Iran Threatens to Close Strait of Hormuz
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!
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!
10. Obama has not a clue what is going on in the Middle East.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
It is plain wrong to suggest Iran does not have the ability to sink a battle group
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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
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.
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 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
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Flail article:
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.
which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan
Whiskey on the rocks (1981) demonstrates the dangers of a boat operating close inshore.
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
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In the workshop, Prune-whispering.
Age: 71
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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....
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....
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like deep water, the boat had probably been sitting at 500 feet beneath several saline layers...
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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)
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Exclusive: EU agrees to embargo on Iranian crude
(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.
(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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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?
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?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
Interesting read 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?