Bluffers Guide: Iranian Naval Capability 2007

[planeman]

Researched analysis of current naval strike capability




OPINION/OVERVIEW

Iran has a modest naval presence characterized by outdated warships mixed with asymmetrical warfare doctrines which promise all manner of death and destruction to any and every other naval force on the planet.

I described it as modest because that’s what it is. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s substandard or unprofessional, but it is handicapped by less good equipment. On the world stage it would barely make the top thirty naval powers in terms of overall capability, behind such obscure countries as Chile and Denmark. Even locally it cannot compete with the Saudi or UAE navies except in the area of submarines.

Its popular enemy is USA and her Western allies, notably Britain. Whilst history is littered with tails of inferior navies beating much larger forces, characterized by defeat of the Spanish Armada, it is hard to contrive a scenario in which a top-five Western navy could be so incompetent as to loose to Iran.

However, Iran does have some interesting equipment and some very potent assets that could be a long standing and very real threat even to big name navies. Normally in a Navy the big units are perceived as offering the greatest threat to an adversery. In Iran’s case this really isn’t the way it is. Ranked in order of offering the greatest threat to a top rated navy, this is Iran’s profile as I see it:
1. Shore based anti-ship missiles, particularly C-802
2. Submarine or small boat laid mines, particularly the EM52 rocket mine.
3. Kilo class conventional submarines using torpedoes, rocket torpedoes and possibly anti-ship missiles.
4. Fast Attack Craft (missile and torpedo boats)
5. Iranian Air Force fighters armed with missiles or guided bombs
6. Everything else including the larger warships

Iranian naval power is divided between the Iranian Navy and the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, more properly called the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution romanised from Farsi as Sepah-e Pasdaran-e Enghelab-e Islami).

The IRGC is a separate branch of the military and has ground, air and sea branches, duplicating the main armed forces branches in function and equipment. The IRGC is differentiated from the regular armed forces by its ideological footing; it is conceptually at least fiercely loyal to the government, or rather the Islamic Revolution. Whilst this may have been true some years ago, the modern IRGC is really just another branch of the military vying for the same pool of recruits.

Externally the IRGC are generally perceived as more cavalier and amateurish than the regular Iranian Navy. This seems to hold true although military competency seems to have increased from the 1980s “tanker war”.

In general the Iranian Navy operates the larger warships whilst the IRGC operates smaller ones and less conventional types. It is the IRGC that is at the front of the popularized “asymmetrical warfare” doctrine. The IRGC is also responsible for most (all?) of the potent shore-based anti-ship missile forces.

For the purposes of this analysis I’ve lumped the Iranian Navy and IRGC equipment together. From an external viewpoint it’s all naval power.

Although the Persian Gulf is the primary area of operation, the Iran faces four seas: Persian Gulf, Caspian Sea, India Ocean and Gulf of Oman (the latter two also being called the Arabian Sea).

The Caspian Sea is very important to Iran because of oil/gas disputes, and Iran has recently bolstered and updated its forces there. A key problem is that the Caspian is landlocked and so larger warships cannot be relocated there at times of heightened tensions. This means that a standing fleet is required although many of the smaller fast attack craft of the IRGC could be transported there by road.

The combat worthy elements of the Caspian Fleet are three missile boats (SINA class, see below) and one missile armed corvette (Hamzeh class, see below). These warships have woefully inadequate air defences and given that their natural adversaries are Russia and former republics, the effectiveness of this fleet is very questionable.



LARGER WARSHIPS (CORVETTES etc)

Units
1 x Mowj Class, Iranian Navy, Iranian built
3 x Alvand Class, Iranian Navy, British built.
1x Hamzeh Class, Iranian Navy, Dutch built
2 x Bayandor Class, Iranian Navy, US built (gun armed, not illustrated)


Alvand Class Corvette
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/8354/alvandsidezy9.jpg
Quantity in Service: 3
Displacement: 1,540 tons full load
Dimensions: L 94.5m, W 11.7m, Dr 3.25m
Crew: 135
Speed: 40kt
Powerplant: 2 x Gas Turbines 23,000 shp plus two diesels 1900hp
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x 114mm Gun, 1 dual 35mm (manned) 3 x (manned) GAM-BO1 20mm cannon, 1 x Limbo ASW mortar (may be inoperable), 2 x triple 12.7mm lightweight torpedoes (Alvand only), 2 x 12.7mm HMGs (manned).

Of 1960s vintage, the remaining Alvand class corvettes have been partially rearmed most crucially with the generally capable C-802 anti-ship missile in place of the obsolete Sea Killer missiles.

Sensor fit and air defences are very poor by contemporary standards and the survivability of these boats in open conflict is seriously open to doubt.



Moudge Class Corvette
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/1989/mowjsidejg8.jpg
Quantity: 1
Displacement: 1,400 tons
Dimensions: L 94m, W 10m, Dr 3.25m (Actual dimensions may be almost exactly as per Alvand)
Crew: ??? (est 100+)
Speed: 28kt
Powerplant: 2 x 10,000hp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x 76mm Gun, 1 CIWS (20mm, indigenous?), 1 x dual AAA (35mm?), 2 x triple 12.7mm lightweight torpedoes
Helicopters: Landing pad only

Also commonly spelt Mowj and Mowaj, this indigenous corvette is essentially a reverse engineered Vosper Mk 5 (Alvand Class, see above). It has several Iranian adaptations, most significantly a purely diesel power pack which results in a significant drop in performance.

Another conspicuous difference is the addition of a helipad on the aft deck, requiring a repositioning of the anti-ship missiles to amidships. Above the bridge is what appears to be a CIWS similar to the US 20mm Phalanx. However at the rear of the ship the AAA appears to be a twin turret, possibly manned 35mm as on the Alvand class. The main gun is a reverse engineered OTO Melara 76mm automatic, an excellent general purpose medium gun albeit somewhat behind the current OTO Melara versions.

Unlike most contemporary corvettes, the Moudge does not feature a radar signature reducing hull form. In all fairness the air defences appear to be a significant improvement over the Alvands, but still someway short of the current norm for warships this size.

The Moudge does not appear to have an ASW sonar.



Hamzeh Corvette
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7920/joshankd7.jpg
Quantity: 1
Displacement: 580 tons
Dimensions: L 52m, W 7.65m, Dr 3.25m
Crew: ??
Speed: 15kt
Powerplant: 2 x 1,300hp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x main gun (20mm?), 2 x 12.7mm manned heavy machine guns

Originally the Government Yacht, the Hamzeh has been modified to carry C-802 anti-ship missiles and light defences. Main role probably remains training. The boat operates in the Caspian Sea alongside the SINA missile boats. Confusingly the first widespread pictures of her post-refit where accompanying an Iranian press article announcing the entry into service of the SINA type “corvette” Joshan, causing some confusion as to this boat’s identity. The pennant number appears to have changed also.

Despite a popular press photo showing an AB-212 helicopter, the Hamzeh does not appear to have a helipad.

[planeman]

FAST ATTACK CRAFT (Missile/Torpedo)

Operational Units:
6 Kaman Class, Iranian Navy, French Built. (10 hulls)
10 Thondar (Houdong) Class, IRGC-N, Chinese built.
2 SINA Class, Iranian Navy, Iranian built (1 hull awaiting fitting out)
10 IPS-18 Tir Class, IRGC-N, North Korean built
10 IPS-16 Peykaap Class, IRGC-N, North Korean built
3+ Taedong-B/C class(s), ????, North Korean built
10 (est) C-14 “China Cat” class, ????, Chinese designed (locally built)


IPS-18 Tir Class Fast Attack Craft (Torpedo)
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/883/stealthboat1amd5.jpg
Quantity in Service: 10
Displacement: 28.16 tons
Dimensions: L 21.12m, W 5.77m, Dr 0.87m H 2.1m
Crew: 6
Endurance: 450nm
Speed: 52kt
Powerplant: 3 x 1200hp
Armament: 2 x 533mm (21”) torpedo tubes, 1 x manned 12.7mm HMG

Of North Korean origin, these innovative small fast attack boats are clearly designed with radar cross-section reduction in mind. A retractable radar mast further enhances their ability to hide amongst the clutter of small fishing boats and otherwise inconspicuous minor radar reflections. The stealthiness does not extend to the infrared spectrum though, with raw exhausts venting out of the rear of the boat. Nor is the only defensive weapons position well thought out in this regard, being a single pedestal mounted 12.7mm heavy machine gun which is externally crewed.

In the right circumstances these boats represent a serious threat, but they have limited sea keeping, endurance and sensors thus limiting their combat potential in a wider conflict.

They are potentially armed with Shkval rocket torpedo (range about 6-8km), or the Iranian YT534W1 modern heavyweight torpedo (estimated range about 20-30km), but quite possibly employ very basic unguided torpedoes.



IPS-16 “Peykaap” Fast Attack Craft (Torpedo)
http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/7352/peykaapjm5.jpg
Quantity in Service: 10
Displacement: 13.75 tons
Dimensions: L 16.3m, W 3.75m, Dr 0.67m H 1.93m
Crew: 3
Endurance: 320nm
Speed: 52kt
Powerplant: 2 x 1200hp
Armament: 2 x 324mm (12.75”) torpedo tubes, small-arms

Delivered from North Korea though often claimed as indigenous, the Paykaap is easily perceived as the little brother to the Tir class (see above) because it has similar origin and overall characteristics but is smaller and lighter armed.

It appears to have stealth characteristics although little attention has been paid to the IR spectrum. The torpedo tubes are mounted on either side of the cabin in a stealthy fairing. The slight bulge on top of the torpedo tubes is probably the compressed air cylinder used to eject the torpedo from the tube, and its position makes it very possible that the torpedo tubes are exactly the same as those on the Taedong-B (illustrated above).

The small size, high speed and low radar signature make this type a potent adversary, but it lacks any meaningful self-defence weaponry should an enemy attempt to engage it. Its lightweight torpedoes are probably inadequate to sink most warships.



Semi-submersible Fast Attack Craft

Quantity in service: 3 (est)
1 x Taedong-B “Kajami”
2 x Taedong-C “Gahjae”


Iran is reported to operate a small number of North Korean designed Taedong-B and Taedong-C semi-submersible attack craft delivered in 2002. At least one such boat, thought to be a Taedong-B “Kajami”, has been publicly displayed during war-games. This appearance substantiates previous media reports but beyond that much remains speculation.

Both types are believed to be equipped with lightweight 324mm (12.75”) torpedoes. Typical torpedoes in this size class have a range of between 6km and 10km. It is extremely unlikely that these boats will be refitted with the larger Shkval rocket torpedo or anti-ship missiles.

It is not clear whether the attack profiles of these boats is to lay in wait submerged and then attack at high speed on the surface, or vice versa to approach at high speed then submerge for the final stage of the attack. The boats can probably dive to about 3m depth using a snort mast which remains on/near the surface. The vessel is probably capable of about 40kts on the surface and about 10kts submerged.

Taedong-B:
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/4343/taedongfg4.jpg

It is reported that the Taedong-C class closely resembles the Peykaap class torpedo boat, and it may be that the Peykaap is itself the submersible boat, although that seems unlikely.

Although these boats offer some novel tactical opportunities for Iran, they are unlikely to be successful if operating against larger warships armed with their own anti-submarine torpedoes, or fast moving targets. The lightweight torpedoes are unlikely to sink even a modest warship although obviously a successful attack could immobilize even a large warship.



“China Cat” Fast Attack Craft (Missile)
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6044/chinacatsp3.jpg
Quantity in Service: 10 +
Displacement: 19 tons
Dimensions: L 13.65m, W 4.8m, Dr 0.7m
Crew: 10
Endurance: 300nm
Speed: 55kt
Powerplant: 2 x 1150hp
Armament: 4 x TL-10 or C-701 Kowsar light anti-ship missiles, 1 x manned cannon (20mm?)

10 C-14 missile armed catamarans were ordered from Chinese manufacturer CSSC in 2002, with local production. At least one vessel has been completed in a non-missile configuration and the type is offered in the Iranian defence industry’s export catalogue. The missile equipped boats appear to differ in detail from the CSSC demonstrators with a different (lesser) sensor fit.

The C-701 missile is of Chinese origin though manufactured under license in Iran. It has a 20-25km range and can be TV or Radar guided, making it ideal for littoral combat.

Many reports indicate that the China Cat may employ the Chinese supplied TL-10 anti-ship missile instead of the C-701 described above. The two missile types are generally similar in overall size and capability, albeit different designs. Both come with a range of seekers and minor sub-versions tailored to specific customer needs.

The boats pack an enormous punch for their size and have apparently superb sea keeping for their size (though by no means ocean going vessels), but their air defence is conspicuously lacking.



SINA Class Missile Boat
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/8751/sinasidetn6.jpg
Quantity: 2 (plus 1 building)
Displacement: 300 tons
Dimensions: L 47m, W 7m, Dr 2m
Crew: ??? (est 31)
Speed: 35kt
Powerplant: 4 x 3,500hp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x 76mm Gun, 1 40mm AAA (crewed), 2 x 12.7mm HMG (crewed)

The first SINA class boat, Peykan, became operational in 2006 followed by a second unit, Joshan. Reverse engineered Combattante-II (Kaman class) boats the only obvious external difference is the main radar.

The 76mm is a locally produced version of the OTO-Melara 76mm gun fitted to the Kamans.


Kaman Class Missile Boat
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/2761/kamanside3dw5.jpg
Quantity in service: 6 (est). (10 total hulls still available)
Displacement: 275-300 tons
Dimensions: L 47m, W 7m, Dr 2m
Crew: 31
Speed: 36kt
Powerplant: 4 x 3,500hp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x 76mm Gun, 1 40mm AAA (crewed), 2 x 12.7mm HMG (crewed).

Delivered from France and previously equipped with US supplied Harpoon missiles, these boats were re-armed with the Chinese C-802 missile in the late 1990s. 10 hulls remain but only 6 are thought to be operational. One has been used for tests, being at one time equipped with Standard SM-1 missiles.



Thondar Class Missile Boat
http://i13.tinypic.com/67wykqu.jpg
Quantity in service: 10
Displacement: 205 tons
Dimensions: L 33.6m, W 7.6m, Dr 2.7m
Crew: 28
Speed: 35kt
Powerplant: 3 x 8,000bhp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x twin 30mm AAA, 1 x twin 23mm AAA (crewed)

Often referred to by their Chinese name, Houdong class, these boats were delivered from China in the mid 1990s, and are operated by the IRGC-N.

[planeman]

SUBMARINES

Operational Units:
3 x Kilo Class SSK, Iranian Navy, Russian built (not illustrated)
3 x Ghadir class SSC, Iranian Navy (?), Iranian built
1 x Nahong class SSM, Iranian Navy (?), Iranian built
1 x Al Sabehat 15 SDV, Iranian Navy (?), Iranian built
?? x ????"Attack Submersible-X"???? SSM, Iranian built


Ghadir Class Midget Submarine
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/4538/ghadirul6.jpg
Quantity in Service: 3
Dimensions: L 29m, W 2.75m
Displacement : 120 tons dived
Crew: ?
Endurance: ?
Speed (est): 11kts surfaced, 8kts submerged
Powerplant: Diesel-electric
Armament: 2 x 533mm (21”) torpedo tubes with 2~4 torpedoes, Skhval rocket torpedoes or 4~8 mines. Possibly submarine launched anti-ship missiles but unsubstantiated.

Of North Korean design, the IS-120 Ghadir (Qadir) submarine closely resembles the North Korean “P-4 Class”. One noteworthy feature is that the Ghadir appears to have conventional cruciform tail fins with conventional propeller instead of the North Korean sub’s unconventional control plane arrangement and co-axel twin propeller. Its mast and unusual snorkel (which folds backwards along the hull when not in use) is almost identical however. Estimates of the size of this submarine vary greatly.

These boats are credible littoral submarines well suited to mine laying, infiltration/Special Forces operation and limited anti-surface warfare. Their torpedo tubes could conceivably carry the Shkval rocket torpedo or even submarine launched anti-ship missiles which Iran reportedly has. But their sensor fit is almost certainly basic by contemporary standards limiting their potential against other subs and advanced warships. There is also no reason to suppose that they are particularly quiet and the shallow water of the Gulf is likely to leave them exposed to anti-submarine warfare.



Nahong Class midget submarine
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/7533/nahong1er6.jpg

Quantity in service: 1

A small midget submarine suited to mine laying and special operations with possible limited anti-ship strike capability. Armament is likely to consist of mines carried externally although it is possible that 533mm torpedoes could also be carried in this manner as is the case with similar submarines in WW2.

Mines could include the potent Chinese designed EM52 fast rising rocket mine which can be laid in deep water, attacking its target by firing a rocket up into the underbelly of the ship, so fast that evasive action is unlikely. The EM52’s rocket is unguided and is less sophisticated than some equivalent top-end naval mines, but it does offer Iran a serious threat to enemy shipping.

Believed to be operational in Caspian sea but not verified.


”Al Sabehat 15” Swimmer Delivery Vehicle (Submersible)
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1757/minisdvsf8.jpg

Quantity in service: 3(?)
Length: 8m
Crew: 2 + up to 7 additional divers
Weapons: up to 17 Limpet mines

A small “chariot” design typical of special forces insertion vehicles, the type is only suitable for coastal operations.

Can be launched from a ship or under-slung from a large helicopter (Sea King, Mi-8 Hip or Chinook).

I have identified at least three minor variations on this type by close examination of the few available photos.

????"Attack Submersible-X"????
http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/2244/sdv2gk1.jpg
Quantity in Service: ? 1
Dimensions: L 7m
Weight: (est) 3 tons (armed)
Crew: 2
Weapons: 21" (533mm) heavyweight torpedo, possibly type YT534W1

Recently paraded, this two man "wet sub" has a notch out of the bottom suggesting that it is designed to carry a single heavyweight torpedo semi-recessed. The two crew members use frogman apparatus. The clear nosecone appears to be for the driver to see where they are going when underwater, presumably crouched inside the hull. The small forward control planes are probably hand operated by the driver.

An interesting craft, it is not clear how the crew aim the torpedo with any degree of accuracy except at very short ranges.



BOGHAMMARS

Small craft, often based on civilian speed boats. Lightly armed with machine guns, MRLS, AAA, RPG or mines.

Example:

MIG-G-0900 (Boghammar)
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/815/migg0900af7.jpg
Quantity: 20
Displacement: 6.4 tons
Dimensions: L 9.3m, W 3.45m, Dr 0.6m
Crew: 3
Endurance: ??
Speed: 25kt+
Powerplant: 2 x 1260hp
Armament: Typically 1 x 12.7mm HMG and 1x12 107mm rocket launcher (MRLS).

Typically of locally produced small boats that have been adapted for warfare, often being labeled as “Boghammars”. The MIG-G-0900 is reportedly a catamaran, and comes in several variants including a mini-passenger ferry. The military/paramilitary version is typically equipped with a 107mm MRLS.

The MRLS is probably the Iranian produce “Haseb”, a derivative of the Chinese designed Type-73 which has an effective range of 8.5km and has a HE-Fragmentation warheads. The rocket weighs 18.8kg rocket including the 8.3kg TNT warhead (or 6.4kg blast –fragmentation warhead), which produces a 12.5m blast radius. A 12 round salvo is fired in 8 seconds. It is not known whether the weapons mount is gyrostabilised for accuracy – if not accuracy would likely be appalling.

Alternative armaments include RPG-7 rocket propelled grenades or 106mm recoilless rifle.

These boats have an advantage in their small size and relative similarity to civilian types allowing them to hide among legitimate civilian fishing fleets. However their weapons are too light to be a serious concern to military vessels.

[planeman]

SHORE BATTERIES (Anti-Ship Missile)

Operational Units:
100+ C-802/C-802A Noor
100+ HY-2 “Silkworm”
?? C-701T/C-701R “Kosar”
?? TL-10 “Kosar” (possibly only ship launched units)
?? Ra’ad, Iranian designed

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/8748/missilesfa0.png

C-802/C802A Noor
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3338/c802sidecamoxo8.jpg
Range: 120-180km
Maximum number of missiles per launch vehicle: 3
Vehicle: Truck

Iran deploys C-802s using a Chinese designed truck launcher with up to three missile boxes which are fired over the left side of the trailer. A command shelter is mounted forward of the missile turntable. The truck itself may be locally sourced, possible an Iveco.

The C-802 family is the most potent of Iran’s anti-ship missiles being credited with generally good anti-jamming capabilities and high hit probability.

Third party targeting and mid-course update is required to hit targets over about 60km away.


”Kosar”

Also romanised “Kowsar”, this name refers to several short ranged anti-ship missile types of Chinese origin that Iran is producing. Clearly Iran is producing versions of both the C-701 and TL-10 families of missiles. Both types come in both TV and Radar seeker versions, with Infrared seekers rumored.

Both have generally similar capabilities although the C-701 is longer ranged and its radar version, unlike the TL-10 radar version, can accept post-launch re-targeting.

The TL-10 is thought to be employed on the China Cat missile boats whereas the C-701 has been showcased as a shore battery system in recent wargames. Both families are capable of shore, ship, helicopter and jet launch.
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/2527/c701vtl10abj9.jpg

C-701R quad launcher mounted on Iveco truck:
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/8777/c701sidekt4.jpg


Ra’ad
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/7599/raadsidepa4.jpg
Range: 360km
Maximum number of missiles per launch vehicle: 1
Vehicle: Tracked

Developed from the HY-2 “Silkworm”, the Ra’ad (Thunder) is Iran’s first truly indigenous anti-ship missile in the minds of many observers’. Although China has developed turbojet versions of the HY-2 family, this missile does not resemble them.

It is launched from an HY-2 launcher suggesting backwards compatibility with the obsolete HY-2. The turreted launcher in question is identical to North Korean ones.

Comparison of Ra’ad (bottom) with HY-2:
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/7962/hy2vraadnb4.jpg

The missile is claimed to have a 360km range which, given its huge fuel capacity, seems reasonable. Some estimates suggest that it is mildly supersonic but I think that’s unlikely. Another observation is that the missile is not radar stealthy (not that many are) – just pre-empting the claims that some might make. The large radome suggests an active-radar seeker.


HY-2 “Silkworm”
http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/4636/silkwormside1gz7.jpg
Range: 95km
Maximum number of missiles per launch launcher: 1
Vehicle: Truck or trailer, possibly some tracked launchers

An old missile supplied by China and subsequently locally produce, the HY-2 is still in widespread service with the IRCG, in both trailer and truck mounted launchers. Despite the useful range and huge warhead, the HY-2 is relatively slow and high flying making it easier to see and shoot down.

Locally designed truck launcher:
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/3223/silkwormtruck1zd9.jpg

[planeman]

AIRBORNE ANTI-SHIP CAPABILITY

Air Force (IRIAF)
32 x Su-24 Fencer, strike bomber, Russia

35 x F-4D/E Phantom-II, multi-role fighter, USA
10 x Mirage F-1, ground attack fighter, France (ex-Iraqi)

Iranian Navy
10~13 x SH-3D Sea King, helicopter, USA (28 delivered)
?? x Mil Mi-17 Hip (Naval), helicopter, Russia

12 x AB212, helicopter, Italy
3-5 P-3C Orion, maritime patrol aircraft, USA


Su-24 Fencer / Noor
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/2373/fencernoorzs0.jpg
Quantity in service: about 30. Not all may be upgraded to accept the Noor anti-ship missile
Missile: Possibly C-801K, or maybe a later version based on C-802.
Substantiation: Widely reported since mid-late 1990s, hard proof of capability remains elusive.

The Fencer is a very capable strike jet with credible avionics, well suited to maritime strike. If reports that it is operational with Noor anti-ship missiles are true then this represents are relatively potent capability.


Mil Mi-17 ‘Hip’ / Noor
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/6553/mi17noorxt9.jpg
Quantity in service: ?
Missile: C-802 Noor

At least one test launch has been publicized, but operational status unclear. The Noor missile fitted to the Mi-17 is a modification of the ground launched version normally fired from a box launcher. This means that the launch booster and the pop-out folding fins are retained. An advantage of retaining the launch booster is slightly longer range and the ability to fire the missile at very slow speed or hover, but the down side is a rather heavy missile that must exist the helicopter very calmly to ensure that the fins don’t hit the fuselage or pylons when they pop-out split seconds after launch.



SH-3D Sea King / Sea Killer (Fajr-e-Darya)
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/589/sh3dhc6.jpg
Type: Light short range anti-ship missile, helicopter launched
Range: Approx 20km
Guidance: Electro-optical
Speed: Mach 0.8

The Italian designed Sea Killer anti-ship missile was supplied to Iran with the Vosper Mk5 corvettes but was withdrawn from service in the early 1990s (replaced by C-802). However the type resurfaced in the late 1990s as the indigenous Fajr-e Darya programme, reborn as a helicopter launched missile. The programme is thought to have benefited from Chinese assistance, sometimes described by the Chinese designation FL-6. Although the missile has been paraded publicly in recent years, and seen mounted on Iranian Navy SH-3D Sea King helicopters, it seems to have been eclipsed by the Chinese C-701 and TL-10 missile types (see Kosar above).

The missile closely resembles the Italian Marte Mk2 missile because they are both derived from the Sea Killer. The European missile uses an active radar seeker and is generally more capable.

[bigstick61]

Is there any info on their three destroyers, one Battle-class and two Sumner-class? While in commission, these ships do not appear to be operational and have not put to sea in some time, but I'm curious as to their armament.

[tphuang]

AIRBORNE ANTI-SHIP CAPABILITY

Air Force (IRIAF)
32 x Su-24 Fencer, strike bomber, Russia

35 x F-4D/E Phantom-II, multi-role fighter, USA
10 x Mirage F-1, ground attack fighter, France (ex-Iraqi)

Iranian Navy
10~13 x SH-3D Sea King, helicopter, USA (28 delivered)
?? x Mil Mi-17 Hip (Naval), helicopter, Russia

12 x AB212, helicopter, Italy
3-5 P-3C Orion, maritime patrol aircraft, USA


Su-24 Fencer / Noor
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/2373/fencernoorzs0.jpg
Quantity in service: about 30. Not all may be upgraded to accept the Noor anti-ship missile
Missile: Possibly C-801K, or maybe a later version based on C-802.
Substantiation: Widely reported since mid-late 1990s, hard proof of capability remains elusive.

The Fencer is a very capable strike jet with credible avionics, well suited to maritime strike. If reports that it is operational with Noor anti-ship missiles are true then this represents are relatively potent capability.


Mil Mi-17 ‘Hip’ / Noor
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/6553/mi17noorxt9.jpg
Quantity in service: ?
Missile: C-802 Noor

At least one test launch has been publicized, but operational status unclear. The Noor missile fitted to the Mi-17 is a modification of the ground launched version normally fired from a box launcher. This means that the launch booster and the pop-out folding fins are retained. An advantage of retaining the launch booster is slightly longer range and the ability to fire the missile at very slow speed or hover, but the down side is a rather heavy missile that must exist the helicopter very calmly to ensure that the fins don’t hit the fuselage or pylons when they pop-out split seconds after launch.



SH-3D Sea King / Sea Killer (Fajr-e-Darya)
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/589/sh3dhc6.jpg
Type: Light short range anti-ship missile, helicopter launched
Range: Approx 20km
Guidance: Electro-optical
Speed: Mach 0.8

The Italian designed Sea Killer anti-ship missile was supplied to Iran with the Vosper Mk5 corvettes but was withdrawn from service in the early 1990s (replaced by C-802). However the type resurfaced in the late 1990s as the indigenous Fajr-e Darya programme, reborn as a helicopter launched missile. The programme is thought to have benefited from Chinese assistance, sometimes described by the Chinese designation FL-6. Although the missile has been paraded publicly in recent years, and seen mounted on Iranian Navy SH-3D Sea King helicopters, it seems to have been eclipsed by the Chinese C-701 and TL-10 missile types (see Kosar above).

The missile closely resembles the Italian Marte Mk2 missile because they are both derived from the Sea Killer. The European missile uses an active radar seeker and is generally more capable.

I read that all of these upgrade programs that allowed Iranian aerial assets to fire Chinese missiles were done by China actually. I also remember reading somewhere that F-14 were even upgraded by the Chinese to allow Chinese missiles to be fired. But I could be totally wrong here.

[Tasman]

Is there any info on their three destroyers, one Battle-class and two Sumner-class? While in commission, these ships do not appear to be operational and have not put to sea in some time, but I'm curious as to their armament.

Although reported by Wikipedia to still be in existence (albeit non active) into the 1990s these ships have not been officially listed for some time. They are not even mentioned in the 2004/05 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships.

The Battle class destroyer Damavand (ex HMS Sluys) was last reported to still have her original 4.5" Mk4 guns but Russian SAMs, along with updated radar and fire control sytems.

Cheers

[The_Zergling]

Somewhat related:

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/missiles/Iran_says_its_missiles_will_never_target_Europe160 012178.php

TEHRAN: Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said Tuesday that Europeans will "never" become the target of Iranian missiles, after claims by the US that Iran poses a ballistic missile threat to Europe.

"Europe is not and never will be the target of Iranian missiles. We have strong trade ties with the Europeans," Larijani was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency

...

The United States wants to deploy elements of its anti-missile defence system in the Czech Republic and Poland, despite the strong objections of Russia.

Washington says the system is designed to defend against a missile attack from "rogue" states such as Iran.

But Moscow describes the planned missile shield as an aggressive step close to Russia's borders that could reignite an arms race.

Larijani on Sunday said Iranian missiles were incapable of reaching Europe and described the US claims as the "joke of the year".

[Violet Oboe]

So Ra'ad is a iranian produced indigenous version of the north korean KD-1 ASM? (...possibly co-developed with northkorean experts and adapted for the ´Gulf theater´?)

Almost all articles and books in the public realm are maintaining for years now that China transferred HY-1 and later also HY-2 technology to Iran and helped even set up an adequate production facility. Indeed your interesting description of the NK-type Ra'ad launching vehicle is news for me dear Planeman and possibly the Iranian's have merged technology from both NK and China. :coffee:

Best regards Violet Oboe

[planeman]

So Ra'ad is a iranian produced indigenous version of the north korean KD-1 ASM? (...possibly co-developed with northkorean experts and adapted for the ´Gulf theater´?)
No hard evidence but that's mine and some other people's suspicion. Of course Iran claims everything as indiginous so we can hardly expect an answer any time soon.

[Violet Oboe]

During the past few days (middle east newsline (menl) was probably the primary source) several ´experts´ made statements that the Bush admistration has basically called off a miltary strike against Iran for the time being (...regarding that Bush as a´lame duck´has only 18 months in power left with an upcoming election year ahead and that Tehran is making rapid progress in nuclear matters the ´window of opportunity´may have indeed closed forever!). Interestingly the ´sources´ also maintain that Israel was also told in an unequivocal style: "We don't do it, so do not dare to try it alone!" (VP Dick Cheney was not amused after hearing about this...:D )

Whatever the facts behind this important decision may have been the iranian naval forces were probably only a minor factor in this calculation. Iran would have not succeeded in blocking the Hormuz straits for any significant period of time with this kind of force unless the ´people in the know´ were concerned about some ´ugly things´ better being left ´undiscovered´ for the public.:D

[Costas 240GD]

C-701R quad launcher mounted on Iveco truck:
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/8777/c701sidekt4.jpg

Excellent artwork, Planeman!
One question only: Are you sure that this is indeed an IVECO? Looks more like a Mercedes-Benz to me (Atego or something).

[planeman]

You might be right but Iranian military does use a fair few IVECO trucks.

[adeptitus]

Kudos for planeman for his great posts!

One comment... on post #1 you listed "triple 12.7mm lightweight torpedoes". I think this is a typo?

[zraver]

During the past few days (middle east newsline (menl) was probably the primary source) several ´experts´ made statements that the Bush admistration has basically called off a miltary strike against Iran for the time being (...regarding that Bush as a´lame duck´has only 18 months in power left with an upcoming election year ahead and that Tehran is making rapid progress in nuclear matters the ´window of opportunity´may have indeed closed forever!). Interestingly the ´sources´ also maintain that Israel was also told in an unequivocal style: "We don't do it, so do not dare to try it alone!" (VP Dick Cheney was not amused after hearing about this...:D )

Whatever the facts behind this important decision may have been the iranian naval forces were probably only a minor factor in this calculation. Iran would have not succeeded in blocking the Hormuz straits for any significant period of time with this kind of force unless the ´people in the know´ were concerned about some ´ugly things´ better being left ´undiscovered´ for the public.:D

It seems every other day a new news report is released one time saying war is imminent, the next that a crisis has been averted. Politicians are shuttling back and forth between various capitols, and the US or was it the EU has proposed some new measure of tough sounding but utterly worthless diplospeak. The world has been watching the Iranian nuclear emergency for a couple of years now. 1 part skepticism, 1 part dread, and 1 part morbid curiosity as two of the planets biggest egos collide. But what if the hawks win and we actually plunge into war? What will each side try and do to win the war it thinks it will fight?
Many people seem to think, that the modus operandi of the US in any war with Iran would be to send in the bombers, smash the nuclear facilities and fly home: war over. This is wishful thinking by a war weary and woefully under-informed public. While the nuclear question will probably be the issue that drives us over the brink. The real threat is to the tankers and the worlds energy supply. The reactors and enrichment sites are decidedly 2nd tier targets even if hit early for propaganda reasons. Any US strike will instead concentrate on clearing the Iranian military presence from the tanker lanes as the first step to victory. It will also be a sustained round-the-clock effort that will take warfare into the next frontier of war fighting.

US Actions

1- Force protection for the small patrol boats and oil platform crews operating in Iraq so close to Iran.

The recent seizure of the RN personnel sent a very clear message: mess with us and you'll see your sons and daughters on Al Jazzera

2- Oil tanker protection

Convoy systems under heavy guard is the best answer, but the first lonely hours of a shooting war would have a huge amount of tankers just sitting there waiting to be picked off by Iran. Probably the best response is USN and Gulf State helicopters and fixed wing aircraft they have the speed and capability to sink the Iranian boats and for the most part are immune to counter fire. Of course US subs would have to hunt the Kilo's as target number #1.

3- Oil/Gas platform protection.

The biggest items to be protected are Qatar’s gas facilities and Iraq's oil platforms one for the sheer destructive potential if a fully loaded LNG bulk carrier went boom. The second (Iraq) has to be successfully defended for political reasons. Keeping Iraq’s two facilities in play so close to Iran would be a slap in the face. Iran can probably take them with missiles, but the environmental risk there hurts Iran economically and politically.

4- Fleet protection

If the US is going to be the one pulling the trigger (and it should if it wants to win) it will pull its surface combatants into 3 distinct groups based on Missions. The Carriers will be out of the Gulf and into deep water where they can maneuver freely and hide in the vast blue Indian Ocean. Some of the Aegis class and type ships will be pulled close to the shipping platforms and Hi-Val targets to supplement Patriot Block III systems as ABM/ACM back stop. The third group including a few aegis vessels and a few more dedicated surface combatants as a convoy escort force. A fourth group will be USN/RN submarines that will be hunting Iran’s subs and conducting cruise missile strikes. A general 5th group will be the Gulf States who initially will act to defend their national waters and later aid in convoy escort to safeguard their national economies.

5- Ground Force protection

Any strike on Iran will probably see its most immediate reaction via the Mahdi Army. However with even as little as 3 hours warning US and UK troops can bunker up and settle in for a siege while fighter bombers and attack helicopters back up mechanized columns setting out to give battle (Think Hue 1968)

Points 6-13 are not defensive but offensive oriented.

6 Missile guidance

Iran has a few islands and some drilling/shipping platforms that have to be taken out "ad initio" The islands will probably require a steady blanket of bomb trucks over the parts of the islands facing the convoy routes. The platforms can probably be taken out by HARM missiles and or commando operations. These strikes are crucial to deny Iran is best systems for course correction of it's anti-shipping missiles.

7 Sub hunting,

In a shooting war, no one will rest easy until Iran's submarines- especially its three Kilo's are sitting on the bottom of the Persian gulf as dead as the Shah in his grave. This mission is best done by USN/RN attack subs. The Kilo's have the best chance to sink a tanker, and those tankers will be the center of gravity.

8 Air denial

8a
If the US initiates a war, stealth bomber and cruise missile attacks will probably hit local airfields to atritt and delay the arrival of Iranian strike craft and fighters to give the US and its allies a chance to clear the war zone of as much shipping as possible

8b
Depth, US and Saudi F-15 backed by AWAC's can create a nearly Iranian proof bubble. Iran might challenge it initially in order to cover strike craft, but the Iranian Air Force isn't big enough or advanced enough to sustain any level of effort vs. a 1st rate western air force.

8c
Close, USN FA/-18's armed for a dual mission can cover the tankers and with a decent a2a armament can tackle any strike craft the leak through.
What all of this does is create an environment where Iranian airpower can not operate in large numbers or for very long. Iran faces a double trouble situation- pull enough fighters to cover the maritime strike craft and the reactors and political leadership are uncovered. Keep planes over the nuclear facilities and clerics and the maritime strike craft are doomed.

9- missile/stealth strikes

Backed by the most sophisticated electronics intelligence technologies, human intelligence assets and a real love for infrastructure take down, the areas near Bandar Abbas with any possible military value will be hit hard by Tomahawk cruise missiles and stealth craft. Major infiltration routes and assembly areas near the Iraqi border as well as Pasadran bases will also be hit.

10- Infowar

In any war vs. Iran look for the US to go cyber on their ass. Not only will the US continue its usual practice of targeting telephone exchanges and satellite relays, but she will also conduct an internet attack, C4SRI spoofing and full spectrum jamming of the combat zones aimed at taking down Iran's entire information grid. Iran will actually help this by having its senior leadership go into hiding. They haven't forgotten the 2000 pound laser guided bombs we sent after Saddam personally, or President Bush’s very public reversal of Ford’s 1976 Presidential Directive prohibiting the targeting of enemy leadership. This enforced scattering of the political and military leadership will add friction and build delays into Iran's response.

11- Nuclear option

If war breaks out Iran faces a hell of a choice, scram the reactors as a matter of national survival because of the risk of fallout if the US hits hot reactors. Or shut them down and risk assured attack as soon as the reactors are cool. They are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. The US might not strike near a hot reactor, but they again they or Israel just might.

12- Political

12a
I don't think Britain will be a visible combatant from the beginning. Their VETO can be used to block China and Russia in the UNSC as long as they don't fight they can keep the US's hands free long enough to achieve the initial favorable military atmosphere the US needs to go to a round the clock campaign. This move would also allow Britain to exact a very punishing revenge for the seizure of its sailors.

12b
The Gulf States will back the US out of sheer national survival. They might not want war, but once the shooting start and their economies are on the line they will be forced by necessity to aid the coalition. If Iran can block the straights of Hormuz and keep it blocked they and the world's economy chokes to death.

12c
The US will not hold any punches, the war has to be over and the straits re-opened before the last of the oil already in transit gets unloaded. With Bush a very reckless president if Iran manages to hang on I would not put it past Bush or Cheney to push for a tactical nuclear strike(s) to neutralize the missile firing sites.

13 Mine warfare

I saved the worst for last, Iran has a huge inventory of mines and numerous means of at least small scale delivery. Using older mines in 1987 Iran and Iraq both showed how vulnerable the super tankers were. Even US warships occasionally fell prey to the floating killers. Any US drift towards war will need to be accompanied by a massive increase in anti-mine capability. This very focused surge could well tip the Iranians off and blow any pretext of surprise. However not having the right assets on hand could block the Persian Gulf and place the world into an economic tailspin.

Iran's Responses.

IR1- Mahdi surge in Iraq,

Iran undoubtedly intends for its militia allies to go berserk if she is attacked in an attempt to tie up however much airpower they can and to simply inflict losses on US/UK troops. This is the easiest, surest, and cheapest way to get some measure of revenge on the US.

IR2- Prisoners

The raids on British sailors show that Iran still thinks in terms of the propaganda value that POW's offer vs. western public opinion. Even if they are wrong, I think they will try to snatch as many coalition troops as possible.

IR3- Missiles

I am not talking anti-ship missiles here, but surface to surface. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia have ballistic missiles aimed at each other, and Iran has mustard gas. While the block III Patriot/Aegis combo should provide a great deal of protection against ballistic attack. The outside chance that a WMD armed missile could leak through is of grave concern. Much more problematical would be a WMD armed missile hitting Israel. If Iran pops the WMD genie things go down hill fast. Vs the US under Bush that’s like bringing a dull knife to a tank duel.

IR4- Terror Attacks

Lets not kid ourselves, Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism with contacts, cells, and assets worldwide. Iran is also not stupid, even if it is rash, she has undoubtedly has planned for war with the US. Iran most likely has sleeper cells set to cause as much damage as possible for revenge and to sow confusion and fear. Iran knows if the US takes the gloves off her dreams of power are over so she has nothing to lose. Plus a war would be the perfect cover to go after the House of Saud and the pro-American ministers in Iraq. I also expect a global call to jihad, but this is just typical fare in these situations.

IR5- Cyber Attacks

Two can play the cyber game, Iran may not have the resources to take down the US, but she can cost the west billions if she uses her resources properly by attacking linchpin networks. Even a simple denial of service attack on Wall Street could cost the US a great deal of money. With the undeniable rise of the net, net warfare is the next frontier. It is already being used for propaganda and communication and just like the early aero plane the next step is offensive use.

IR6- Super Notes

The new US $100 are supposed to be counterfeit proof, but so where the old ones. If Iran has re-mastered the devious art of Supernote making she could launch a devastating attack on the world’s principle reserve currency which is already weaker than ever.

IR7- Dead Babies

Weather or not a US bomb goes off course and hits a school or the maternity ward of a charity hospital; we will be told that is what has happened. If Iran can create enough feelings of revulsion about the effects of US bombing in the Western news media she might be able to get her friends in the UN to act. It's a slim chance that the US will listen, at least initially but Iran has to try. If the bombs keep falling Iran looses in the end.

IR8- Naval Combat,

IR8a surface
Iran has a complex and confusing force structure split between the Navy and the Pasadran. However as both act in a maritime I role I will simply use the term navy. Iran’s surface combatant capability is limited at best. Even its most numerous and effective craft are really set up for shooting war vs. modern warships. Instead their goal seems to be a surge into the Gulf to cause as much damage as possible by blitzing the super tankers. Most Iranian anti-ship missiles and torpedoes have limited effectiveness vs. warships, but 1987 proved that even light weapons can easily cripple a loaded super tanker.

IR8b shore based anti-ship missiles
Iran has a large fleet of truck mounted light and medium anti-ship missiles and a few batteries of larger and older Chinese weapons like the HY-2 Silkworm. Islands like Abu Musa, and Greater and Lesser Tunb Islands provide unsinkable missile boats. Iran is obviously banking that these sites can fire the missiles and the off shore platforms can guide them.

IR8c mines
Iran has a large inventory of mines, these pose a huge risk to the international tanker fleets supply the worlds energy needs. In fact mines might be Iran’s most effective means of naval combat.

IR8d submarines
Iran has three very capable Kilo class SSK diesel electric submarines. If these hunters can get into the shipping channels undetected they can cause the world a huge amount of grief. Although they have limited range they are the one seaborne asset Iran has that can realistically be expected to survive outside the confined waters of the Persian Gulf. This freedom of action could make them hard to kill in the first few critical hours when the tankers would be the most vulnerable.


IR9- Air Combat

On first glance Iran’s SU-24 and SU-25 craft give them a credible air strike capability. However once one factors US air power and information dominance into the equation the conclusion is that the threat from the air is probably the least dangerous part of Iran’s arsenal. The only real chance of success for Iran’s strike craft would require the Iranian military being the one initiating hostilities. In an environment blanketed by Eagles, Hornets and AWAC’s the Sukhios would be targets.

IR10 oil blockade

Iran lives for oil and lives off imported gasoline however in a war her goal will be to spike world wide prices upwards as much as possible. Her whole defensive posture is not so much to win a war but to insure that it is so expensive to the west that it never gets fought. However if it does get fought then Iran wants prices headed upwards as fast as possible in order to compel the west to reign in the US and it’s allies.

Signs of war,

So when will the war start, will it start? I do not know but there are a couple of things that can be tracked to give indications that hostilities are imminent. Look for the Persian Gulf to be devoid of carriers as the USN pulls its chestnuts out of the fire. Also look for more minesweepers and anti-mine assets being in the area. These things are most easily achieved during a change of station which can also cover the surge in escorts that will be needed. In a strange twist of fate neither side can afford a long war so one side will have to cry uncle if the shooting starts. Militarily the US has a huge edge, and if Bush hadn’t squandered US leadership with continuing folly of Iraq the US would also have the moral and economic edge to keep the world in line for a couple of weeks to prosecute its war. Now however the US has enough adversaries who will be negatively impacted by an oil war that it might well find itself subject to UN Resolutions.

[bigstick61]

Well, I think that if Iran tries anything they will be defeated just like they were last time, even if they come out in full force. I don't believe they could hold or block the strait for even a full day. I think the lessons learned during Operation Earnest will and Operation Praying Mantis will be utilized in the fight against Iran and in the escorting/protection of convoys. US warships also now carry more machine guns than they used to; I've counted alot of tripod mounts on some of the OHPs, they pretty much all have 25mm guns, and they also have the new ICM rounds for the 5 inchers which are optimal for use against small craft, along with the new block of CIWS, and standard HC and HE projectiles.

[zraver]

I revised my article for completeness.

Well, I think that if Iran tries anything they will be defeated just like they were last time

It depends on who intiates the conflict. If iran feels that a US strike is iminent and nothign can be dien to head it off she will act first probslby with mines and an attmept to get Her Kilos and aircraft out of the shooting barrel. If the first shot is a laser guide dbomb form a B-2 Iran is in a world of hurt but can still do some real damage with evne the tiniest bit of luck. The threat isn't to the warships, but to the tankers and the worlds economy.

[bigstick61]

Well, during Operation Earnest Will, the Tankers faired pretty well, and the flow of oil continued. I think the same could be accomplished again. I think there would be some idications that we could take note of that there would be such an effort on their part.

[alwaysfresh]

Iranian Submarines = US coastline...

Iranian Submarines should be as secretly as possible sent to as close as possible to the US coastline. Using any means necessary (converting some cargo ships or something into a secret supply ships for the submarines). In the chance that a war breaks out, these submarines will then move into firing range of cities of the US and unleash their missiles.

Each submarine firing on two cities that would be potentially 6 cities targeted. This I think will end the war by public unleash on the government in the US, forcing to end the war.

Iranian Submarines in the shipping lines ok they might destroy some ships or they might be destroyed, as long as the US public does not notice it will not really affect the war... Look at Iraq.

[Roger604]

I enjoyed reading your post, zraver. I'm surprised you know so much about the geography around the Persian Gulf.

But I think you totally discount many things:

1) It looks like you expect a sustained bombing campaign to reduce the infrastructure around the entire country. I don't think you can sustain a high tempo bombing for that long. The US would need to replenish its supplies several times before you can achieve your objectives.

- Iran has strategic depth and huge mountain ranges
- Iran is more than 3x the size of Iraq
- Unlike Iraq, Iran has not suffered attrition of its military due to sanctions
- Unlike Afghanistan, Iran is a modern middle eastern country with a lot of modern infrastructure
- Iran is far far larger than Serbia, the only state the US has actually beaten in the kind of pure aerial bombing war you describe

Given the mammoth task at hand, you don't haven't enough cruise missiles to do the job by itself. (Not by far.) Your stealth bomber can't generate enough sorties to put a dent in the Iranian infrastructure. You'll need to establish aerial superiority first, and then call in the B-52's to have that kind of firepower, and even then I expect it would take MONTHS!

I expect the Iranians to use the strategic depth of their country to reconstitute their infrastructure even while the US thinks it has finished one area and moved onto the next. You just have to stash things in the mountains, and Iran has a lot of them. Not to mention they probably have tons of fortified and entrenched facilities from the decades of hostility against Saddam Hussein.

The above assumes that the Iranian military is a roll-over.

2) You don't say it, but it looks like the ultimate goal is the removal of the regime, like in Afghanistan. Russia and China are simply not going to allow Iran to do down. Simple as that. And the two will supply enough arms to Iran to fend off the United States.

I would not be surprised if the US faces some S-300's. Ouch! Add to that Buk-1M and Tor M-1. Double Ouch! Add to that tons of cheap Chinese MANPADS. Tripe ouch! Add to that Russian and Chinese made multi-static radars for detection, tracking and engagement of stealth aircraft. Quadruple ouch!!

The main threat to the US will definite not come from the Iranian Air Force, it would be the great numbers of ground based SAM's, and an integrated layer air defense network -- with Russia / China supplied anti-stealth capabilities.

Russia and China would surely view this as a great opportunity to test out their anti-stealth equipment. This would get very ugly for the US. Expect B-2's and possibly F-22's to be shot down.

If tac-nukes are involved, European support will also be disappear.

3) You just assume missile defense works. I don't think it does. History has shown it doesn't work. PAC-3 is not going to work against ballistic missiles. Aegis cruisers are not going to work against ballistic missiles. Just like previous efforts, missile defense will be futile when defense firm brochures turn out to be a pile of lies in real life.

Russia and China will supply Iran with sophisticated mobile ballistic missiles like the Iskandar-E. And Russia can constantly resupply Iran through the Caspian Sea.

In the event of an an attack on Iran, ballistic missiles will rain down on Tel Aviv. They will be loaded with all sorts of nasty things -- biological, chemical and radiological weapons. Maybe even a crude nuclear warhead. At least tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Israelis will die.

US bases in the region will come under fire too by all sorts of nasty things.


I don't doubt that the US will launch a strike on Iran. I just doubt they would succeed.

[zraver]

Roger,

You don't need to take down Iran's entire infastructure. Total take down is just near the coastline around the straits of Hormuz, Bandar Abbas, and a few other areas where any Iranian repsonce has to be generated from. Strategic depth is only useful vs an Invasion which is sometig that is not in the cards.

Look at it this way, you want the piece of cake that says HA out of HAPPY BIRTDAY, you wont start a tthe edge an eat your way in. Instead you'll use a cake knife and spatula to cut out just the piece you want. Iran faces the problem of being a cake, the US doesn't have to attack the entire country just those parts of it that the US wants as to attack.

As for ballistic missile defense it does work and has been proven to work. The big problem with the Pac 1's in ODS was a timing gaff that had many of the missiles missing thier mark. Yet even then most were intercpeted and forced to the eath short of thier targets. As long as the warheads downt hit the Hi-Val targets like C4SRI facilites of the oil/gas platforms its a successfull intercept.

Iran might or might not be able to reach Israel yet, that debate is still on going and vice versa. However hitting Israel who has its own ABM system as well as what ever batteries the US puts in the missiles flight path is harder than a shorter shot across the gulf, becuase there is more time for intercept and a higher trajectory.

The big threat is not actually to Isreal, but to Western Iraq and Jordan who lay in the crash shadow of any intercepts. The best we can really hope for in a shooting war is that Iran won't pop the WMD cork, they might but it would be national suicide.

As for SAM's so far to date no SAM has ever stopped a raid, SAMs might or might not be able to attrit the US attack but they cannot stop it. I would point out that Russian technology desined to counter US technology hasn't always worked as advertised. Iraq's Russian supplied GPS jammers beign a good example.

Iran also faces a difficult question, where do they put thier most advanced SAM's. To close to shore and they are vulnerable to cruise missile and ARM strikes, how much do the nulcear facilites require, the politcal leadership, other critical super vulnerable infastructure points etc. Iran has fewer missiels than the US has planes, but more possible targets than missiles. They can't be strong everywhere, even everywhere they need to be just to defend against what I describe above.

Iran knows all this as well, and they don't really think they can beat the US. Thier military stance is like a guy with a hostage facing down a swat team. He knows as long as he keeps the SWAT team talking and a credible threat held to the hostages head they wont fire. Iran also knows that thier threat is a one shot weapon and once the line is crossed there is no comming back.

Bigstick,

1987 was 20 years ago when Iran was isolated, broke, and fighting a major war. Since then they have enjoyed 19 years of peace, high oil prices, and access to the international arms market. The level of capability is vastly greater than it was then, and we did not fair all that well in 87. I think we can do it, and do it better this time and we have more assets in region to do it with but it wont be easy.

[crazyinsane105]

Zraever, you are completely leaving out an important factor: Syria. Both Iran and Syria have a signed treaty in which they will defend each other in case of an enemy attack. And Israel refused to attack Syria last summer in the fears of a regional war being instigated. And buddy, add to the fact that if the Turks are going to invade and take over Northern Iraq (which is now becoming a distinct possibility), then the game completely changes. One last thing is that you also left out Afghanistan: Iran would completely destabilize Afghanistan and that would force Pakistan to jump in on who knows what side....it will be regional war indeed.

Now if the US does somehow win, well, actually, I can't see any side winning. It's going to be a huge slugfest to say the least and will probably end up with regimes that are even more unfriendly and hostile to the West. It can also result in the overthrow of friendly governments to the US (like Saudi Arabia or Egypt) and throw the region into much more chaos. This is probably the sole reason that neither Egypt or Saudi Arabia are interested in seeing air strikes against Iran.

[Roger604]

Crazyinsane is absolutely right... attacking Iran would be crazy and insane.

A war against Iran would not be US / Israeli / Arab allies versus Iran. It would be versus Iran as a proxy for both Russia and China.

Even if you have just limited objectives of securing the Persian Gulf, consider that China can easily supply Iran would hundreds of YJ-83 launchers and thousands of missiles.

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/navalmissile/yj8.asp

An old version of this missile was used to great effect to mission kill the Israeli Saar 5 frigate. That was ONE missile.

Iran would put the launchers on flat bed trucks and move them all around along its very long coastline. They would be extremely difficult to locate, extremely easy to hide, and they can blanket the Persian Gulf with swarms of advanced, yet cheap anti-ship missiles.

Russia too -- let's just say the word "Yakhont".

The same issue exists with respect to SAM's. No nation has tried to seriously challenge a modern air defense system. Both Russia and China can mass produce S-300's, Tor M-1's and MANPADS enough to cover all of Iran's coast and vital areas. Russia can supply Iran through the Caspian Sea and China can supply Iran through Pakistan (albeit more difficult).

These are mobile trucks, very difficult to find, and very easy to conceal, especially in rugged terrain. And they're designed so that even if the tracking radar is destroyed by a HARM, the missile would still go active and engage the target.

A huge X factor is the anti-stealth radars Russia and China would supply to Iran. Sure stealth would definitely reduce the range of the radar, but they're mobile so it's very difficult to weave your way "through" the radars screen to hit your target.

Finally, about missile defense, even the Israeli's found the Patriot missile to be no more than 40% effective in Gulf War I. It may be even less since some of the missiles broke up on their own, and were not intercepted. Israeli fired 4 patriot missiles at each incoming scud!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot

An Iskandar-E would be way more advanced and modern than 1991 Iraqi scuds, so I would expect the PAC-3 to be no more effective than 25%-40%. And once, again, "quantity is a quality all its own." Iran can be supplied with enough Russian/Chinese ballistic missiles to overwhelm any possible defense fielded by US or Israel. They are cheap and mobile.

An attack on Iran would definitely result in all sorts of nasty chemical, biological, radiological or even crude nuclear weapons falling on Tel Aviv -- which is the dense populated nerve center of Israeli. Iran essentially holds Israel hostage, to use your analogy.

[zraver]

Crazy,

You spin alot of possibilities that were outside the scope of my writing so I will try and adress some of them here.

Syria- is not going to do anything, Russia might let her tangle with Israel, but not the US and Israel. Syria is Russia's bargaining chip and diplomatic toehold in the Middle East, having its client destroyed by the combined might of US and Israeli air is not something they want, nor does Syria want to be destroyed. Israeli jets freely operated near the Syrian border durign the Lebanon war pounding the snot out of Syrias backyard and cutting the road to Damascus and Syria didn't say boo. The Syrian airforce isn't up to the task of defending itself let alone its nation and the Syrian army is totally outclassed.

Regional goverments- Each nation will act in its own best interests (see Syria above) and for the Gulf Arab states that means protecting the tankers and making sure the US wins, so that thier oil and gas based economis do not dry up. Turkey will or wont invade Iraq as it sees fit and the issue has nothing to do with Iran. Economically invading would be a disaster for them adding fuel to a fire that threatens Europes oil supply is hardly the way to gain EU memebership, and Turkey still needs US military technology specially with a re-arming Russia and rapidly arming Iran.

Europe will howl as prices spike, but they will rush minesweepers to the region, keeping the tankers sailing is more important in the short run than stopping the bombing.

Afghanistan is already destabalized. Iran might funnel weapons into the country, but chances are those weapons would be used vs NATO not US forces thus increasing diploamtic pressure on Iran, as well as giving NATO nations a legit excuse to retaliate by sending minesweepers to the gulf thus further degrading Iran's military capabilies in the strategic areas that matter.

Roger,

Iran is not getting any new weapons or overt Russian and Chinese support both members of the P5 voted for sanctions UNSCR 8980 (arms embargo) because Tehran has gone off the deep end. Nor will China risk upsetting the apple cart with the US. Iran isn't Taiwan and Chinese jobs (trade) come before Iranian lives. Putin will undouably snarl and yap but it will be diplomatic posturing to gain an advantage for Russia and Russia's interests not Irans.Russia will put Iran out like a dog in trade for concessions in the CAR, NATO, and the ABM issues. One thing Putin has been very on level about is his legalism. Russia will abide by the existing UN resolutions concerning Iran. On top of this Iran is broke, the sanctions and nuclear program have gutted thier forgien cash reserves so they can't afford more or better weapons. In realpolitik Iran doesn't have any freinds willing to risk what it would take to confront the US. While the US has all the cards it needs to make sure the rest of the world plays ball. prior to 2003 the US could have done this on its own and the world would have played along. The only differance between 2003 and 2007 is that now the US will have to give some pretty hefty concessions thanks to Bush's adventurism in Iraq, but Iran's ass is still in the fire.

There will be no thousands of missiles magically rushed past a US blockade (how is China going to supply iran?) for the nutjob nuclear wannabees to seek immolation at the hands of the US. if the ballon goes up then the US will take some losses possibly many losses, some tankers will burn, missiels will fly like fire works we will all take it in the wallet as gas prices go through the roof, but Iran's fate will be sealed and it's ambitions in the region will die.

As for ballistic missile defense, the US is the most advanced nation in th world, its Ageis systems have demonstrated hard kills (skin/skin) vs true ballistic threats and the Patriot Block II/III have shown sucess vs theater level ballistic threats and the Block I hit often enough vs SCUDS in ODS that volley fire almost always ensured that the missile landed well outsides its target CEP and thus never threatened critical sites. Iran's missiles may be a bit more advanced than what Iraq had, but not much- most are based on North Korean designs or older SCUD technology, they are not high tech and lack any type of cross range manuverability to defeat counter measures.

[crazyinsane105]

Don't know about the Turkish army and their actions. The fact that they have massed up all those troops along the border isn't exactly for show. The situation in Kurdistan is rapidly detoriating even as we speak and EU membership or not, Turkey will invade if it sees Kurdistan as a threat. The Turks would be willing to sacrifice EU membership if they're entire southern border is at stake of being united with a Kurdistan...

[zraver]

Kurdistan is a pipedream as long as the US is in Iraq. Creatign a third front vs the US would force US troops out, and then the Kurds would have no restraining influences. Right now the Turks are using commandoes to hunt the Kurdish raiders and the Kurdish Goverment, iraqi Goverment, and US are looking the other way. I suspect this status quo will continue almost unchanged. Turkish troops might go farther and prosecute harder with their raids, but they won't invade.

[Tasman]

Iranian Submarines = US coastline...

Iranian Submarines should be as secretly as possible sent to as close as possible to the US coastline. Using any means necessary (converting some cargo ships or something into a secret supply ships for the submarines). In the chance that a war breaks out, these submarines will then move into firing range of cities of the US and unleash their missiles.

Each submarine firing on two cities that would be potentially 6 cities targeted. This I think will end the war by public unleash on the government in the US, forcing to end the war.




I think this would be a disastrous use of Iran's submarines. Iran's biggest hope in a conflict with the USA would be an American public who were strongly opposed to war. Attacking American cities would, I believe, have just the opposite effect to what you have described. Like Pearl Harbour and 9/11 this sort of action would almost certainly unite the American people with a determination to destroy those who had attacked their country. I believe that using submarines to attack cities or other civilian targets in the USA would cause a huge backlash. I think it would be far better to use the submarines and other naval assets to try and shut down oil supplies by targeting tankers and also to try and restrict the movements of the USN.

Cheers

[Jeff Head]

Iranian Submarines = US coastline...

Iranian Submarines should be as secretly as possible sent to as close as possible to the US coastline. Using any means necessary (converting some cargo ships or something into a secret supply ships for the submarines). In the chance that a war breaks out, these submarines will then move into firing range of cities of the US and unleash their missiles.

Each submarine firing on two cities that would be potentially 6 cities targeted. This I think will end the war by public unleash on the government in the US, forcing to end the war.

Iranian Submarines in the shipping lines ok they might destroy some ships or they might be destroyed, as long as the US public does not notice it will not really affect the war... Look at Iraq.

I think this would be a disastrous use of Iran's submarines. Iran's biggest hope in a conflict with the USA would be an American public who were strongly opposed to war. Attacking American cities would, I believe, have just the opposite effect to what you have described. Like Pearl Harbour and 9/11 this sort of action would almost certainly unite the American people with a determination to destroy those who had attacked their country. I believe that using submarines to attack cities or other civilian targets in the USA would cause a huge backlash. I think it would be far better to use the submarines and other naval assets to try and shut down oil supplies by targeting tankers and also to try and restrict the movements of the USN.

Cheers
AlwaysFresh, Tasman is exactly right, if the Iranians used their subs to attack US cities, particularly with any WMDs, it would be the complete and absolute total end of Iran as a modern state.

No sense in even going there.

Tasman, on a lighter note...in the 1980s US Naval Aviators had a joking name for the Yak-38 Forgers the Soviets flew off their first carriers.

FUGSD - Fly up, get shot down. (I'll let your imagination figure out how they actually pronounced it).

I believe a similar acronym would apply for most of the Iranian Navy in the unfortunate event that they tried to challenge the US Navy, even in the confined waters of the gulf, and particularly in the Arabian Sea.

SOGS - Sail out, get sunk.

Maybe even...

SAWGS - Start a war, get sunk (whether they sail out or not).

No personal animosity towards any individual Iranian, and not trying to be funny or trying to get any one mad...it's just the hard cold reality of the severe disparity.

[Tasman]

FUGSD - Fly up, get shot down. (I'll let your imagination figure out how they actually pronounced it).

I believe a similar acronym would apply for most of the Iranian Navy in the unfortunate event that they tried to challenge the US Navy, even in the confined waters of the gulf, and particularly in the Arabian Sea.



Their chance of success and indeed survival would not be good!

Cheers

[Violet Oboe]

After all the Iranian's must have a Plan B after their overt nuclear sites have been destroyed or at least damaged.

Iran began her incessant effort to acquire nuclear technology and the means to develop and produce a nuclear weapon back in the mid 80's under the guidance of Hashemi Rafsandshani and it is known that Iran got A.Q. Khan's ´info package´back in '87. Accordingly they are in the know about the nuclear game for 20 years now and obviously they are aware of the fact that the most dangerous phase would be AFTER they have produced the first warheads of their initial arsenal.

Only after Iran would have built up a robust arsenal comparable with Pakistan (80-100 warheads, 3 types of mobile ballistic missiles) the necessary effect of deterrence would be assured against Israel and against regional assets of the US . (of course the US could win in a conflict with a nuclear Iran but the whole middle east would go ablaze and 100 million dead people do not pay America's bills)
Meanwhile and until the line of ´minimal deterrent´is crossed Iran's leaders will have to deny, deceive and even if necessary convert to judaism as long as Iran's nascent capability remains secret, ambiguous or at least deniable.

North Korea's strategic situation is completely different since high value targets in her immediate neighborhood can be credibly threatened with only a few crude bombs and additionally NK is a state without much to loose. Interestingly Pyongyang and Tehran have an intimate relationship for 25 years now and NK's miraculous economic survival has probably very much to do with iranian cash and oil. NK has without doubt nuclear weapons, the necessary weapons grade PU and a healthy interest in keeping Iran strong enough to deflect US power from converging on NK, so some decisive deal has occurred probably already years ago (probably after the US invasion of Iraq, Kim Jong Il was reportedly shocked for months...).

Naturally my speculation can be wrong but my assumption is that Iran has already got a nascent initial nuclear capability but this constitutes currently more a danger than a deterrent for Tehran and the iranian strategists know about that very well. Unfortunately this unstable period of time is prone to disastrous miscalculations: Tehran could be prompted to test a weapon demonstratively just before an anticipated US strike and the US or even Israel could respond with a massive tactical nuke strike on an array of iranian military targets. The stakes in this deadly game are very high indeed and for the sake of mankind both adversaries must find a sustainable compromise (...just like the Cold War was at least absence of real war).

[Scratch]

Re psychology in the war. If you want to make a country's population war tired, I still believe the best way is to wear down it's military; meaning regularly cause fatal casualties to the other nation people's realtives wich serve in that military, while the people at home can not see a clearbenefit to their lives.
I'm not saying that is the way to succes, just that I think it might be the most promissing try.
But terrorising those people at home, only resolves their will. This was shown many times.
A lot of V2s on London's houses did not get the British from fighting of a german invasion (in the air battle). Millions of russian casualties did not stop the red army form fighting every german soldier in the rodina. Intensive bombing runs on nearly every german city did not really brake the will of the germans either.

[planeman]

Interesting debate guys, but shouldn't we bring it a bit closer to topic - how does the Moudge compare with other current designs? My take is that it's terrible.

[crazyinsane105]

Yeah, planemen is right, I think we should shift back to the topic which is just about the Iranian navy, but it was an interesting debate nonetheless.

[planeman]

Well I killed that, lol.


I, well with a lot of help from someone else, have found strong leads that suggest this missile boat is destined for Iran. Possibly locally produced, may already be entering service.
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2518/fac1qg0.jpg

[coolieno99]

All 3 of Iran's Kilo class subs have been retrofitted with the potent Club-S missiles by the Russians. The Kilos are well suited for the relatively shallow water of the Persian Gulf.

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/navalmissile/3m541.jpg

[planeman]

All 3 of Iran's Kilo class subs have been retrofitted with the potent Club-S missiles by the Russians. The Kilos are well suited for the relatively shallow water of the Persian Gulf.

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/navalmissile/3m541.jpg
I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong, but please give sources for this. Iran definately has test fired submarine launched missiles but I haven't seen anything convincing re SS-N-27s.

[crazyinsane105]

I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong, but please give sources for this. Iran definately has test fired submarine launched missiles but I haven't seen anything convincing re SS-N-27s.

4 July 2005
Russian daily Kommersant reports that Rosoboronexport, a Russian state-owned arms selling agency, is negotiating a contract to upgrade three Iranian submarines with Club-S missile systems.
--"Paper: Iran in Talks to Refurbish Subs," Moscow Times, 5 July 2005.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Missile/1788_4967.html

[crazyinsane105]

The U.S. Navy has determined that Iran has amassed a fleet of fast patrol boats in the 43-kilometer straits. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, responsible for strategic programs, leads the effort.

At this point, officials said, IRGC has deployed more than 1,000 FPBs in and around the straits. The vessels, armed with cruise missiles, mines, torpedoes and rocket-propelled grenades, are up to 23 meters in long and can reach a speed of 100 kilometers per hour.

"This marks the implementation of Iran's swarm program, where dozens of armed speed boats attack much larger naval vessels from all sides," an official said.
In 2005, IRGC developed its swarm doctrine following Teheran's assessment that the United States was considering an air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Officials said the swarm doctrine was designed to exploit the slow pace of U.S. aircraft carriers and destroyers in the shallow waters of the Gulf.

"Iran still states that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps will employ swarming tactics in a conflict,'' U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage said.

IRGC swarming tactics envision a group of more than 100 speedboats attacking a target, such as a Western naval vessel or a commercial oil tanker. They said 20 or more speedboats would strike from each direction, making defense extremely difficult.

The Navy, with at least two carrier groups in the Gulf, has been developing counter-measures to an Iranian swarm attack. These include using minesweepers, unmanned aerial vehicles to monitor Iranian speedboats and the deployment of weapons that could blast Iranian speedboats at standoff range. Such exercises have been conducted over the past few months.

"We have devised various tactics and other ways of coping," U.S. commander Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff said. "You just don't get 1,000 or 500 or even 20 of anything under way and tightly orchestrated over a large body of water to create a specific effect at a specific time and specific place. They have their own challenges.''

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/me_iran_06_22.asp

[Tasman]

The U.S. Navy has determined that Iran has amassed a fleet of fast patrol boats in the 43-kilometer straits. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, responsible for strategic programs, leads the effort.

At this point, officials said, IRGC has deployed more than 1,000 FPBs in and around the straits. The vessels, armed with cruise missiles, mines, torpedoes and rocket-propelled grenades, are up to 23 meters in long and can reach a speed of 100 kilometers per hour.

"This marks the implementation of Iran's swarm program, where dozens of armed speed boats attack much larger naval vessels from all sides," an official said.
In 2005, IRGC developed its swarm doctrine following Teheran's assessment that the United States was considering an air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Officials said the swarm doctrine was designed to exploit the slow pace of U.S. aircraft carriers and destroyers in the shallow waters of the Gulf.

"Iran still states that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps will employ swarming tactics in a conflict,'' U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage said.

IRGC swarming tactics envision a group of more than 100 speedboats attacking a target, such as a Western naval vessel or a commercial oil tanker. They said 20 or more speedboats would strike from each direction, making defense extremely difficult.

The Navy, with at least two carrier groups in the Gulf, has been developing counter-measures to an Iranian swarm attack. These include using minesweepers, unmanned aerial vehicles to monitor Iranian speedboats and the deployment of weapons that could blast Iranian speedboats at standoff range. Such exercises have been conducted over the past few months.

"We have devised various tactics and other ways of coping," U.S. commander Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff said. "You just don't get 1,000 or 500 or even 20 of anything under way and tightly orchestrated over a large body of water to create a specific effect at a specific time and specific place. They have their own challenges.''

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/me_iran_06_22.asp

That is an awful lot of boats to contend with. I can see why there have been such concerted efforts recently to install weapons like the 25mm Typhoon, 12.7mm Mini Typhoon and the 25mm Mark 38 Mod 2 (USN gun based on Typhoon) in allied warships.

Cheers

[bigstick61]

I think the US would be able to handle the boats. It's not like this is the first time they have done something like this, and we have fought such tactics by them in actual combat with great success. The scale appears to be larger though. However, I think that the combination of .30 cal., .50 cal., 20mm, and 25mm machineguns, 20mm CIWS guns (many fitted with kits for targeting high-speed small craft), and HE and ICM gun projectiles from the 3" and 5" guns (especially the new 5" ICM round intended partly for this purpose), along with the use of weapons on helicopters and maybe fixed-wing aircraft (employing guns, rockets, and weapons dispensing submunitions) can deal quite well with this problem.

[Tasman]

I think the US would be able to handle the boats. It's not like this is the first time they have done something like this, and we have fought such tactics by them in actual combat with great success. The scale appears to be larger though. However, I think that the combination of .30 cal., .50 cal., 20mm, and 25mm machineguns, 20mm CIWS guns (many fitted with kits for targeting high-speed small craft), and HE and ICM gun projectiles from the 3" and 5" guns (especially the new 5" ICM round intended partly for this purpose), along with the use of weapons on helicopters and maybe fixed-wing aircraft (employing guns, rockets, and weapons dispensing submunitions) can deal quite well with this problem.

What you say is true. However, I wonder if there is also a case for the US and allied navies to reconsider acquiring their own high speed vessels specifically designed to counter swarm attacks, in the same way that the pre WW1 torpedo boat destroyer was developed to counter torpedo boats? I think 16 knot minesweepers would have limitations when trying to deal with high speed craft and I can see a definite role for a 50 knot gunboat armed with a 57mm main gun, a secondary 25mm Mark 38 Mod 2 (or Typhoon) and a couple of Mini Typhoons.

Cheers

[Totoro]

Like it is implied in the article - biggest hurdle iranians will have to overcome using such tactics is communication and coordination between those vessels. I would imagine that any sort of long range radio communcation would be jammed, so they would have to rely on relatively compact groups of boats, not more than few km apart where they can use short range milimeter wave in line-of-sight communication. That won't really allow for attacking a target from ALL directions, but it could be enough for a range of boats approaching a ship from a 120 degree arc.

Another massive problem for them will be information. Just how will they know where the enemy is? While they can control their side of the strait, using the mountains for higer vantage point, perhaps using IR sensors to get some extra range, it won't be enough to cover the whole strait. They would have to venture out into the strait with ships - to uncover possible targets.

Only way they could effectively monitor whole strait is with radars - which means they would have to have a vast and robust network of radars, enough to last for a long time under US attacks.

Also, they should use at least some kind of stand off weapons - not actually get into gun range. Something in class of a TOW missile would be perfect -wire guided, impossible to jam, yet giving several kms of breathing room, just outside of various guns, CIWS etc.

[planeman]

Re the Klub missiles and the Kilos, note that whilst many forumites say that Iran has Klub, news articles suggest future purchases not current operational capabilities. Same goes for S-300 SAMs of course.

Re the USN article about the fleet of small boats. I think this is more an alarmist rehash of what we already know - see "boghammers" in my review - too many types to illustrate them all but in general they lack credible armament to do serious damage toa warship except as mine layers or suicde boats. Bullets to shoot at boats are still cheaper than boats. I'm not dismising them but I think, like I'd expect many observers here, that the Western press plays things up and even the DoD is inclined to give "menace spin" to suite its political masters.

[crazyinsane105]

Like it is implied in the article - biggest hurdle iranians will have to overcome using such tactics is communication and coordination between those vessels. I would imagine that any sort of long range radio communcation would be jammed, so they would have to rely on relatively compact groups of boats, not more than few km apart where they can use short range milimeter wave in line-of-sight communication. That won't really allow for attacking a target from ALL directions, but it could be enough for a range of boats approaching a ship from a 120 degree arc.

Another massive problem for them will be information. Just how will they know where the enemy is? While they can control their side of the strait, using the mountains for higer vantage point, perhaps using IR sensors to get some extra range, it won't be enough to cover the whole strait. They would have to venture out into the strait with ships - to uncover possible targets.

Only way they could effectively monitor whole strait is with radars - which means they would have to have a vast and robust network of radars, enough to last for a long time under US attacks.

Also, they should use at least some kind of stand off weapons - not actually get into gun range. Something in class of a TOW missile would be perfect -wire guided, impossible to jam, yet giving several kms of breathing room, just outside of various guns, CIWS etc.

During the Israel Lebanon conflict, the IDF was unable to either intercept or jam Hezbullah's radio network and above that, Hezbullah had some level of success in intercepting Israeli communications.

Iran has quite a few stand off weapons (mostly man portable). They include different types of anti-armor missiles (copies of HJ-8, TOW, etc.).

It would be interesting to see the IRIAF come into play as Iran has the helicopter launched version of the C-701 and Iran has a number of aircraft that are quite capable of launching C-802's and whatever other anti-ship missiles Iran has been making indigenously.

But yes, the biggest problem is coordination. How Iran will achieve that is beyond me.