Iran, China Intent on Countering Navies

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
There are so many sources to use in a "research" that it's possible to form totally opposing ideas on any given subject. A prejudiced/biased position can be supported by plenty of raw data either way. But, if history of naval conflicts is of any relevance, the sinking of USS MAINE, IJN raid on Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident were both used to start/escalate wars.

Tonkin Incident Might Not Have Occurred

Just because the next CVN is still being built, it does not mean everything is going to be fine with regards to the missiles that are meant to hit the ships which are already commissioned!
I'm not sure about the nuclear strike part. but i agree , US do have a history of staging a false event to justify an aggression against other party. It's like what my friends always said about US foreign policy "If they can't find any reason to attack, they'll create one".

any nuclear attack by US against a country that did not posses one will have dire impact diplomatically as much as environmentally. It will start a mass nuclear race where every country on earth will start their own nuclear weapons program.
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
So, I did provide confirmation that, at least IAW that source, Iran has Sunburn missiles.
In addition to the subs, torpedoes and armored personal carriers, Tehran bought MiG-29 fighters, which equal or surpass F-15C in several areas, and Su-24 (Fencer) fighter-bombers, spare parts for them and maintenance services. Russia also transferred missile technologies facilitating the development of Iranian Shahab-3 intermediate range ballistic missiles. With the range of 1,200 kilometers those missiles can hit targets throughout the Middle East. http://www.globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=1690&cid=2&sid=4
..Iran procured six Kh-55 air-to-ground cruise missiles from Ukraine between 1999 and 2001. He said another six Kh-55s were sold to China. The Kh-55 — termed by NATO the AS-15 — was said to be highly accurate and could contain a nuclear warhead. Omelchenko, a former officer of Ukraine's intelligence service, said authorities also prevented an attempt to export 14 Kh-55 missiles. http://www.softwar.net/rfed.html
Press reports noted that while Iran does not operate long-range bombers, it was believed that Tehran could adapt its Soviet-built Su-24 strike aircraft to launch the missile. But this totally misunderstands the multiple launch modes of this missile, which can also be launched from ships or from land based truck launchers. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/x-55.htm

According to U.S. defense officials, China and Iran are jointly developing the SMMS, or small multi-mission spacecraft. The 1,034-lb. satellite will carry a low-resolution CCD camera and telecommunications systems.http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/8/13331.shtml
And, IMHO, Kh-55s can be also adopted for anti-ship role.
 

eaf-f16

New Member
So, I did provide confirmation that, at least IAW that source, Iran has Sunburn missiles.


And, IMHO, Kh-55s can be also adopted for anti-ship role.
No, they can't. The ones Iran has don't even work in their original role and are virtually worthless. The thing you should worry about is Iran reverse engineering some of their components to make their own long-range cruise missile.
 

onslaught

New Member
In response to the claims that the Sunburn/Moskit is "invincible", there are a few things that have to be taken into account. First of all, the range. Correct me if I'm wrong but the range of the Moskit while it's sea-skimming is somewhere around 100km, and that's with the 3M80 version. The Moskit will only get the amazing 250km range (or something like that) in a high trajectory which makes it that much easier to detect and shoot down. A lot of sources say that there's no CIWS that can effectively defeat a Sunburn, but many haven't meantioned SeaRAM.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/966345/posts

If there's any doubts about the source, please let me know.
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
No, they can't. The ones Iran has don't even work in their original role and are virtually worthless. The thing you should worry about is Iran reverse engineering some of their components to make their own long-range cruise missile.
How about
The AS-4 cruise missile, which can be used in both anti-ship and land-attack roles, can be carried on Tu-22 bombers.
http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/bcmt/lacm_3.htm
?
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Iran doesn't have any AS-4. There are rumours that they might have bought a handful AS-15/Kh-55 from Ukraine in 2005, but that's it.

Iraq used AS-4 against Iran, but the 10 or so Tu-22 that went to Iran in 1991 definitely wouldn't have had any onboard.

The issue of Iran's Tu-22 fleet was discussed on this forum a while ago.

---

What i'd worry more in anti-ship stuff would be something like adapting C-802 to their still considerable number of F4s in the naval strike role. Would definitely be something the Iranians are capable of technologically, and would give the F4 as a launch platform a standoff range against USN AAW measures already.
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
Well, I know that those old KH-55s ALCMs aren't operational, but they could copy & modify them.
A naval version of the Kh-55SM designated "3K-10 Granat" (NATO codename "SS-N-21 Sampson") was built in parallel. Sources hint that it was strictly submarine launched. There are sketchy reports of an experimental derivative of the 3K-10 named the "3M-55 (SS-N-27)" that is intended for the antiship role, and has a "warhead" that is actually a solid fuel missile that performs a terminal attack at Mach 2.5 speed. http://www.vectorsite.net/twcruz_6.html

Iraq also received TU-16K-11-16 [Egyptian Badger pictured] bombers in the 1960s.
Iraq obtained eight Tu-16s just prior to the June 1967 war, but they saw no action; six Tu-16KSR-2-11 missile carriers obtained after the conflict. The Badger saw combat against the Kurds in 1974 and saw a fair amount of combat in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, even performing bombing raids on Teheran. The Iraqis obtained four B-6Ds with C-601 missiles during the conflict. The career of the Badger in Iraqi service came to an abrupt end in the 1991 Gulf War, being bombed out of existence by Coalition strike aircraft. Any that survived fell into disrepair. www.vectorsite.net/avtu16.html

..Badger-G - Tu-16K-11-16 -- The Badger G has the concurrent capability of carrying two Kelt AS-5 (125 nm) or two AS-6 (300 nm) air-to-surface missiles suspended beneath the wings and dropping bombs from an internal bomb bay. The new missile system K-11-16 with KSR-2 (AS-5B) and KSR-11 (AS-5B) missiles and the "Rubin-1" radar system was developed in 1962 based on a modification of equipment of the MIG-15. The Badger G/Kelt weapon system was developed as a stand-off weapon for the LRA and for an anti-shipping role for the SNAF. It probably has an anti-radiation role also. The AS-6 would have similar roles. It is equipped for aerial refueling. A number of Tu-16As and Tu-16KSs were re-fitted with Rubin radar undernose and with provision for K-11 or K-16 missiles. The TU-16K-11-16 aircraft that were converted from TU-16, TU-16A and TU-16KS aircraft could carry either two KSR-2 or KSR-11 missile beneath the wings. They served in the Soviet Naval Air Force.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-16.htm
Did Iran get any of those? Can they import some H-6s from the PRC? And, if so, can they adopt them to carry Sunburns?
The postulated main role of the SS-N-22 is to destroy the Aegis command/defense system-equipped vessels guarding the carrier battle groups. The very high speed and sea-skimming flight profile would reduce time for the target to detect and launch defensive missiles. After a launch assisted by a solid fuel booster, the Sunburn cruises at approximately 20 meters altitude. The missile has its own active radar seeker, with improved capability to resist jamming. It takes only 2 minutes to cover the missile's entire range, with an estimated 1-2 conventional missiles needed to incapacitate a destroyer, or 1-5 to sink a 20,000 ton merchantman.80 Needless to say, the nuclear-armed version with a sizeable 200 kiloton warhead would have a large lethal range for ships, sinking them outright or permanently disabling them out to about a 2 kilometer radius, and causing severe damage to weapons and sensors out to 4+ kilometers. www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/rusnukes.html
Yes, they could also use F-4s/7s/14s as fighter/ECM cover together with
Su-24s. But, IMO, if the Iranians are to greatly suffer from US bombing, there is a possibility that Russia may intervene, -as they have in Korea- and help with intel, AWACS, and besides, the Tu-160 "Blackjack" bomber could be given Iranian colors and used to attack CSGs from above the Caspian Sea/deep within Iranian airspace.
The Tu-160 is capable of carrying the strategic cruise missile Kh-55MS, which is known in the West by the NATO designation and codename AS-15 Kent. Up to 12 Kh-55MS missiles can be carried, six in each bay. The Kh-55MS is propelled by a turbofan engine. The maximum range is 3,000km, and it is armed with a 200kt nuclear warhead.

"The purpose of the Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bomber is the delivery of nuclear and conventional weapons deep in continental theatres of operation." The weapons bays are also fitted with launchers for the Kh-15P, which has the NATO designation and codename AS-16 Kickback. The Kh-15P Kickback has solid rocket fuel propulsion, which gives a range up to 200km. The Kickback can be fitted with a conventional 250kg warhead or a nuclear warhead. The aircraft is also capable of carrying a range of aerial bombs with a total weight up to 40t.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tu160/

Kh-15A anti-ship version (exhibited in Abu Dabi 1993 as the Kh-15S) has an inertial navigation system for the initial flight stage and a millimetric-wave active-radar self-homing system for the final flight stage.
During its initial flight stage the Kh-15 missile, using a solid-fuel, rises to an altitude of about 40,000 m, whereupon the target seeking radar turns on. Having been zeroed in on the target, the missile dives while accelerating to a speed of Mach 5. http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1684&catid=263
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
Well, I know that those old KH-55s ALCMs aren't operational, but they could copy & modify them.

Did Iran get any of those? Can they import some H-6s from the PRC? And, if so, can they adopt them to carry Sunburns?


Yes, they could also use F-4s/7s/14s as fighter/ECM cover together with
Su-24s. But, IMO, if the Iranians are to greatly suffer from US bombing, there is a possibility that Russia may intervene, -as they have in Korea- and help with intel, AWACS, and besides, the Tu-160 "Blackjack" bomber could be given Iranian colors and used to attack CSGs from above the Caspian Sea/deep within Iranian airspace.
copying kh-55 is not that simple.
China won't risk US anger by selling something like H-6K to Iran. Besides, it makes no sense for Iran to purchase it. Tu-160 is definitely not up for sale.
 

funtz

New Member
Can not find a Iranian Navy thread so:

Iran says Gulf incident with US Navy ships was 'normal' and was resolved

TEHRAN, Iran: Iran's Foreign Ministry said Monday that a confrontation between Iranian boats and U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf over the weekend was "something normal" and was resolved. It suggested the Iranian boats had not recognized the U.S. vessels.

........

The incident occurred at about 5 a.m. local time Sunday as Navy cruiser USS Port Royal, destroyer USS Hopper and frigate USS Ingraham were on their way into the Persian Gulf and passing through the strait — a major oil shipping route.

Five small boats began charging the U.S. ships, dropping boxes in the water in front of the ships and forcing the U.S. ships to take evasive maneuvers, the Pentagon official said.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/01/07/news/Iran-US-Navy.php

I do not care if they did not recognise these massive warships (its all relative), however this sounded like that 'never bring a knife to a gun fight' argument to me.
 

onslaught

New Member
Yes, they could also use F-4s/7s/14s as fighter/ECM cover together with
Su-24s. But, IMO, if the Iranians are to greatly suffer from US bombing, there is a possibility that Russia may intervene, -as they have in Korea- and help with intel, AWACS, and besides, the Tu-160 "Blackjack" bomber could be given Iranian colors and used to attack CSGs from above the Caspian Sea/deep within Iranian airspace.[/QUOTE]

Could you tell me why Russia would intervene and what they would get out of it if they did? As for the Tu-160's, are you saying that the Russians themselves will fly their own bombers to hit American forces but under Iranian colors?
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
Russia has many geopolitical and economic interests in Iran worth defending- just like it had interests in helping Korea & Vietnam. Also,
Somewhere between 70 and 75Phantoms are believed to be currently flying in Iran. Surprisingly, a few F-4Ds actually remain in service, but most of the IRIAF Phantoms are the F-4E version, plus a small-number of RF-4Es. IRIAF Phantoms have been subject to local upgrades--the APQ-120 radar of the F-4E and the APQ-109 radar of the F-4D have been significantly improved in range in both the tracking and search modes, and the IRIAF F-4E now even has a limited look-down, shoot-down capability. Most of the IRIAF Phantoms are now operated in an air-to-ground role or maritime strike capacity.
http://www.f-4.nl/f4_44.html
And I forgot all about the Iranian MiG-29s that could also carry AShMs!
3M80/Kh-41 MOSKIT [SS-N-22 'Sunburn']
The Moskit is a large supersonic anti-ship missile. ..The air-launched version can be carried by Su-27 and Su-33 fighters. http://www.sinodefence.com/news/2006/news06-10-24.asp
..There are also reports that China is expected to sign contracts for the air-launched version of the missile.There have also been unconfirmed reports that Iran acquired eight Moskit missiles from Ukraine. Iran has also shown interest in purchasing Project 12421 Molniya missile corvettes armed with the Moskit.
..The air-launched version, known as the Yakhont-M, is still in the design stage and is expected to be deployed on Mig-29, Su-27, Su-30 and Su-32 fighters.
http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russi...ral/expmsl.htm

After increasing maintenance problems with its MiG-29-fleet, with Indian assistance, the IRIAF and the Iranian Aircraft Industry works at Mehrabad launched a project for complex overhaul of the type in Iran. In the course of this programme, several MiG-29s have got bolt-on refuelling probes, while all were wired to use air-to-air missiles of Western origin in Iranian service. Iranians are also producing larger than standard drop tanks for their Fulcrums. Overhauled and modified IRIAF MiG-29s can be easily recognized by their new camouflage pattern, consisting of grey and light blue-grey. www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_546.shtml
Yes, that's what I meant- and they could use their own, most advanced
Su-24s & Tu-22M3s, in Iranian colors & with Russian crews, without putting a single Tu-160 at risk.

China navy floats three-carrier plan
By Russell Hsiao

On December 31, a Hong Kong newspaper Wen Wei Pao cited a report that no one in the Western media has detected concerning a Jane's Defence Weekly article which reported that China has plans to develop three-carrier battle groups over the next decade.
News about this development has been widely discussed in the Hong Kong and Taiwanese press. Citing Jane's, Wen Wai Pao reported that as a part of its carrier battle group plans the People's Liberation Army Navy's (PLAN) intends to establish an even stronger submarine fleet; having added 20 nuclear-powered submarines in the past five years, increasing the total number of submarines to 55. The report indicated that the PLAN currently has 70 destroyers and frigates, 50 dock-landing ships and 45 coastal warships.
Taiwanese news sources highlighted Gordon Jacobs, a Chinese military analyst based in the United States - whose report on the modernization of China's navy in the Jane's report was one of the sources for the report - as stating that if the Chinese government contracted for the construction of the carrier groups in 2006, then it is possible for the first battle carrier group to break water as early as 2011, be in service in 2014, and by 2016 be accompanied by a second service-ready aircraft carrier group.
Jacobs cited Chen Yung-kang, an official in Taiwan's Ministry of Defense, who during a presentation at a defense conference held in Taiwan in 2006 argued that Taiwan needed submarines to strengthen its defense capability against China's quickly expanding naval power and its plan to develop two battle carrier groups by 2020. Chen added that the Soviet-made Varyag Carrier was being upgraded and repaired at Dalian in Northeastern China, and being prepared for training use.
The Chinese government is still tight-lipped about its plans for the former Soviet aircraft carrier which is now dry docked in Dalian and painted in standard PLAN gray. Taiwanese experts believe that the PLAN intends to activate the carrier as a part of its three-carrier battle group plan.
In 2007, Chinese government sources admitted for the first time that Beijing is researching and capable of building an aircraft carrier, as stated by Huang Qiang, a spokesman for the Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense of China (CSTIND). Furthermore, Zhang Yunchuan, the CSTIND chairman, said last March that China was indeed researching the building of aircraft carriers: "China stands for strategic active defense and, even when it owns aircraft carriers, it will definitely not intrude into or occupy any other nation or resort to force with the use of carrier vessels," Zhang said.
On December 4, 2007, during a meeting with a visiting US delegation headed by US Representative Eni Faleomavaega, chairman of the sub-committee on Asia, The Pacific, and the Global Environment in the US House of Representatives, Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian asserted that China was planning to design an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) within the Taiwan Strait. Chen alleged that Beijing planned to submit the proposal to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and at the same time, Beijing planned to inaugurate a new air route on the Chinese side of the median of the Taiwan Straits.
According to Joseph Wu - Taiwan's de facto ambassador to the United States - in early December, the General Administration of Civil Aviation of China issued a press release stating that the Central Military Commission and the State Council had approved the route and flights would run some 4.2 nautical miles (7.8 kilometers) west of the centerline.
The Taiwanese government claims that since approval for the bid had to be attained from the Central Military Commission, which has authority over China's civilian aviation and airspace, China's bid to the ICAO to operate on Taiwan's side of the strait can be construed as a militarily provocative move, as it also gives them the ability to deny access to foreign aircraft in the area.
China's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Qin Gang repeatedly denied any knowledge of China's plan to establish an ADIZ within the Taiwan Strait.
In related news, citing Taiwanese military sources that Japanese government sources later confirmed, Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun revealed that Chinese Hong-6 bombers from the Huaining air force base in Anhui province conducted military maneuvers in areas of the East China Sea in September 2007, the route covered areas that are jointly enclosed by the Taiwan Strait Air Defense Identification Zone and the Japan Air Defense Identification Zone. The Hong-6 bombers reportedly made 20 sorties to the area on September 11 and 23, which forced Japanese F4 fighter jets based at Naha base in Okinawa Prefecture to respond by conducting a total of 12 sorties along the routes.
In an interview with Kensuke Ebata, a subject matter expert on defense and military affairs in Tokyo and member of the Japanese Security Export Control Committee, Asahi Shimbun reported Ebata as saying:
Hong-6 bombers can carry long-range air-to-sea missiles ... So it is possible for the bombers to attack vessels at sea. Personally, I think the bomber pilots were undergoing a training exercise under the scenario of blocking the arrival of US aircraft carriers in Taiwan in the event of an emergency situation there. The flights may also have been aimed at trying to contain US forces following large-scale maneuvers near Guam in August under a scenario that the United States was at war with China.
http://www.jamestown.org/china_brief/article.php?articleid=2373875
 
Last edited:

onslaught

New Member
While the Russians do want to expand their influence in the Middle East, relations with Iran haven't all been picture perfect.
http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/v50n11-5OD01.htm
Yes, they are helping Iran with Bushehr but Russia doesn't want to upset the balance of power in the Middle East. If they help Iran in an attack against American forces, think about what will happen to the balance of power: more of it goes to Iran (assuming the attack is successful). Russia has shown that they don't want to see Iran get a nuke and that shows that the Russians don't want Iran to be too powerful. If the attack does happen, Israel may just take the opportunity to attack Iran as well. Once you bring Israel into the story, things start to get very messy.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Why do so many think sinking one carrier is a win? I can guarantee that most likely in a skirmish there will be two carriers there. The second carrier will most likely kill many more. And don't forget, there are ten more carrier task forces. Even with satellite technology, the carriers tend to stay under cloud cover. And most likely they will strike at night. Plus, if you miss with the electronic countermeasures and chaff being used, your missiles are likely to hit one of your own ships you didn't target in the first place. Or someone else's.

Why two carriers? Because a carrier's weakness is its flight deck crew. There is only one crew. They have to sleep sometime. Thus a second carrier, to provide 24-7 operations.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Why two carriers? Because a carrier's weakness is its flight deck crew. There is only one crew. They have to sleep sometime. Thus a second carrier, to provide 24-7 operations.
Umm, that's what you have multiple watches on ships for.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
There maybe multiple bridge watches, etc., elsewhere on the ships, but there is only one operational flight deck crew. During peacetime they may operate individually and there will be watches, but as I said in a skirmish, or in a war time situation, there will be two carriers. America has in the past, even the recent past, operated its carriers in groups of two. During Desert Storm and the Iraqi war, America eventually had six carriers in the vicinity.
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
Well, if one CVN can be mission killed, so can be the next one, and the 3rd one- as long as there are enough ammunition & delivery means stockpiled & disperced! Russia's help in the event of an air war over Iran may just be enough to make the fight too costly. I hadn't mentioned another important precedent- their involvement in the 1967 War & the War of Attrition in the ME. IMO, Russia would rather have strong Iran to the South than the US/NATO dominating near its Western & Southern borders.
The end of Russian arms sales might reduce. somewhat, Iran's hesitancy to become more politically active in the new Muslim states. If Russia were to bow to U.S. pressure to cancel all phases of the nuclear reactor deal, Russian leverage on Iran would dissipate further, and Iran could be expected to step up its activities in the Muslim republics. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/HOMEPAGES/USAZERB/124.htm

Despite all its rhetoric on Islamic solidarity, Iran has rarely promoted cultural or ideological goals at the expense of its material interests. A number of conflicts erupted among Iran's neighbors to the north in which Muslims were pitted against non-Muslims, and Tehran aligned with the non-Muslim side each time (Moscow vs. Chechnya, Russia vs. Islamic forces in Tajikistan's civil war, and Christian-majority Armenia vs. Shiite-majority Azerbaijan).
In the first two examples, Iran's siding with Russia at the expense of Muslims and Islamists is explained by the nuclear assistance and other aid that Russia has been providing to Iran. The third and most blatant example is the Nagorno-Karabakh war between Armenia and Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan lost close to a fifth of its territory, more than 800,000 Azerbaijani Shiites became refugees, and yet Iran deepened its cooperation with Armenia. Most recently, Tehran opened a gas pipeline to Armenia, serving as an important energy supplier to the state at war with Shiite Azerbaijan. Why? Tehran fears domestic repercussions from a strong neighboring Azerbaijan because Azerbaijanis, although Shiites, are Iran's largest ethnic minority. http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgnews/Features/opeds/042507_shaffer.html
MOSCOW RAISES STAKES IN IRAN GAME

China's navy: Expanding capabilities, evolving roles

China to launch 15 rockets, 17 satellites in 2008
 

onslaught

New Member
Sinking one carrier only shows that a carrier can be sunk but it doesn't really seal victory for whoever sunk the carrier. Yes, there will probably be several carriers, but you can't just sink carriers one at a time in such a confined space such as the Persian Gulf. You're going to have to deal with several carriers at the same time. Also, sinking an American carrier will only make the situation worse for Iran. It will only draw more fire to themselves. I also highly doubt that Russia will get involved. Europe gets a lot of its gas from Russia and Iran might send its gas to Europe. This competition is not good for Russia.

http://www.neurope.eu/articles/76159.php
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
If they could successfuly clone other missiles & aircraft, why should the Kh-55 be an exception?
Raduga Kh-55SM Kent with conformal fuel tanks. Illegally acquired samples from the Ukraine permit the development of a cloned variant for the PLA. This weapon is also a candidate for new production Badgers.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Badger.html
From the 2 article links already submitted:
Russia and Iran both seek to assert their independent foreign policy as a counter to US policy.
http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/o...0n11-5OD01.htm

According to media reports, the balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before US President George W Bush leaves office in 18 months. Vice President Dick Cheney, who has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran, called for this administration to resolve the Iran situation now. As Gheit pointedly said, “I hope this does not involve bombing them because the only language this administration knows is the language of military action which has been disastrous for all.”
http://www.neurope.eu/articles/76159.php
These quotes serve to confirm my points. IMO, with the new NIE (in them, they are saying different things at different times & therefore not worth the paper they are written on), now implying that Iran hasn't been working on nuclear weapons for some time, it remains to be seen if there will be any use of force against it. Surely there are many in the US military & intell. apparatus who intend to nip the impending war in the bud.
But, going back to CTFs, they won't be in the Gulf- maybe one at the most, with the rest in the Arabian Sea. In any case, I don't think the duration of the air ops will warrant more than 2 CSGs; also, assembling a larger armada will give Iran plenty of warning, taking out the element of surprise. So, as far as the Iranians are concerned, besides the USAF & SOF, they'll most probably have to defend against just 2 CSGs. Their ally Syria may also be facing Israelis &/or Americans, but then there are and going to be, as been already discussed, RN assets in the Med.Sea as well! With regards to energy exports, the Kurdish question will have to be sorted out 1st before there is any hope for security of those pipelines going across Turkey.

The Iranian Navy is the one branch of their armed forces that is always in contact with U.S. forces, and would be the first to engage if things got out of hand. The backbone of this navy is a force of missile-armed patrol craft, the modern equivalent of the PT boats that were so famous during World War II. Missile-armed patrol boats made their mark when two Komar-class boats sank an Israeli destroyer in 1967. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/articles/20060113.aspx

China sold Iran about 40 Hudong fast attack missile boats and more than 80 C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles during the mid-1990s, but agreed to US requests in 1998 to halt further C-802 sales.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/hudong.htm
C-14 Cat-class Catamaran missile boat
The Chinese Navy is starting two indigenous fast-attack craft programs while also considering the acquisition of Russian-built fast-attack craft. The China Cat-class 20-ton missile boat was developed for use in the Middle East, but also will be built for Chinese naval service.
Assuming the current force structure of 150 missile-and gun-equipped fast-attack craft, the Chinese Navy’s future force could include: 30 Houxin-class; 30 Houjan-class; 30 50-ton-class; 30 China Cat-class; and 30 Molniya-class craft.
In 2002 the China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) demonstrated the "China Cat" high speed boat prototype, for which Iran was the first customer. This ship uses the catarmaran hull, 23 meters long, with a water line length of 14 meters. Powered by two diesel engines, the maximum speed approximately is 50 knots. ..
In May 2002 it was reported that China had sold Iran high-speed catamaran missile patrol boats. The first of the new C-14 patrol boats was reportedly observed by US military intelligence recently in an Iranian port. A Chinese delegation of technicians was in Iran to help the Iranian navy train and equip the new boats. They are designed to carry up to eight C-701 anti-ship cruise missiles and usually have one gun. It is a fast attack craft designed for high speed and low cost. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/pcfg-cat.htm
BTW, to follow on, here is some on Molniya Missile Boat that "Iran shown interest in purchasing".

Also, I wouldn't discount the possibility that some may want to use this incident as a pretext to start shooting!
The U.S. Navy Needs New Rules of Engagement
 
Last edited:

Firehorse

Banned Member
Chinese ships confronted Kitty Hawk

Chinese space debris trouble for century
U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Ted Kresge, director of air, space and information operations at the Air Force Space Command in Colorado, said the destruction Jan. 11, 2007, of one of China's weather satellites created space hazards for other orbiting satellites.
He said since the test, two U.S. satellites had to be re-routed to avoid debris, The Washington Times reported.
Scientists estimated the wreckage threatens about 800 satellites in space, 400 of which are U.S.-owned, and said the threat would remain for at least 100 years, the report said.
Blow up a few more old sats and you even out the playing field as far as space capabilities are concerned!

China Developing Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles

Report: Chinese ships confronted Kitty Hawk
IMO, they may just been close to each other. without any specific intention to confront the KH group.
Iran recently announced it manufactured a new missile _ the Ashoura _ with a range of 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) that was capable of reaching Israel and U.S. bases across the Middle East.
«They also made statements that once you reached that range, getting beyond that is fairly easy,..»
http://www.pr-inside.com/iran-speeding-up-development-of-missiles-r389383.htm
In the days since the encounter with five Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz, American officers have acknowledged that they have been studying anew the lessons from a startling simulation conducted in August 2002. In that war game, the Blue Team navy, representing the United States, lost 16 major warships — an aircraft carrier, cruisers and amphibious vessels — when they were sunk to the bottom of the Persian Gulf in an attack that included swarming tactics by enemy speedboats.
“The sheer numbers involved overloaded their ability, both mentally and electronically, to handle the attack,” said Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps officer who served in the war game as commander of a Red Team force representing an unnamed Persian Gulf military. “The whole thing was over in 5, maybe 10 minutes.” ..In the simulation, General Van Riper sent wave after wave of relatively inexpensive speedboats to charge at the costlier, more advanced fleet approaching the Persian Gulf. His force of small boats attacked with machine guns and rockets, reinforced with missiles launched from land and air. Some of the small boats were loaded with explosives to detonate alongside American warships in suicide attacks. ..In the war game, scores of adversary speedboats and larger naval vessels had been shadowing and hectoring the Blue Team fleet for days. The Blue Team defenses also faced cruise missiles fired simultaneously from land and from warplanes, as well as the swarm of speedboats firing heavy machine guns and rockets — and pulling alongside to detonate explosives on board. ..
When the Red Team sank much of the Blue navy despite the Blue navy’s firing of guns and missiles, it illustrated a cheap way to beat a very expensive fleet. After the Blue force was sunk, the game was ordered to begin again, with the Blue Team eventually declared the victor. ..“It is not a matter of size or of individual capability, but whether you have the numbers and come from multiple directions in a short period of time,” he said. ..
Pentagon officials on Friday said there were two encounters with small Iranian boats in the region last month. In one, a Navy warship fired warning shots and in the other a warning whistle was sounded. Both encounters ended without injury after the Iranian vessels turned away.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html?sq=iran 2002&scp=1&pagewanted=print
And let's not forget that the PLAN also has many high speed boats!
BTW, I completely forgot about P-3s that Iran has- by now, I won't discount that each can carry 4 harpoons or other AshMs. That's 24 (=4x6) more missiles & up to 48 (=8x6)
(as of 2005, they have 6 P-3Fs), not to mention mines, that can be launched from the air!
http://www.iiaf.net/aircraft/recontrainers/P3Orion/images/iinp3f_jpg.jpg
The Iranian fleet air arm, or Islamic Republic of Iran Naval Aviation (IRINA), flies Iran's remaining P-3Fs, of which between two and four are believed to be still operational, in addition to one RC-130. ..
LOOKING to the future, Iran's indigenously built Iran-140 aircraft (licensed Ukrainian An-140) in its proposed naval role can be used as an MPA and related military purposes such as early warning, command and control and target designation. The planned MPA roles include electronic warfare, anti-ship missile launching and long-range missile guidance relay.
Although the Iran-140 does not have the required seven hour endurance capability, plans are underway to increase the aircraft's fuel capacity with the addition of tanks on the outboard wing section. Currently ASW is carried out by IRINA's 20 or so SH-3D Sea Kings, supported by a number of AB-212 helicopters. .. The Navy Patrol Squadron is equipped with Dassault Falcon 20Es and Fokker F27-400M aircraft. The Iranian Navy has been seeking to enhance its capabilities through various indigenous defence programmes. Most recently Iran's Aerospace Industries Organisation revealed it had manufactured an anti-ship missile named 'Kosar.' .. Iranian officials announced in 2000 that the first of a planned trio (with a possible option for a second batch) of 1,000 tons, missile-equipped surface combatants would be launched, but there have been few subsequent announcements. ..
For example, the first two of an intended 12 Paykan missile boats, were reportedly deployed last year. Iran has also reportedly built a mini-submarine. Additionally, a new larger submarine is due to be unveiled at the end of 2004.
www.warshipsifr.com/terrorism_special11.html
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/16774
 
Last edited:
Top