U.S VS Iran getting close

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member
To prosecute Iranian Kilos armed with ASMs, CSGs need their own organic fixed wing ASW.

I'm not sure it would be very useful against the anti-ship threat. Though, undoubtedly that's what these are going to be used for. However, can skhval be used by the Kilos? I would assume so. If Iran can produce their own version I wonder if they've managed ot extend its range a little. Shkval could be quite deadly.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I just notice something about the Air Wing on CVN-74. One of the last S-3 squadrons in the USN is in it's air wing. VS-31. Which is not an west coast S-3 squadron. It is from Jacksonville FL.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Does the USN feel it needs extra sub hunters in the Gulf region????

The Ike CVN-69 does not have an S-3 squadron on board.
Very interesting Popeye. That is an outstanding catch!

...can you say Kilos?

...and, if the Vikings are used, and are effective to that end in any operation, my guess is that the S-3s could easily be revitalized. As well they should in any case iMHO.

I'm not sure it would be very useful against the anti-ship threat. Though, undoubtedly that's what these are going to be used for. However, can skhval be used by the Kilos? I would assume so. If Iran can produce their own version I wonder if they've managed ot extend its range a little. Shkval could be quite deadly.
I would be very surprised if Shkval could be launched from a Kilo platform...but who knows? A longer ranged, heavier supercavitating weapon is what turns the tide of the naval conflict for the PLAN during a good part of the conflict in my book series.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
WASHINGTON, Feb 1 (Reuters) - U.S. trade officials said on Thursday they are reviewing a lawmaker's request for the United States to cut off free trade talks with Malaysia over a $16 billion energy development deal with Iran.

House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, a California Democrat, raised concerns over the deal signed last month between Malaysia's SKS and the state-owned National Iranian Oil Company.

"This is a disturbing development that I believe requires swift action by the administration," Lantos said in a letter on Wednesday to U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab.
Reuters Pictures
Photo

Editors Choice: Best pictures
from the last 24 hours.
View Slideshow

"I therefore request that your office formally suspend all FTA (Free Trade Agreement) negotiations with the Government of Malaysia until and unless the Government of Malaysia ensures that the SKS agreement with Iran is canceled," Lantos said.

The Iranian oil company and SKS signed the $16 billion preliminary deal to develop Iran's southern Golshan and Ferdos gas fields and build plants to produce liquefied natural gas, Iranian state television reported on Jan. 7.

Lantos said the deal potentially requires the United States to penalize SKS under the recently expanded Iran Sanctions Act, which calls for steps against companies involved in Iranian energy development.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



i guess they use anything possible to weaken the iran :p

True imperial economic coercion. However I doubt that Malaysia will see that threats from the US (which probably won't even be very effective) are more important than their own energy security. Alternative energy would totally alter the balance of geopolitics, making US global hegemony more secure than any amount of military spending or invasions would.
 

Violet Oboe

Junior Member
Putting pressure on countries like Pakistan, India, Malaysia and indeed even China for canceling energy deals with Iran will backfire badly for the interests of the US hegemon since this kind of tactics forces these countries to make zero sum decisions which will hurt their own interests inevitably. Consequently a lot of resentment against the US will be honed in the ruling elites and they will be more and more inclined to partner up with (so perceived) a more benevolent and cooperative hegemon (i.e. China) in the future.

Additionally blocking the development of Iran´s oil and gas reserves is simply stupid because this will only magnify the looming global energy crisis in the coming years. Of course Tehran cannot fetch profits from oil it cannot pump, process or sell (sky high prices although will set off most of these losses!) but the american , european and chinese car owners will suffer dearly from gas they simply will not have in their tanks (apart perhaps from a few gallons for getting to work). The often touted Saudi reserve capacities are a dismal fake and even if they can actually pump 2 m bpd more oil that will not be sufficient to compensate reductions in Iran, Venezuela and probably Iraq. Although some effort was put in from the US to bring oil prices down (Cheney visit to Saudi!) the result is quite meagre (currently oil hovers around 60$ per b) and in the long run prices will only go up since demand is exploding (China, India) and peak oil (50%/50%) will be reached around 2015/17 the latest.
 

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot
Evidence continues to accumulate that the Bush/Cheney Administration is planning an air and naval war against Iran in spite of a rising chorus of protests by serving and retired senior US military officers and diplomats.

The heaviest concentration of US naval strike forces since the 2003 war against Iraq is concentrating off Iran. In a disturbing replay of that conflict, CIA drones and US Air Force recon aircraft, along with US and British Special Forces are overflying Iran and probing its nuclear and military installations.

CIA and Britain’s MI6 are stirring unrest among Iran’s Kurds and Azerbaijanis, and arming Iranian Marxist and royalist exiles.

In a clear provocation, President George Bush ordered US forces in Iraq to “kill” Iranians officials or diplomats who appear “threatening.” US troops in northern Iraq broke into an Iranian liaison office and arrested its military staff. Bush warned Iran not to “meddle” in neighboring Iraq.

Pentagon sources accused Iran of smuggling weapons and explosive to “Iraqi insurgents” – though the “insurgents” are in fact Shia militiamen allied to the US-installed Baghdad regime. Accusations that Iran is behind attacks on US forces are clearly designed to lay the groundwork for a “casus belli” – justifying war.

Half the 21,000 additional US troops headed to Iraq may be positioned to block an Iranian threat to the vulnerable main US Kuwait-Baghdad supply line in the event of war with Iran. US anti-aircraft and anti-missile batteries are being airlifted to Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Oman.

New contingents of US Air Force personnel and warplanes are arriving at key forward air bases in Bulgaria and Romania that link the US to the Mideast and Central Asia. US bases in Britain, Germany, Diego Garcia, the Gulf, Central Asia, and Pakistan are reported on heightened alert. Turkey is being pressed to allow US and Israeli strike aircraft to use its air space to attack northern Iran.

The Pentagon’s latest strike plan against Iran includes over 2,300 “high value” targets such as its dispersed nuclear infrastructure and, worryingly, operating reactors, air and naval bases, ports, telecommunications, air defenses, military factories, energy networks, and government buildings. Iran’s water and sewage systems, bridges, food storage, and bomb shelters could also be targeted, as were Iraq’s in 2001.

A swift “surgical strike” is not likely. Given the large number of potential targets in Iran, and its efforts to defend and disperse some of the high value ones; it is very probable the US would have to launch multiple air and missile strikes against many of them to assure destruction. Iranian ground forces moving toward Iraq and Kuwait would also come under repeated attack, along with their long-ranged artillery and mobile tactical missiles.

The US Treasury has mounted a highly effective campaign to strangle Iran financially, seriously hurting its foreign banking connections, retarding industrial growth and energy production, and scaring off foreign investment.

The Bush Administration and close ally Israel have sharply intensified their war of words against Iran, claiming, implausibly, it poses a nuclear threat to the entire world, though Tehran has no nuclear weapons or long-range delivery systems. Nor do Washington’s fear-mongering neoconservatives explain why on earth Iran would want to threaten the rest of the world – even if it could.

The real neocon objective, of course, is not to rid the world of a potential threat, but to get America into attacking and seriously damaging the nation now regarded as Israel’s primary foe, Iran. With Egypt sidelined and under tight US control, Iraq demolished and occupied, Syria isolated and petrified, only Iran remains a threat to Israel and seriously challenges its continued occupation of Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Politicians in Israel are in dangerous emotional overdrive and make open threats to attack Iran – even with nuclear weapons. Israeli rightists and their American supporters absurdly claim Iran is a new Nazi Germany and Israel faces a second Holocaust.

The fact that Israel possesses a powerful triad of air, land, and sea-based nuclear forces that can survive any surprise attack is never mentioned. At any given time, Israel has at least one Dolphin-class submarine on station in the northern Arabian Sea that can hit Iran with nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

Though UN inspectors find no evidence Iran is producing nuclear weapons, Tehran, like Saddam’s Iraq, is being told to prove an impossible negative – that it has no nuclear weapons or secret programs hidden away. Ironically, there are persistent reports that Iran’s nuclear program is moving at a snail’s pace and has encountered serious technical problems.

With disturbing déjà vu, the US Congress and American media are swallowing the administration’s torrent of unproven accusations against Iran precisely the way they lapped up grotesque White House lies about Iraq.

Amid growing war fever in North America, last week France’s President Jacques Chirac sensibly observed, in an off the record interview, that even if Iran had a few nuclear weapons, they would be only for self-defense, and “not very dangerous.”

Iran would be obliterated by US and Israeli nuclear counter-strikes if it ever used its nukes against Israel, noted Chirac with Cartesian logic, and are unlikely to commit national suicide.

After his candid comments became public, Chirac retracted them after a storm of protests from Washington, Israel, and even members of his own government who toe the US party line that Iran is a grave threat to world security. Chirac, who is a lame duck, was simply telling a truth that few cared to hear.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Iran said it had successfully test-fired a land-to-sea missile with a range of 350km (220 miles).
Tehran said it had also tested a new Russian-made air defence system.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
What missile are we talking about here?
 
Last edited:

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
BLUEJACKET I have to challange you on that article you posted. You need to post a link. Honestly that article sounds like someones blog. It is based on pure war jitters over new deployments and re-positioning of forces. Honestly, The recent deployment of CVN-74 does seem out of the ordinary.

That link at the bottom of the article does not take you to the article you posted.

Thanks.
 

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot
I just checked-those links work OK. I spaced them all out.
TEHRAN SHOOTS FOR THE STARS
After months of preparation, Iran is poised to launch its first satellite into space. Aviation Week & Space Technology (January 25) reports that the Iranian regime will soon use a “space launcher” – commonly assumed to be a variant of Iran’s “Shahab-3” medium-range missile – to carry a satellite into space in a demonstration of political and technological prowess. The test is worrying to U.S. officials, since the launch vehicle could serve as a precursor to the creation of an Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile capability. Moreover, Aviation Week notes, a successful Iranian satellite launch would be a “potent political and emotional weapon in the Middle East,” sending “a powerful message throughout the Muslim world about [the power of] the Shi’ite regime in Tehran.”

SYRIA TESTS SCUD CAPABILITIES
Iran’s missile plans are being echoed in other parts of the Middle East. According to the Jerusalem Post (February 1), the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria has field-tested its Scud D, a missile which is “capable of hitting any point in Israel.” The Syrian test appears to have been a duplicate of the country’s failed 2005 Scud trial. The 435-mile range missile was reportedly fired in northeastern Syria in late January in what Israeli intelligence officials have termed a “successful test.”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Outside of an imminent strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, or a possible Iranian attack on US forces in Iraq or other allies in the region, the appointment of a navy admiral to head up CentCom is hard to square. CentCom oversees US military operations in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and has traditionally been commanded by army or Marine Corps generals well versed in ground warfare. Unlike outgoing CentCom chief army General John Abizaid, Fallon has never commanded US forces fighting a guerrilla insurgency such the one being played out in cities across Iraq.
However, analysts say his experience with carrier-borne air strikes makes him ideally suited to coordinate a possible move on Iran.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


In aborting Iran's nuclear program, "all options are on the table."
Some version of this threat against Iran has lately been made by John McCain, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Mitt Romney.
Yet, if an
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is among "options ... on the table," who put it there? Who gave President Bush the authority to attack Iran? And when was it granted? And are all options also "on the table" if North Korea continues to test nuclear weapons?
What makes these questions other than academic is that Bush is putting in place military assets that will enable him to order and effect the rapid nuclear castration of Iran. But scarcely a peep of protest has been heard from our congressional leadership.
Observers have noted the dispatch of minesweepers and another U.S. carrier to the Persian Gulf, the naming of Admiral Bill "Fox" Fallon to head CentCom, which today manages two ground wars, and the return of U.S. fighter-bombers to Turkey.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Since President Bush’s State of the Union address last Tuesday, the White House has manufactured a crisis that pits the United States against Iran. In what looks like the military and diplomatic equivalent of a full court press, Washington has unleashed a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, maneuvers and limited military actions that seem calculated to set the United States on a collision course with Iran in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. All in all, it is an exceedingly risky and dangerous gambit.
Even if the intent is not to create a shooting war between the two countries, one false move by radicals on either side could ignite exactly that, whether by hardliners in Iran seeking to cement their influence as the rising, hegemonic power in the Gulf or by frustrated U.S. neoconservatives desperate to prevent the final collapse of their misadventure in Iraq by expanding that war to include Iran, and perhaps Syria.
We might even lose an aircraft carrier. Bush's plan may be to provoke Iran to attack first by putting ships in harm's way in the narrow Gulf. He may be thinking that after such an attack he would have all Americans behind him in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
- The Kitty Hawk (CV-63) is a good candidate as it's slated for decom. next year. Why not let Iran "decomission" it, ahead of schedule, thus killing 2 birds with one stone?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


See my post #50 for some interesting quotes here.
 
Last edited:

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member
I had heard that the Persian Gulf's reefs would make it difficult for the U.S. to conduct ASW and for Iran to do any anti-shipping missions. Is that true and if so, does anyone think Iran or the U.S. has a way around it? Would the same conditions exist in the Gulf of Oman?
 

crazyinsane105

Junior Member
VIP Professional
I had heard that the Persian Gulf's reefs would make it difficult for the U.S. to conduct ASW and for Iran to do any anti-shipping missions. Is that true and if so, does anyone think Iran or the U.S. has a way around it? Would the same conditions exist in the Gulf of Oman?

Actually, if Iran plays its cards correctly, it would be able to do anti-shipping missions with its Kilos quite well. Since the Persian Gulf is very shallow, US ASW sonars will have an extremely hard time trying to pick up anything in the water since the sonars will be bouncing around everywhere and giving false signs and what not. A member on PDF called Penguin pretty much explained it in great detail about a year ago (that guy is an expert when it comes to naval warfare matters). And the Iranian Kilos won't have an extremely hard time since they would probably know the rough location of the US aicraft carrier battle groups. Above that, will anti-ship missiles with ranges over 100 km, those Kilos can be very dangerous.
 

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot
New articles leave no doubt: escalation of the war of words is underway!

U.S. military: Iran arming Iraq militias
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


U.S.: Top Iran officials ordering bombs to Iraq
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


‘US fabricating evidence against Iran’
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


It is No Use Blaming Iran for the Insurgency in Iraq
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


NYT Falls for Bogus Iran Weapons Charges
Completely Implausible Numbers are Thrown Around
Repeat of Judy Miller Scandal

This
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
depends on unnamed USG sources who alleged that 25 percent of US military deaths and woundings in Iraq in October-December of 2006 were from explosively formed penetrator bombs fashioned in Iran and given to Shiite militias:


' In the last three months of 2006, attacks using the weapons accounted for a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less than a quarter of the total, military officials say.'



This claim is one hundred percent wrong. Because 25 percent of US troops were not killed fighting Shiites in those three months. Day after day, the casualty reports specify al-Anbar Province or Diyala or Salahuddin or Babil, or Baghdad districts such as al-Dura, Ghaziliyah, Amiriyah, etc.--and the enemy fighting is clearly Sunni Arab guerrillas. And, Iran is not giving high tech weapons to Baathists and Salafi Shiite-killers. It is true that some casualties were in "East Baghdad" and that Baghdad is beginning to rival al-Anbar as a cemetery for US troops:

Robert Burns of AP observes,


"The increasingly urban nature of the war is reflected in the fact that a higher percentage of U.S. deaths have been in Baghdad lately. Over the course of the war through Feb. 6, at least 1,142 U.S. troops have died in Anbar province, the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency, according to an AP count. That compares with 713 in Baghdad. But since Dec. 28, 2006, there were more in Baghdad than in Anbar - 33 to 31."


Over all, only a fourth of US troops had been killed Baghdad (713 or 23.7 percent of about 3000) through the end of 2006. But US troops aren't fighting Shiites anyplace else-- Ninevah, Diyala, Salahuddin--these are all Sunni areas. For a fourth of US troops to be being killed or wounded by Shiite EFPs, all of the Baghdad deaths would have to be at the hands of Shiites!

The US military often does not announce exactly where in Baghdad a GI is killed and so I found it impossible to do a count of Sunni versus Shiite neighborhoods. But we know that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was running interference for the Mahdi Army last fall, and it seems unlikely to me that very many US troops died fighting Shiites in Baghdad. The math of Gordon's article does not add up at all if this were Shiite uses of Iran-provided EFPs.

So the unnamed sources at the Pentagon are reduced to implying that Iran is giving sophisticated bombs to its sworn enemies and the very groups that are killing its Shiite Iraqi allies every day. Get real!

Moreover, there is no evidence of Iranian intentions to kill US troops. If Iran was giving EFPs to anyone, it was to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its Badr Corps paramilitary, for future use. SCIRI is the main US ally in Iraq aside from the Kurds. I don't know of US troops killed by Badr, certainly not any time recently.

It is far more likely that corrupt arms merchants are selling and smuggling these things than that there is direct government- to- militia transfer. It is possible that small Badr Corps stockpiles were shared or sold. That wouldn't have been Iran's fault.

Some large proportion of US troops being killed in Iraq are being killed with bullets and weapons supplied by Washington to the Iraqi army, which are then sold by desperate or greedy Iraqi soldiers on the black market. This problem of US/Iraqi government arms getting into the hands of the Sunni Arab guerrillas is far more significant and pressing than whatever arms smugglers bring in from Iran.

We now know that Iran came to the US early in 2003 with a proposal to cooperate with Washington in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and that VP Richard Bruce Cheney rebuffed it. The US could have had Iran on its side in Iraq!

The attempt to blame these US deaths on Iran is in my view a black psy-ops operation. The claim is framed as though this was a matter of direct Iranian government transfer to the deadliest guerrillas. In fact, the most fractious Shiites are the ones who hate Iran the most. If 25 percent of US troops are being killed and wounded by explosively formed projectiles, then someone should look into who is giving those EFPs to Sunni Arab guerrillas. It isn't Iran.

Finally, it is obvious that if Iran did not exist, US troops would still be being blown up in large numbers. Sunni guerrillas in al-Anbar and West Baghdad are responsible for most of the deaths. The Bush administration's talent for blaming everyone but itself for its own screw-ups is on clear display here.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top