It's On: Iran Closes Straits Of Hormuz, Oil Explodes
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
back during the Falklands we had an active fleet of around 50 frigates and destroyers, with a quite a few more laid up which could have been reactivated. In the event of a loss other ships could take up the vacuum created
Now we have a total frigate & destroyer fleet of 19 including those in refit - and very few laid up and capable of reactivation.
If that single T45 in the Gulf is lost there is nothing available to replace it.
And what if that ship was guarding our hypothetical carrier?
Now we have a total frigate & destroyer fleet of 19 including those in refit - and very few laid up and capable of reactivation.
If that single T45 in the Gulf is lost there is nothing available to replace it.
And what if that ship was guarding our hypothetical carrier?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
You asked me to justify my statement
the record is clear - Norway, Crete, Malaya, Ceylon (where the navy had to retreat to East Africa they were so concerned about air attack from the Japanese), the Med campaign, the Murmansk convoys.....................
then no real action for 35 years
In the Falklands a small air force flying second hand aircraft sank 4 of our naval ships and damaged a shed load more - with decent fuses they'd have doubled the numbers sunk
Most of these were specifically armed against air attack (see British Destroyers & Frigates - the Second World War & After by Friedmann)
I think the Type 45's are just what we needed in the Falklands - but of course they only have a pop-gun and no serious surface to surface missiles ,... the Naval Constructors Office is fighting the last war , not the next, as usual
You asked me to justify my statement
the record is clear - Norway, Crete, Malaya, Ceylon (where the navy had to retreat to East Africa they were so concerned about air attack from the Japanese), the Med campaign, the Murmansk convoys.....................
then no real action for 35 years
In the Falklands a small air force flying second hand aircraft sank 4 of our naval ships and damaged a shed load more - with decent fuses they'd have doubled the numbers sunk
Most of these were specifically armed against air attack (see British Destroyers & Frigates - the Second World War & After by Friedmann)
I think the Type 45's are just what we needed in the Falklands - but of course they only have a pop-gun and no serious surface to surface missiles ,... the Naval Constructors Office is fighting the last war , not the next, as usual
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harry
That is a cretinous argument.
Retreat shows that we did not under estimate the threat.
The idea that loss of ships means that we are making some kind of a mistake is fairly idiotic.
Did the RAF in WW2 make a mistake in losing all those spitfires?
Ships, planes and tanks get lost in war.
Trying to characterise the Falklands as some kind of spat against a second rate opponent says a lot about your character and spits on the memories of those who died.
The argentinian pilots and aircraft were first rate, and carrying a new weapon which nobody had learned to deal with yet.
It is all part of the joys of the military arms race.
Will an exocet manage to sink one of our ships again?
I would like to think not.
Will some new weapon manage?
Almost certainly.
Will someone manage to shoot down a Typhoon, assuming they actually go sausage side at some point?
Probably.
Would it mean that the RAF was institutionaly backward in its planning...?
No, it would be war.
To conclude.
The RN does not in any way under-estimate our vulnerability to air attack.
We know that we will lose ships to a concerted air attack by an able opponent.
We attempt to minimise those losses by good tactics and training.
The idea that any losses mean an error of judgment has been made is, I repeat, cretinous.
That is a cretinous argument.
Retreat shows that we did not under estimate the threat.
The idea that loss of ships means that we are making some kind of a mistake is fairly idiotic.
Did the RAF in WW2 make a mistake in losing all those spitfires?
Ships, planes and tanks get lost in war.
Trying to characterise the Falklands as some kind of spat against a second rate opponent says a lot about your character and spits on the memories of those who died.
The argentinian pilots and aircraft were first rate, and carrying a new weapon which nobody had learned to deal with yet.
It is all part of the joys of the military arms race.
Will an exocet manage to sink one of our ships again?
I would like to think not.
Will some new weapon manage?
Almost certainly.
Will someone manage to shoot down a Typhoon, assuming they actually go sausage side at some point?
Probably.
Would it mean that the RAF was institutionaly backward in its planning...?
No, it would be war.
To conclude.
The RN does not in any way under-estimate our vulnerability to air attack.
We know that we will lose ships to a concerted air attack by an able opponent.
We attempt to minimise those losses by good tactics and training.
The idea that any losses mean an error of judgment has been made is, I repeat, cretinous.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Heathrow,
The T22 I served on in GW1 had a Bofors 40/60 made in Canada in 1941. Its operator was less than half its age. We used to joke that the noise was there for morale purposes only. If Seawolf went down, the 18 yr old manning it was the last line of defence!
The T22 I served on in GW1 had a Bofors 40/60 made in Canada in 1941. Its operator was less than half its age. We used to joke that the noise was there for morale purposes only. If Seawolf went down, the 18 yr old manning it was the last line of defence!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nonsense dear boy
personally I find the idea that we send people out to die because "its going to happen" is not where we should start from - there is no such thing as an "accepteable loss" in my book
It's a very cheap shot (and a poor argument) to state that by saying the Argentinians were a second rate airforce that I am getting at the guys who died on our side
the Argentinians were flying Mirage versions and Skyhawks _ you really aren't saying they were first class aircraft in 1982 are you? Man, they were using commercial 707's for marine reconnaissance and bombing ships by throwing bombs out of the back of a Hercules!
Even their navy was all sorts of mainly second hand stuff
as for Exocet being an "new unknown weapon" most of the RN Amazon class Type 21's that served in the Falklands were equipped with them - maybe they forgot??
Sea Dart was designed as an area defence weapon to replace the Sea Slug in open water over the N Atlantic and was originally meant as a building block for the UK CBG escort role- but even under trials it would occasionally lock-up - sending them out as radar pickets was known at the time to be a hell of a risk and so it proved
Sea Wolf is a point defence system that worked pretty well considering.
You have to say that more Goalkeeper type systems would have been relatively cheap and easy to fit and would have probably improved matters a great deal
personally I find the idea that we send people out to die because "its going to happen" is not where we should start from - there is no such thing as an "accepteable loss" in my book
It's a very cheap shot (and a poor argument) to state that by saying the Argentinians were a second rate airforce that I am getting at the guys who died on our side
the Argentinians were flying Mirage versions and Skyhawks _ you really aren't saying they were first class aircraft in 1982 are you? Man, they were using commercial 707's for marine reconnaissance and bombing ships by throwing bombs out of the back of a Hercules!
Even their navy was all sorts of mainly second hand stuff
as for Exocet being an "new unknown weapon" most of the RN Amazon class Type 21's that served in the Falklands were equipped with them - maybe they forgot??
Sea Dart was designed as an area defence weapon to replace the Sea Slug in open water over the N Atlantic and was originally meant as a building block for the UK CBG escort role- but even under trials it would occasionally lock-up - sending them out as radar pickets was known at the time to be a hell of a risk and so it proved
Sea Wolf is a point defence system that worked pretty well considering.
You have to say that more Goalkeeper type systems would have been relatively cheap and easy to fit and would have probably improved matters a great deal
Suspicion breeds confidence
Heathrow,
Respectfully disagree. The RN was configured to fight the Sovs who liked flying big weapons at medium altitudes. Our weapons were configured for that threat. They had no sea skimmers at the time.
The Mirage 3 and 5 were very modern aircraft at the time. Ask the Israelis!
We had no Phalanx or Goalkeeper available, indeed Phalanx was only just being introduced in to the USN.
The Arg navy was largely made up of old ex-USN stuff but had 2 operational T42 and knew exactly how to use them. I was the liaison officer for one of them when she was undergoing FOST in November 1981. They knew that in open water, it takes more than a 4 ship to take out a T42. Close to land they are virtually blind. They knew that too and how to exploit that vulnerability.
If you are going to make a point at least do your homework first.
Respectfully disagree. The RN was configured to fight the Sovs who liked flying big weapons at medium altitudes. Our weapons were configured for that threat. They had no sea skimmers at the time.
The Mirage 3 and 5 were very modern aircraft at the time. Ask the Israelis!
We had no Phalanx or Goalkeeper available, indeed Phalanx was only just being introduced in to the USN.
The Arg navy was largely made up of old ex-USN stuff but had 2 operational T42 and knew exactly how to use them. I was the liaison officer for one of them when she was undergoing FOST in November 1981. They knew that in open water, it takes more than a 4 ship to take out a T42. Close to land they are virtually blind. They knew that too and how to exploit that vulnerability.
If you are going to make a point at least do your homework first.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
They had no sea skimmers at the time.
..........The standard Moskit has a range of 120 kilometers (75 miles) in a HI-LO flight profile or 80 kilometers (50 miles) in a LO-LO flight profile, with midcourse flight directed by an INS. Its high-altitude speed is from Mach 2.6 to Mach 3 and its low-altitude speed is Mach 1.5. It was designed for salvo launch, with the missiles maneuvering over differing flight paths to confuse target defenses. It could be fitted with a 320 kilogram (705 pound) SAP conventional warhead or a nuclear warhead with a yield of hundreds of kilotonnes.
Work on the Moskit was initiated in 1973, leading to service introduction in 1981.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WE had Exocet for heavens sake and we didn't know about it????
I still don't see Mirage's, Kfirs & Skyhawks as anything other than second or third rate in 1982...................... TBF the Argentinian pilots did a great job with what they had
Sea Dart was tested against low flying aircraft - I know because some people I know where on the trials on HMS Bristol in the seventies
I still don't see Mirage's, Kfirs & Skyhawks as anything other than second or third rate in 1982...................... TBF the Argentinian pilots did a great job with what they had
Sea Dart was tested against low flying aircraft - I know because some people I know where on the trials on HMS Bristol in the seventies
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shy talk,
I think that comes under "why bother with AEW" when,
a) The replacement fixed wing carriers were binned (along with their planned AEW replacements).
b) The RAF had convinced everyone they could cover anywhere, with anything (remember the mythical (or was it) moving of Australia).
c) The Navy top brass couldn't have planned a cocktail party without a killick steward to help them (I think they got the cost of the carriers wrong by £75,000,000), it was a lesson in procurement c0ck ups.
d) Don't forget, no-one got their shiny new toys (TSR2, F111 etc, etc), cheers Dennis!
We were aware of the "capability gap", but remember the Invince was all but sold and the political opinion was against carriers up until 1982!
Cheers now
I think that comes under "why bother with AEW" when,
a) The replacement fixed wing carriers were binned (along with their planned AEW replacements).
b) The RAF had convinced everyone they could cover anywhere, with anything (remember the mythical (or was it) moving of Australia).
c) The Navy top brass couldn't have planned a cocktail party without a killick steward to help them (I think they got the cost of the carriers wrong by £75,000,000), it was a lesson in procurement c0ck ups.
d) Don't forget, no-one got their shiny new toys (TSR2, F111 etc, etc), cheers Dennis!
We were aware of the "capability gap", but remember the Invince was all but sold and the political opinion was against carriers up until 1982!
Cheers now
Last edited by oldgrubber; 4th Jul 2012 at 16:25.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyhoo, are we still chatting about Persia?
This Shamshir rattling doesn't really help matters.
Yet there are those who still think it acceptable for them to seek a nuclear capability.
This Shamshir rattling doesn't really help matters.
Yet there are those who still think it acceptable for them to seek a nuclear capability.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 4th Jul 2012 at 22:01.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harry
If you are going to quote somebody, at least quote them correctly rather than misquoting them and then getting het up about what you rather than they said.
I said that the exocet was new.
Not "new and unknown" as you suggest.
Of course the RN knew it was a threat. We had them!
That was why so much effort to mitigate the threat was made, from denial of new exocet to movement of the fleet to air defence.
At the time there was no good way to combat the threat.
That is the nature of warfare.
A weapon is invented.
Countermeasures are produced.
A new weapon is invented ad infinitum.
The only options available were accept and mitigate the threat, or don't go.
Not going is not really an option to anyone with a spine.
I find it astonishing to have to explain to a military man any of this frankly.
Perhaps it is a sign of the current times that some among us expect to be able to go to a conflict and not take losses, rather than expecting to take some hits, and perhaps that is because since the Falklands we don't go anywhere without the umbrella of the US assets.
If you are going to quote somebody, at least quote them correctly rather than misquoting them and then getting het up about what you rather than they said.
I said that the exocet was new.
Not "new and unknown" as you suggest.
Of course the RN knew it was a threat. We had them!
That was why so much effort to mitigate the threat was made, from denial of new exocet to movement of the fleet to air defence.
At the time there was no good way to combat the threat.
That is the nature of warfare.
A weapon is invented.
Countermeasures are produced.
A new weapon is invented ad infinitum.
The only options available were accept and mitigate the threat, or don't go.
Not going is not really an option to anyone with a spine.
I find it astonishing to have to explain to a military man any of this frankly.
Perhaps it is a sign of the current times that some among us expect to be able to go to a conflict and not take losses, rather than expecting to take some hits, and perhaps that is because since the Falklands we don't go anywhere without the umbrella of the US assets.
Last edited by Tourist; 4th Jul 2012 at 22:04.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Tourist, Harry et al,
May I suggest you take a look at the 3rd edition of 100 Days by Adm Woodward. He has published his diary of the time in very full detail and it is most informative.
My recollections of the time are:
1. Yes we knew what Exocet could do, but it was just the shipboard version. We were well trained in its use.
2. We had made no preparation for airborne AM39 attacks, even though the Argentine version had an "export" seeker which was a less sensitive centroid homing version of the ones we had in our ships. The only possible answer was Chaff Charlie and Chaff Delta.
3. Radar range at 9 feet above sea level is about 10 miles for something moving at mach 0.9
4. The Corvus chaff launchers we had could barely respond at that time even in the right conditions.
5. Sea Dart at that time had NO capability at low flying targets, this only came much later with the addition of an IR fuse which also took years to perfect. The trials with Bristol in the 70s were against two foil covered met balloons both released at the same time. Both engaged, one at lowish level one at medium level and hit. Hardly representative of even a 1st gen attack jet.
6. Trials of Sea Dart by HMS Newcastle against Sea Slug 1 targets fired by HMS Kent at Aberporth not all that reasurring!
7. Sea Cat. Totally useless. Even the Bofors on the T22 had been converted from manual to electrical operation did not work properly.
8. Atlantic Conveyor and most of the RFA was Chaff Sierra and lots of folks paid dearly for this.
It was a complete buggers muddle but we managed to get through, more by luck than judgement.
All this is in the public domain before anyone says anything.
May I suggest you take a look at the 3rd edition of 100 Days by Adm Woodward. He has published his diary of the time in very full detail and it is most informative.
My recollections of the time are:
1. Yes we knew what Exocet could do, but it was just the shipboard version. We were well trained in its use.
2. We had made no preparation for airborne AM39 attacks, even though the Argentine version had an "export" seeker which was a less sensitive centroid homing version of the ones we had in our ships. The only possible answer was Chaff Charlie and Chaff Delta.
3. Radar range at 9 feet above sea level is about 10 miles for something moving at mach 0.9
4. The Corvus chaff launchers we had could barely respond at that time even in the right conditions.
5. Sea Dart at that time had NO capability at low flying targets, this only came much later with the addition of an IR fuse which also took years to perfect. The trials with Bristol in the 70s were against two foil covered met balloons both released at the same time. Both engaged, one at lowish level one at medium level and hit. Hardly representative of even a 1st gen attack jet.
6. Trials of Sea Dart by HMS Newcastle against Sea Slug 1 targets fired by HMS Kent at Aberporth not all that reasurring!
7. Sea Cat. Totally useless. Even the Bofors on the T22 had been converted from manual to electrical operation did not work properly.
8. Atlantic Conveyor and most of the RFA was Chaff Sierra and lots of folks paid dearly for this.
It was a complete buggers muddle but we managed to get through, more by luck than judgement.
All this is in the public domain before anyone says anything.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naval Eye
thanks for that - I have the greatest admiration for those who were sent out with insufficient equipmet and training to fight for us all - especially when it all (RN, RAF & the PBI) had to be cobbled together in a few days.
Just how someone up the line could not/would not compare a ship launched Exocet threat with an airborne Exocet threat just astounds me even now...........
Unfortunately I suspect that many of the same attitudes are still to be found in Whitehall
thanks for that - I have the greatest admiration for those who were sent out with insufficient equipmet and training to fight for us all - especially when it all (RN, RAF & the PBI) had to be cobbled together in a few days.
Just how someone up the line could not/would not compare a ship launched Exocet threat with an airborne Exocet threat just astounds me even now...........
Unfortunately I suspect that many of the same attitudes are still to be found in Whitehall
Originally Posted by HH
Historically the RN has always grossly over estimated the survivability of its ships to air attack
ORAC
I think that I am right in thinking that Sea Wolf was designed to counter Soviet submarine launched sea skimmers. Also if the task force had had more than just two Sea Wolf armed frigates then it would have reduced ship losses.
HH
I think the key difference between ship launched and air launched Exocets was/is the the former is launched from a ship with a limited speed, the latter from an aircraft with the ability to fly low and hide from shipborne radars. I remember reading that some Admirals had proposed developing an AEW version of the Sea King (before the Falklands), but it was rejected on cost grounds. The assumption was that the RN would operate in the NATO theatre, and Nimrod AEW3 would come along soon. The politicians changed their minds on 4 May 82 - the same day HMS Sheffield got hit. I think the same mentality exists in Whitehall.
Remember too the Argentines could work out how to evade the Type 42's radar, as they had T42s.
Here is a documentary from 1986:
Going back to possible Iranian events, if a Type 45 fired all her missiles it would be a very serious conflict - the type that SDSR said we will not need to worry about until after 2020.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing we both should learn ( US and UK) is that we must be prepared for war in order to avoid war.
And we must remember that today's friend may be tomorrow's enemy.
The trouble is we have learned the lessons, and our politicians want to save a few bucks/crowns and cut back.
It is terrible to tlearn tha the Royal navy only has 19 frigates/destroyers as of today. It wasn't so long ago that we traded 50 four pipers for 99 year leases on bases.
And the new big threat is little rubber boats loaded with explosives and men crazy enough to make a Kamakazie attack with them...THE NEW EXOCET MISSILE>
The Iranians still have a few F14s...which we sold them...are they second rate?
And if a second rate A4, launched from a war surplus aircraft carrier can sink your tin can...who cares if its second rate?
in world war one, JAPAN was on England's side and so was the US...19 years later the Japanese bombed the US Panay and sank her. 19 years and the sides change.
in WW2, Russia and China were on our side....five years later we were fighting them in KOREA
WAKE UP!!!!!!
19 ships...shame on the RN
And we must remember that today's friend may be tomorrow's enemy.
The trouble is we have learned the lessons, and our politicians want to save a few bucks/crowns and cut back.
It is terrible to tlearn tha the Royal navy only has 19 frigates/destroyers as of today. It wasn't so long ago that we traded 50 four pipers for 99 year leases on bases.
And the new big threat is little rubber boats loaded with explosives and men crazy enough to make a Kamakazie attack with them...THE NEW EXOCET MISSILE>
The Iranians still have a few F14s...which we sold them...are they second rate?
And if a second rate A4, launched from a war surplus aircraft carrier can sink your tin can...who cares if its second rate?
in world war one, JAPAN was on England's side and so was the US...19 years later the Japanese bombed the US Panay and sank her. 19 years and the sides change.
in WW2, Russia and China were on our side....five years later we were fighting them in KOREA
WAKE UP!!!!!!
19 ships...shame on the RN
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is interesting
Fars News Agency :: Iranian Mines, Missiles Can Easily Shut Hormuz
Normally all defence news on the FARS website consist of bulletin reports of what some senior lawman / parliamentarian / military man has allegedly said in a speech, and are full of rhetoric.
This is different: its an uncredited editorial analysis. I'm not sure how to take it, but at face value it looks like a threat to sink a supertanker in the Hormuz Straight, blocking the channel. Along with the other comments as to their options its interesting reading. It feels like its been written by a western journalist, not one of Tehran's usual parrots. At one stage it quotes the "New York Times" - is the whole article listed from there?
News number: 9103085062 17:38 | 2012-07-04
"TEHRAN (FNA)- As Iranian lawmakers are preparing a bill requiring the government to close the Strait of Hormuz, some in the West are asking how Tehran can do so, except for drowning an oil tanker in the midst of the waterway which is the easiest way of cutting the world oil lifeline for months.
In addition to its short, mid, and long missiles, Tehran has a range of other weapons it can use to close down the vital oil artery.
These include the hard-to-detect "rocket mine" that's triggered by the distinctive magnetic our acoustic signature of a ship, such as a US aircraft carrier, and then launches a propelled 600-popund warhead at the target.
Then there's the Russian MDM6, equally difficult to detect, that can tackle multiple targets. It lies on the seabed that fires a torpedo-like warhead when it senses a vessel.
Both these mines can be laid by Iran's Kilo-class submarines.
As the United States builds up its forces in the Persian Gulf, including the recent arrival of four new mines countermeasures ships to boost US-British minesweeping strength to 12, the New York Times quoted a senior Defense Department official as saying:
"The message to Iran is, 'Don't even think about it'. Don't even think about closing the strait. We'll clear the mines.
"Don't even think about sending your fast boats out to harass our vessels or commercial shipping. We'll put them on the bottom of the gulf."
Iran isn't planning to fight a conventional war with the US and its allies. Rather it plans to employ what's known as asymmetric warfare, in which the weaker forces uses unconventional means to overcome the power of a strong opponent.
Asymmetric warfare is specially appropriate for the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz which are too narrow for the huge US warships to maneuver.
That means mines, anti-ship missiles and swarm attacks by small heavily armed boats.
By some accounts, Iran is believed to have as many as 3,000 sea mines. Some estimates go as high as 5,000, but no one knows the exact number as Iran never discloses all its capabilities and arsenals.
Whatever, it's the fourth largest sea mine arsenal in the world after the United States, Russia and China.
The EM-52 is probably the most dangerous mine Iran has. But the bottom-influence EM-11 and the EM-31 moored mine can also play havoc with surface craft.
So the United States and its allied naval forces face a formidable foe.
"Iran's ability to lay a large number of mines in a short period of time remains a critical aspect of the stated capability to deny US forces access to the Persian Gulf and impede or halt shipping through the strait," cautioned US analyst Anthony Cordesman in a March analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Iran has hundreds of anti-ship missiles, including 300 C-201 Seersucker weapons and 200 C-801 indigenous Noor systems, deployed along its long Persian Gulf coastline, as well as air-launched weapons and cruise missiles.
"It's notable that the US never successfully targeted Iraq's anti-ship missile assets during the Kuwait war, although they were deployed along a far smaller coastal area," Cordesman observed.
Iran's army and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, a combined force of some 400,000 troops, vastly outnumber US and allied ground forces. You may also add millions of Basij (volunteer) forces.
But it's from the sea the Iranians will out up their main fight. How long the shooting will last is anyone's guess.
Hormuz could be closed to tanker traffic for several weeks, and the disruption in oil supplies will trigger severe global economic problems.
Fars News Agency :: Iranian Mines, Missiles Can Easily Shut Hormuz
Normally all defence news on the FARS website consist of bulletin reports of what some senior lawman / parliamentarian / military man has allegedly said in a speech, and are full of rhetoric.
This is different: its an uncredited editorial analysis. I'm not sure how to take it, but at face value it looks like a threat to sink a supertanker in the Hormuz Straight, blocking the channel. Along with the other comments as to their options its interesting reading. It feels like its been written by a western journalist, not one of Tehran's usual parrots. At one stage it quotes the "New York Times" - is the whole article listed from there?
News number: 9103085062 17:38 | 2012-07-04
"TEHRAN (FNA)- As Iranian lawmakers are preparing a bill requiring the government to close the Strait of Hormuz, some in the West are asking how Tehran can do so, except for drowning an oil tanker in the midst of the waterway which is the easiest way of cutting the world oil lifeline for months.
In addition to its short, mid, and long missiles, Tehran has a range of other weapons it can use to close down the vital oil artery.
These include the hard-to-detect "rocket mine" that's triggered by the distinctive magnetic our acoustic signature of a ship, such as a US aircraft carrier, and then launches a propelled 600-popund warhead at the target.
Then there's the Russian MDM6, equally difficult to detect, that can tackle multiple targets. It lies on the seabed that fires a torpedo-like warhead when it senses a vessel.
Both these mines can be laid by Iran's Kilo-class submarines.
As the United States builds up its forces in the Persian Gulf, including the recent arrival of four new mines countermeasures ships to boost US-British minesweeping strength to 12, the New York Times quoted a senior Defense Department official as saying:
"The message to Iran is, 'Don't even think about it'. Don't even think about closing the strait. We'll clear the mines.
"Don't even think about sending your fast boats out to harass our vessels or commercial shipping. We'll put them on the bottom of the gulf."
Iran isn't planning to fight a conventional war with the US and its allies. Rather it plans to employ what's known as asymmetric warfare, in which the weaker forces uses unconventional means to overcome the power of a strong opponent.
Asymmetric warfare is specially appropriate for the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz which are too narrow for the huge US warships to maneuver.
That means mines, anti-ship missiles and swarm attacks by small heavily armed boats.
By some accounts, Iran is believed to have as many as 3,000 sea mines. Some estimates go as high as 5,000, but no one knows the exact number as Iran never discloses all its capabilities and arsenals.
Whatever, it's the fourth largest sea mine arsenal in the world after the United States, Russia and China.
The EM-52 is probably the most dangerous mine Iran has. But the bottom-influence EM-11 and the EM-31 moored mine can also play havoc with surface craft.
So the United States and its allied naval forces face a formidable foe.
"Iran's ability to lay a large number of mines in a short period of time remains a critical aspect of the stated capability to deny US forces access to the Persian Gulf and impede or halt shipping through the strait," cautioned US analyst Anthony Cordesman in a March analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Iran has hundreds of anti-ship missiles, including 300 C-201 Seersucker weapons and 200 C-801 indigenous Noor systems, deployed along its long Persian Gulf coastline, as well as air-launched weapons and cruise missiles.
"It's notable that the US never successfully targeted Iraq's anti-ship missile assets during the Kuwait war, although they were deployed along a far smaller coastal area," Cordesman observed.
Iran's army and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, a combined force of some 400,000 troops, vastly outnumber US and allied ground forces. You may also add millions of Basij (volunteer) forces.
But it's from the sea the Iranians will out up their main fight. How long the shooting will last is anyone's guess.
Hormuz could be closed to tanker traffic for several weeks, and the disruption in oil supplies will trigger severe global economic problems.
Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 7th Jul 2012 at 08:13.