Iran Threatens to Close Strait of Hormuz
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
FT: Iran threatens US over aircraft carrier
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.......................
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.......................
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
France: Europe must agree Iran sanctions by end-Jan
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........
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........
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Meanwhile, those Iranian centrifuges are spinning and those Iranian scientists are almost certainly working triple shifts...
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.
Gen Salehi did not name the aircraft carrier or give details of the action Iran might take if it returned.......................
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi SASless
Words of wisdom as usual, hence my comments about being
.
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
Words of wisdom as usual, hence my comments about being
Originally Posted by moi
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
From a trade magazine article....
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....
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.
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.
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]
Last edited by SASless; 3rd Jan 2012 at 19:26.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'
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.
.
Iran are now trying to get this major assett back to a location where they would get that 'realistic scenario'
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.
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?
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'
Originally Posted by sasless
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.
Originally Posted by sasless
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'
Originally Posted by reuters
Iran threatened on Tuesday to take action if the U.S. Navy moves an aircraft carrier into the Gulf
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.
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?
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'
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.
Suspicion breeds confidence
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.