeting Unmanned Aerial Vehicles" and "new asymmetric warfare tactics"
Pervaiz Musharraf announces he will return to Pakistan before the end of January - and the Pakistani authorities threaten to arrest him. (If my memory serves me correctly he was very pro-western...)
Iran announces MORE spy arrests
Iran announces it will start nuclear enrichment at a second underground site
Is it also coincidence that Iranian Parliamentary elections are scheduled for March 2nd?

500N

9th Jan 2012, 21:29

SAM

Just how far from shore were you in a row boat and
what fish did you catch ?

Most of the time I spent in that location (just up the road in Treyarnon Bay)
the sea had very few calm days that would suit a row boat - and since the 60's, my water ops training would agree. Any fish we caught when we went Mackeral fishing were caught on deep lines and out at sea.

Airborne Aircrew

9th Jan 2012, 21:29

COCL2:

You forgot the Flint, MI resident Iranian visiting his granny in Iran being convicted and sentenced to death for working for the CIA...

Details, Sir... Details... ;)

COCL2

9th Jan 2012, 21:41

Airborne Aircrew
Agreed - announcement of the result of his supposed "trial" was obviously also timed for effect
I fear that there are sad similarities between his case and that of Farzad Barzoft.
However if I remember correctly, Barzoft's hanging marked the beginning of western realisation of the truth about Saddam

PS - almost certainly unrelated, but a further complicating factor, is the election on Sunday in Kyrgystan of a new president who appears to be anti-USA and has already ordered the US air base theer to close (in 2014)

SASless

9th Jan 2012, 22:01

.....didn't you promise to never post again if you lost the bet with me about armageddon before christmas day 2011?

Who is good at using the search function....this begs an answer!

As Christmas and New Years have gone and we are still here....I would accept that SAM lost the bet if it was in fact made and accepted by both parties.

As we are all Gentlemen and Ladies here....then wagers must be paid when lost must they not?

500N

9th Jan 2012, 22:15

SAM did make that bet with Tourist because that bet was the catalyst for me to have a bet with SAM but the date came forward to the 15th Dec and involved money - which he says he paid to a charity. It's early on it the Big Blu thread.

As to why SAM is still here, god knows.

crystal10

9th Jan 2012, 22:34

Uh oh, watch out Jamesdevice is back spouting bolleaux in the form of COCL2. Watch his post count start to shoot up.

racedo

9th Jan 2012, 22:35

You forgot the Flint, MI resident Iranian visiting his granny in Iran being convicted and sentenced to death for working for the CIA...

Course he may not have worked for the CIA...................

500N

9th Jan 2012, 22:47

crystal10
Well done, can't you keep anything quiet ?

And is it such a big deal you have to announce it when those who know, know
and those who don't need to know don't ?

HTB

10th Jan 2012, 07:38

Welcome back 500 - how were Mick, Wally and the crocs?

Never mind learning the 3 Rs - he should at least remember over a 3-day period what his story is:

6 Jan 12:59
Many years ago (1970's) I used to throw sticks of dynamite (when you didn't need a licence to obtain dynamite for "blowing up tree stumps") into Cornish coves whilst in a wooden rowing boat. I would then jump into the water with a rope around my waist & use a net to sweep all the dead fish into. They would be sold to many restaurants in the Mawgan Porth/Newquay area.

9 Jan 21:54
Amusing. Well, from the resident "chimp" - in the 1960's (I was about 8) I used to go fishing with my dad off Mawgan Porth bay in Cornwall. He had a friend who had a licence for dynamite. We used to go out in a rowing boat & dad would chuck a stick of dynamite into the sea. Every fish within about 50 metres would float to the surface & we would go into the water on roaps with a life-bouy, fill them with fish & sell them in Newquay:confused:.

Can you spot any inconsistencies in these two versions:hmm:? Unless of course he went out unacompanied when he was in his teens in the '70s.

Shall we give him the benefit of the doubt?

Mister B

Courtney Mil

10th Jan 2012, 08:20

crystal10,

In case anyone had forgotten:

We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. These rules work in conjunction with any forum-specific rules as well as the site's Terms & Conditions.

...Do not 'out' (reveal or attempt to reveal) the identity of another poster.

Why should we care who anyone here is? Play the ball, not the player.

500N

10th Jan 2012, 08:39

SAM

I was there. Have been in most inlets and coves around Padstow / Cornwall area.

"if you were aircrew" - if you had read any of my posts on here, you would know that is a stupid question.

HTB
" Never mind learning the 3 Rs - he should at least remember over a 3-day period what his story is:"

Well good to see he can go from spelling the word rope to spelling the word roap in 3 days.

"how were Mick, Wally and the crocs ?" are good except I don't use 2 fingers to put a Buffalo on the ground.:O

HTB

10th Jan 2012, 10:37

Well, you know the old adage: "give a a man enough roap and he'll hnag himself"

Mister B

SASless

10th Jan 2012, 10:53

We lived in a converted cow shed

Explains all the bull****!:rolleyes:

COCL2

10th Jan 2012, 11:18

Reminisces of catching fish by rupturing their swim bladders with explosives don't really relate to exploding mines - which are metal, not soft tissue, and don't have swim bladders. Or lateral lines through which the nervous system can be overloaded.
Picking up on GrahamO's question:
anyone know if any kind of trials were ever done on clearing mines using area denial weapons similar to JP233 or cluster bombs fused to detonate below the surface? Someone somewhere must have tried it - did it work?
Or a thermobaric fuel/air bomb exploded over the water (something like the Vietnam-era daisy cutters)???

Thelma Viaduct

10th Jan 2012, 11:29

Why is the US 'defence' budget greater than the next 99 highest nations defence budgets combined?

I personally think it's because they're far too busy getting involved in business that is none of their business.

Apologies for any grammatical errors.

SASless

10th Jan 2012, 11:52

Vietnam Era "LZ Cutters" were 10,000 pound High Explosive bombs dropped by C-130's or CH-54 Sky Crane Helicopters. They were fairly effective at making an instant LZ in the Jungle....and simultaneously supressing any hostile fire from the newly created wood line! The current version is a 15,000 pound device nick named "Moab".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Sikorsky_Skycrane_carrying_parachute_bomb_c.jpg

As water is incompressible....and the sea has far more resistance than air....what good would it do?

If my Eighth grade physics class holds....everything in life seeks the path of least resistance.

500N

10th Jan 2012, 12:31

SAM

"We have a number of VERY sad posters whose only aim is to denigrate other people who are FAR more current in a/c operations/weapons tactics than us old bu****s. So be it. The 500N's, Tourists etc can only make a mockery....."

And you are not one of them or you wouldn't sprout BS on a forum such as this about U2 chase cars as well as a heap of other BS that isn't worth repeating.

We only make a mockery when we know it is BS, if you posted relevant "current a/c operations/weapons tactics" you might not cop it so bad.

Anyway, go and drop your Nuclear depth charge and get it over and done with.

HTB

10th Jan 2012, 12:42

It is imperative that we activate all available SWAT teams to arrest COCL2 and all his etcs.

Can't have these foreign agent jonnies running loose sucking up vital intel from pprune - some of it might be real and relevant.

Mister B

You've said goodbye before, on more than one occasion, but still seem to come back.

glojo

10th Jan 2012, 12:57

I have absolutely NO knowledge regarding the use, capabilities of a nuclear underwater device but for those that advocate its use or any other 'big bang' weapon, have they thought about the consequences for all the oil rigs in that area and will this weapon remove the threat of ALL these mines? I have no idea but not all mines are of the 'contact' type.

I just cannot believe anyone would contemplate the use of this type of weapon... What about the minefields on the Falklands? A small nuclear weapon should clear those areas!! Tongue in cheek comment.

Fishing close to rocks on the southern coasts of Devon and Cornwall
I say the southern coast just because I have not fished on the Atlantic side of this beautiful area of our country.

Before becoming a full time mattress tester I took great enjoyment in jumping into a boat and dropping a hook or two into the deep blue sea. (mackerel at least four hooks ;))

Fishing near rocks would in my opinion be the best location to catch wrasse and certainly not mackerel. Apologies for going off topic but the chance to share those happier days and the experiences was something I could not avoid doing. Never tasted wrasse, never wanted to, but it aint no mackerel. Why on earth anyone would use explosives is beyond me and is that a legal way to fish? A question

COCL2

10th Jan 2012, 13:22

first time anyone has ever complained of my asking pertinent questions, I usually get yelled at for impertinent ones....

Courtney Mil

10th Jan 2012, 13:28

Glojo,

I'm pleased to report that dynamite (and cyanide) fishing is now illegal just about everywhere. I still come across evidence of illegal dynamiting in places like Thailand, but they're getting bewtter at policing. It is so destructive: kills way more fish than you ever recover and it does decades or centuries of damage to reefs.

I don't know much about this either, but can tell that nukes as depth bombs need to be small yield for use at depths less than 40m to avoid damage to other shipping. WE177 was selectable to 10kT for just this purpose.

Courtney

Tourist

10th Jan 2012, 13:42

SAM, I have a weakness.

I can't help mocking those poor people deeply afflicted by severe munchaus-bull****-waltitis.

I am getting treatment.

Incidentally, I can only hope that enemy nations are using this thread to base their operational estimates on.

tonker

10th Jan 2012, 14:13

Judging by the traffic over Northumberland today, any operation will be a Tornado GR4 off.

Lonewolf_50

10th Jan 2012, 19:23

Using a nuclear bomb of any sort to try and detonate mines in the water, when you don't know where the mines are, is sort of like trying to kill mosquitoes with buckshot in a dark concert hall.

Willard Whyte

10th Jan 2012, 21:22

trying to kill mosquitoes with buckshot in a dark concert hall.

Bloody good laff though.

coldair

11th Jan 2012, 14:13

It seems that someone, somewhere is trying to cause problems to Iran's nuclear project.

From the BBC;

BBC News - Iran car explosion kills nuclear scientist in Tehran (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16501566)

coldair

passpartout

11th Jan 2012, 14:55

Those Iranian scientists are so careless.. They should service their cars more often and then perhaps they won't keep blowing up. (the cars, that is)

El Grifo

11th Jan 2012, 16:39

Nothing like chuckin' a cup of gasoline on to a smouldering fire

500N

11th Jan 2012, 16:56

El Grifo

re timing, that was my thought as well when I read it.

I'm surprised after the number of times this has happened that the Iranian's aren't taking more care with information, routes, etc etc etc, not that any system is perfect.

.

whowhenwhy

11th Jan 2012, 17:33

Any British citizens who are very clearly not of Israeli descent been in Iran in the last 48 hours???:rolleyes:

COCL2

11th Jan 2012, 19:50

So, today the Pakistani PM sacks his Defence Minister, and the army threatens "very serious ramifications with potentially grievous consequences for the country"
With a court action against the PM pending for corruption, another military coup is on the cards (will it happen before Musharraf returns.?)
With the army and ISI seemingly being pro-Taliban, and a faked (???) memo circulating which implicates the government in plans to invite the USA to help in controlling the Pakistan army's pro-Taliban tendancies, , then life in Afghanistan jut got even more confusing.
What are the odds on a military pro-fundamentalist takeover?
Another thread in the web being spun by the Iranians

Mach Two

11th Jan 2012, 21:08

crystal10,

I don't know what your problem is, but what you're doing (for whatever reason) is wrong and violates the rules.

There are lots of people here that have a valid point to make and that wish to do so without having their identity revealed. None of us know who COCL2 is and it doesn't matter. Just stick to the discussion.

I have no wish to do the mods job for them here, but I think you are out of order. Please don't do that. I look forward to some constructive input from you.

M2

Courtney Mil

11th Jan 2012, 21:11

Mach Two,

You are right. I am happy for the world to know who I am, but I fully understand that those of you that are serving wish to be unnamed. Others for other perfactly good reasons.

crystal10, please respect the rules so that other users here do not feel inhibited about their posts. That is what makes this such a revealing, expert forum.

Courtney

ORAC

12th Jan 2012, 14:05

Iran paper demands retaliation for scientist death (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-iran-nuclear-israel-idUSTRE80B0ZW20120112)

(Reuters) - A hardline Iranian newspaper with links to the country's top authority called on the clerical establishment on Thursday to take retaliatory measures against Israel for the killing of a nuclear scientist in Tehran.

Iran blamed its arch-enemies, Israel and the United States, for a blast which killed the nuclear scientist in his car on Wednesday, insisting the incident would not change the country's nuclear course.

The U.S. and its allies say Iran's nuclear program is aimed at producing weapons. Iran says the program is for peaceful purposes only.

"We should retaliate against Israel for martyring of our young scientist," wrote Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor-in-chief of the Kayhan newspaper, who was appointed by the country's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"These corrupted people (Israelis) are easily identifiable and readily within our reach ... Assassinations of the Zionist regime's (Israel) military men and officials are very easy," he added, in an apparent call for Iran to assassinate Israelis.

Finningley Boy

12th Jan 2012, 15:41

oh dear!:uhoh:

FB:)

Airborne Aircrew

12th Jan 2012, 15:49

the country's top authority called on the clerical establishment on Thursday to take retaliatory measures against Israel

What will they do, cast spells??? Talk about backwards... Maybe we should sent The Inquisition, they'd appreciate that.

Lonewolf_50

12th Jan 2012, 16:43

Bring on the comfy chair!

Specaircrew

12th Jan 2012, 16:53

No No, not the Comfy Chair!

COCL2

12th Jan 2012, 17:12

"What will they do, cast spells"
Is there a muslim equivalent of the Kaballah?

COCL2

12th Jan 2012, 23:18

Ahmadinejad is in Cuba this week
Whats the chances they are discussing missile basing?

Airborne Aircrew

13th Jan 2012, 00:31

Whats the chances they are discussing missile basing?

I'm wondering what the chances of those missiles reaching Cuba are considering Iran can't even protect their scientists... :ugh:

COCL2

13th Jan 2012, 00:36

I'm sure the Russians would oblige wth freight if it helped to secure their oil supplies

Airborne Aircrew

13th Jan 2012, 01:12

... and they'll get how far off the dock? Just far enough for the Russian ship(s) to remain undusted?

The current "person in Chief" does not have the balls Kennedy did to go face to face with Russia, especially with Putin behind the whole thing. Putin would eat Obama in one sitting. The US's only chance is to take them first if this were to occur.

SASless

13th Jan 2012, 01:56

Have you given any thought whatsoever to the the Russian need for foreign oil? Just what interest do you think Russia has in this situation?

I thought it was American's who were the ones with an inability to understand the modern world and its politics, geography, and economics.

COCL2

13th Jan 2012, 07:49

In 2009 Russia imported 42,750 barrels per day of crude oil.
Demand is growing as Russia modernises

See this press release from December 18th:
Russia, Iran to sign $700 mln oil contract - TV | World | RIA Novosti (http://en.rian.ru/world/20111218/170340998.html)

"Tatneft, one of Russia's top ten crude oil producers, and the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) plan to sign a $700 million contract on Sunday on the extraction of heavy oil at the Zagheh oilfield in south Iran, the Iranian Press TV channel reported.
Under the contract, the Zagheh oilfield in the Bushehr province will produce 7,000 barrels per day of heavy crude in the first phase of its development. The output will be increased to 55,000 bpd in the second phase, Press TV said"

That one contract guarantees Russia its current oil import requirements. No wonder Russia are so against oil sanctions against Iran.
The quantities are not a lot in the general scale of things, but it does give Russia a degree of stability

glojo

13th Jan 2012, 15:22

Are we now seeing the United States moving another two carrier battle groups into the Arabian Sea?

The Stennis Group was allegedly due to return home once its replacement took up station but the rumour mill is suggesting this might not be the case however:

I don't want to leave anybody with the impression that we're somehow (speeding) two carriers over there because we're concerned about what happened, you know, today in Iran. It's just not the case,

The Abraham Lincoln Group is heading toward that area from the Far East and is expected to be shortly joining up with the Vinson Group which is the new on station carrier.

Three carrier groups in one area is a message that cannot fail to get attention, could that armada actually enforce a 'No Fly Zone?'

Two's company but three is a ............... :sad:;)

Fox3WheresMyBanana

13th Jan 2012, 15:35

...an offence under section 69 of the AFA

COCL2

13th Jan 2012, 15:35

from a FARS press release today
"The Islamic Republic's top military officials have repeatedly warned that in case of an attack by either the US or Israel, the country would target 32 American bases in the Middle East and close the strategic Strait of Hormuz."

32 simultaneous attacks would be a heck of an achievement. The statement surely implies that they have the capability in place now -or at least they think they have it in place

Airborne Aircrew

13th Jan 2012, 15:56

The statement surely implies that they have the capability in place now -or at least they think they have it in place

More likely that Allah will provide it when it is required...:}

COCL2

13th Jan 2012, 16:04

and while not directly related to this thread, here's another step in this whole web of deceit
Pakistan, UK deny call expressing coup fears | Pakistan | DAWN.COM (http://www.dawn.com/2012/01/13/pm-gilani-called-uk-fearing-coup-official.html)
"ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani telephoned the top British diplomat in the country this week expressing fears that the Pakistani army might be about to stage a coup, a British official and an official in Islamabad said on Friday."
Of course its all being denied, but then they would, wouldn't they?

Fox3WheresMyBanana

13th Jan 2012, 16:36

AA - Insh'Allah can be an expression of Faith, a hope, a comfort; but it is not a plan....
as for our plans, as related to military aviation, it doesn't seem there's much that bombing can now achieve, short of using buckets of instant sunshine, to reduce their ability to produce nukes.
An action by their Navy to shut the Straits would seem spectacularly silly, as we could probably convert their fleet into the world's best wreck dive site in about 3 days - do you think it's a cunning plan to get the tourism dollars in? I think we can take Straits closing threats to be for an internal audience.

COCL2

13th Jan 2012, 16:40

Crystal 10

OK I'll spell out the oil problem for you.
Russia is the largest exporter of oil worldwide.
Iran has by far the largest reserves.
Soon it is likely that Iran will be blocked from exporting through its own ports. If Russia were to provide a pipeline link from Iran to the Syrian coast then it would control a large proportion of the worlds oil supplies. While the USA would have no problem interdicting Iranian tankers, its unlikely to try to stop Russian ones. With China and India as willing customers there would be a ready market - and Russia would have enough control of the global market to starve Europe and make life difficult for the USA.
Thats the threat, and that is why Russia is so interested in what happens in Syria.
Now it seems to me that that is directly related to the subject of this thread - passage of the Strait of Hormuz

PS - sorry I only saw your second complaint after I'd already posted.
The justification for the Pakistani link is that quite simply if (or more probably when) there is a military coup in Pakistan then things are going to become much more problematic for our forces in Afghanistan. For one, where is the exit route? For two, just who are the enemy going to be?

Courtney Mil

13th Jan 2012, 17:14

COCL2,

A good analysis, I think. And I actually think it is related to this thread - Strait of Hormuz after all. Am I right in thinking that there already is/was a pipeline across to the Med or somewhere?

fincastle84

13th Jan 2012, 17:17

This brings back memories of getting airborne from Sharjah in 1971 in the venerable Shack 2.3. After take off (0700 hrs), the first task was a "flag" check on the tiny islands of Tunb & Musa, situated midway between Sharjah & Iran just inside the straits.

Sometimes the local flag raiser overslept so we used to wake him with a noisy low fly by. 5 minutes later he could be seen dashing madly to the flag pole to raise his flag. We always received a cheery wave (I think he was waving??).

COCL2

13th Jan 2012, 17:19

Courtney
Correct - an old 1930's pipeline from NE Iraq to the Syrian coast. It was blown up in GW1 and never repaired, though the Russians have shown an interest. It could be patched up, or replaced with new pipes alongside. All you would need then is a new pipe from Iran to Iraq.
And if anyone thinks thats too farfetched, there is already a gas pipeline along the route, while plans are in place for a gas pipe from Iran into Pakistan, India and maybe China. Where you can put a gas pipe you can put an oil pipe.

Edit
It runs Kirkuk (Iraq) > Baniyas (Syria) and dates from the 1950's not 1930's

Courtney Mil

13th Jan 2012, 17:20

Saluting, I would hope!

Courtney Mil

13th Jan 2012, 17:24

COCL2,

If we don't see a stabilized Iran anytime soon, I would imagine that a lot of people would see a great benefit in rebuilding the oil pipe. It would certainly put the limiters on Iran's strangle hold on the Strait.

As I'm sure the FCO, etc, get most of their good policy ideas from here, I'm glad we brought it up. Consider it done! :ok:

Courtney Mil

13th Jan 2012, 17:34

COCL2,

I'm also interested in linking this in with your earlier post about three carrier groups in the area and, if not a build-up then a very strong message. They did say they were going for multiple levels of sanctions, so that might fit. And, yes, I think three carriers there could make a good start at a no fly zone especially considering the analysis we did before on Iran's fast air capability.

COCL2

13th Jan 2012, 17:41

The three carries were glojo's point, not mine.
However if placed near the Iranian coast they would create a heck of a diversion to allow a clear run for anything coming in from the Med.
Would just need to beat the Russians

Mach Two

13th Jan 2012, 17:50

Just checking what's on the carriers you mentioned and they have embarked a bigger FJ force than we had in any of our recent "no fly ops". I agree they could do the job, but politically they would probably not want to go it alone.

Can't the mods do something about that annoying background yapping, please. I too find this interesting and it has a military aviation flavour.

Courtney Mil

13th Jan 2012, 17:55

Indeed, it was glojo that raised the carriers. Sorry, trying to answer too many points in one post.

Thanks, M2. Check your PMs

racedo

13th Jan 2012, 18:06

Stop putting links on this forum that are not connected to military aviation.

Has a MOD passed away ?

Mach Two

13th Jan 2012, 18:08

Crystal,

You're starting sound a lot like SAMXXV. Perhaps you are. Anyway, this is a valid discussion so if you find it boring, why not go to another thread instead?

crystal10

13th Jan 2012, 18:10

There are too many civvy bedwetters on this forum who have not even served in the military. COCL2 being one of them.
This is a military forum for military people.

Take your civvy stuff to Jetblast.

Mach Two

13th Jan 2012, 18:18

Sorry, Crystal10, I didn't mean to offend you, but I think you are starting to become abusive now. Unfortunately for you, all the people you're attacking are known to me and they are either military or ex-military. Remind us of your credentials. Better still, just stop upsetting people.

Time for the mods to step in, I think.

Courtney Mil

13th Jan 2012, 18:23

M2, can you PM me the link about the carrier air groups again, please. I had a PM clear out and deted it. Sorry.

crystal10

13th Jan 2012, 18:27

Remind us of your credentials.

I am Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton KCB ADC BSc FRAeS CCMI RAF you fool. Now get off the line I am waiting for an important call.

COCL2

13th Jan 2012, 18:37

Presumably though that Russian air wing could provide a pretty good make-shift AEW service for the Iranians for anything heading from the west?

glojo

14th Jan 2012, 09:23

Whilst this forum is all about 'air', I would respectfully suggest that the United States of America have a number of Ohio class nuclear submarines (boats) :oh: which are EACH capable of carrying in excess of 150 Tomahawk missiles, how many will be near to that location?

Then there is two carrier groups, possibly three with their own submarines, all of which will be carrying these long range missiles. Then we must not overlook the warships that are a part of these powerful formations. Arleigh Burke, or maybe a number of Ticonderoga, again these will also have been shopping and I am assuming their magazines will not just be carrying the latest copy of 'Play-boy\girl\person' := They will all have a full complement of Tomahawk.

I guess at times we are all guilty of wearing blinkers which prevent us from seeing the bigger picture. The power of THREE or even two carrier battle groups should NOT be underestimated.

Are we convinced that push has come to shove? Is there any benefits to blocking of the Strait? I still have my fingers crossed that this willy waggling contest might shrink, shrivel or fade away.

America has the might but would it act alone? :O

racedo

14th Jan 2012, 10:06

I am still not convinced that push has come to shove, I still cannot see the benefits of blocking the Strait and I still have my fingers crossed that this willy waggling contest might shrink, shrivel or fade away.

Their are certain National interests who want this to be done on their behalf but question is whether the US / Iran have the ability to step back.

Iran having a nuke doesn't mean war.

parabellum

14th Jan 2012, 10:41

In the late seventies we used to fly into Shiraz and see a formidible array of F4s and F5s, went in again in 1989/90 and the same aircraft looked very, very sad.

Any conflict involving the Strait of Hormuz, an international waterway, with Iran would see their very limited airforce taken out on day one, combine that with multiple sinkings of their very limited navy and then step back and see what they have to offer next, probably 'discussions', since they are not yet nuclear capable. Iran is divided between the radical Mullahs and their blind following and the highly intelligent and educated 'rest', The mullahs currently hold sway with the police and military but given a full on confrontation with the West I believe the 'rest' will come to life.

COCL2

14th Jan 2012, 14:57

Any conflict on Iran is a direct threat to Russia (http://rt.com/politics/syria-iran-nato-rogozin-749/)

"“Iran is our close neighbor, just south of the Caucasus. Should anything happen to Iran, should Iran get drawn into any political or military hardships, this will be a direct threat to our national security,” stressed Rogozin.
Dmitry Rogozin, who served as Russia’s special envoy to NATO in 2008-2011, was appointed deputy prime minister by Vladimir Putin in December. On Friday he was bidding farewell to his NATO colleagues in the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels."

"“Syria must be left alone and the sides to the conflict must be assisted in breaking the stand-off and starting negotiations. No one must interfere with Syria. This is dangerous,” added Rogozin."`

At least one direct threat there

Finningley Boy

14th Jan 2012, 17:06

I am Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton KCB ADC BSc FRAeS CCMI RAF you fool. Now get off the line I am waiting for an important call.

Who would have credited it!:eek:

FB:)

Courtney Mil

14th Jan 2012, 17:27

At least one direct threat there

Not a threat, a promise, I think. Thank you the post, interesting that they are in there for Iran and Syria.

So, my question now is, "Is his posturing directed at the West or at Israel and the Arab League?" Or is Russia ready to take on the world again?

Dmitry Rogozin fully understands the weakness of the leadership in a number of western countries, the state of chaos in many Midle East countries and the crisis in Europe. It might be a very good time for Russia to flex its muscles on the world stage.

Courtney

parabellum

14th Jan 2012, 21:55

One of Russia's primary concerns about the Middle East is being able to maintain warm water ports for it's fleet, both Syria and Iran can provide these.

ORAC

15th Jan 2012, 07:02

AFP: Iran warns Gulf states not to make up oil shortfall (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gfiYXBAy6Y-tiecRcP-9sf4JJSXg?docId=CNG.d5034f37cebe7fb3262d88d351279af2.3e1)

(AFP) TEHRAN — Iran has warned its Gulf neighbours to not step in to make up for any shortfall in its oil exports under new Western sanctions, according to comments by its OPEC representative quoted on Sunday by the Sharq newspaper.

"We would not consider these actions to be friendly," Mohammad Ali Khatibi was quoted as saying. "If the oil producing nations on the Persian Gulf decide to substitute Iran's oil, then they will be held responsible for what happens," he said.

UAE to test pipeline bypassing the Gulf (http://www.albawaba.com/business/uae-test-pipeline-bypassing-gulf-408888)

A pipeline designed to carry the UAE's oil to an offshore terminal in Fujairah will begin testing in May. If the tests are successful, the pipeline will begin operation the following month. The pipeline is being constructed to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, thereby cutting the shipping time by two days and reducing the impact of a possible blockade by Iran.

The pipeline will carry oil from Habshan, Abu Dhabi's onshore oil collection point, to an offshore oil terminal in Fujairah, some 370 km away. When completed, it will carry 1.4 million bpd, but could increase capacity in the future to 1.8 bpd or over 70 percent of Abu Dhabi's output. Abu Dhabi contains 90 percent of the UAE's crude oil reserves. The $3.29 billion construction project is being run by the International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC), the overseas oil investment arm of the government of Abu Dhabi.

Although construction of the pipeline has suffered repeated delays, originally being scheduled to open last April, UAE Oil Minister Mohamed bin Dhaen al-Hamli announced on Monday that it would soon be complete. He said, "The first tanker loaded will be in about six months' time, ready for export."

The stated purpose of the pipeline is ostensibly to shorten the trip for oil tankers carrying crude from the UAE. Bypassing the Gulf reduces shipping times by two days, thereby lowering production costs. However, it is widely understood that the larger purpose of the pipeline is to ensure the continued exportation of oil in the event thatIran blockades the Strait of Hormuz. The Islamic Republic has repeatedly threatened to do so in the event that sanctions against it are strengthened, and the military has even conducted a 10-day military exercise to practice closing down the narrow waterway. Nearly 35 percent of globally traded oil passes through the strait, and Saudi Arabia and Oman are the only Gulf countries with terminals outside of Hormuz.