Iranian Patrol Boats:Sitting Ducks?

Manfred

New Member
Kilo- Black realy is'nt the best color for night camo, a neutral-dark gray works best. Dont forget that big, white wake a fast-moving boat leaves behind it.

That comment on mines is what I consider most important. 4th largest stockpile in the world? Wow...

Iran also controls several key islands in the gulf, well-postioned to be bases for commando operations. I wonder how heavily they have fortified those islands?
 

rossfrb_1

Member
Heard about the Shahab Thaqeb anyone? It's said to be a copy of the Chinese HQ-7, which in turn is a reverse-engineered Crotale. The Chinese had both the land and naval versions of the Crotale. Isnt it then possible for Iran to make a naval version of the Shahab Thaqeb and put it on their ships?
OK presume the Iranians have a navalised Crotale clone. Who is going to go to war with Iran? Israel, USA (or some coalition) I can't really think of anyone else?
What do these countries have in their arsenal?
a quick google suggested that crotale has a range of ~13km with a ceiling of ~5km.
It's guidance can be radar/ir
(as an aside you can read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ-7 which purports to describe the chinese copy.)
(hmmm, Australia supplying military technology? France providing support for a Crotale clone [undisclosed licensing fees?])
So do the Iranian boats in question have the fire control systems needed for a Crotale clone? If not, how much to make it so?
On the US side, isn't the range of a helicopter launched Penguin missile in excess of 30km? A Standard II ~min 70km? Harpoon - wow!
Israeli Gabriel I ~20km, II >30km, 76mm (US & Israel) ~16km, US Mk45 127mm > 20km.
Then there are the goodies that Israeli and US aircraft can drop..
OK so CNN wouldn't want to fly a camo painted copter over the top of an Iranian boat, but...

rb
 

Rich

Member
Israeli Gabriel I ~20km, II >30km, 76mm (US & Israel) ~16km, US Mk45 127mm > 20km.
Then there are the goodies that Israeli and US aircraft can drop..
OK so CNN wouldn't want to fly a camo painted copter over the top of an Iranian boat, but...
The thing is Iran is going to try and force us to fight "their" fight. They dont strike me as stupid and they sure as hell aint going to come out into the open ocean where Yank Intel assets and weaponry can sink them beyond line of sight.

What is their strategy? All we need to know that is to look at their assets, their future procurements, and then think like an Iranian. How would you fight if going up against the most powerful navy is history? I would fight the water equivalent of the Iraqi insurrection myself. They are thinking the same way and you can tell by their outlays.

The Iranians are going to shut down shipping in the Gulf in order to lure the USN into the Gulf where their shore based missilery, diesels, and gun boats have a chance. They will also give their maritime tasked fighter bombers a better chance as well. Iran is basically a central plateau surrounded by mountains and a fighter popping up from those mountains will be on top of ships in the gulf quickly and will be hard to spot beforehand.

The islands they garrison at the mouth of the Gulf? The ones they stole from the UAE? They are another layer, another base for silk worms, that would have to be dealt with. Even with all this they know they have no hope of winning, even with striking important ports with IRBMs. Their strategy is to interrupt commerce long enough, and to cause enough casualties among the enemy, that both world opinion and foreign domestic opinion, will cause a cessation of hostilities that's favorable to Iran.

Anyway that's what I see when I look at their deployments and procurements.
 

kilo

New Member
I agree with Rich Irans greatest chance is suprise and stealth, but one thing that has been overlooked is that the us can use submarines to mine Bandar Abbas and then use airstrikes to eliminate the trapped iranian fleet in the harbor. so maybe they will end up sitting ducks after all.
 

Manfred

New Member
THose four new Iranian submarines can lay mines too, and not just in the Hormuz area. Would it not be a good diversion to lay mines between Yemen and the Horn of Africa at the same time as closing the Persian Gulf?

The US Navy has some good mine-clearing equipment, but not a vast amount of it. How long would it take to deal with both threats? Would any European Fleet be able to help, or be allowed to help?

Iran might be able to close the Persian Gulf for a week, maybe longer. I know that the consequences of this action would be catastrophic, but the current leadership of Iran does not seem to have a ... balanced outlook.
 

kilo

New Member
if the US luanches a premptive strike. they could probably catch almost the entire iranian navy in port and mine the port and kill them at will with aircraft.
 

Manfred

New Member
Right, but doing anything in a pre-emptive was is forbiden these days. CNN would not like it...

Besides, you can,t make a strike to prevent anything that has already happened. What I am saying is that they can carry out both mining operations at the same time, and we cannot stop them unless we know aobut it in acvance. I want to hear form the experts: what would happen next?
 

Khairul Alam

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #28
I agree with Rich Irans greatest chance is suprise and stealth, but one thing that has been overlooked is that the us can use submarines to mine Bandar Abbas and then use airstrikes to eliminate the trapped iranian fleet in the harbor. so maybe they will end up sitting ducks after all.
A good look at the map reveals that Bandar Abbas sits at the mouth of the very busy, and very narrow Straits of Hormuz, through which most of the oil for the develped world passes. Mining that part of the Persian Gulf would surely not be in US's best interest.
 

Rich

Member
A good look at the map reveals that Bandar Abbas sits at the mouth of the very busy, and very narrow Straits of Hormuz, through which most of the oil for the develped world passes. Mining that part of the Persian Gulf would surely not be in US's best interest.
We have self propelled mines we can easily place at pre-determined locations. And there are choke points any Iranian ship would have to pass thru to get to open water. Not that its would matter to Bandar Abbas, or any unfortunate Iranian anywheres near the port. We would pound that place to dust with smart weapons and various cruise missiles.
 

contedicavour

New Member
To summarize, most probably the Iranians aren't really considering defensive systems for their naval assets. They only make sense as offensive tools in a first-mover-advantage scenario. They would be blown to pieces as soon as the US wanted to, whether you put Crotale, SA-N-9 or whatever ECM and ECCM ;)

cheers
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Does anyone get the impression the US Pentagon intentionally inflates the status of the Iranian Navy and feeds off every bit of paranoia the media adds to the Iranian Navy? A lot of what is being said simply doesn't hold up to logic, and sounds way too much like the desciptions of Iraqi Armor units in 1990.

To me it seems the comparison is this. It would be like New York State, with a GDP higher than the country of Iran btw, telling Europe they better watch themselves off the coast of New York, because the New York City yacht club, combined with the New York Chapter of the National Rifle Association, plus the New York State Police, plus the New York State Port Authority, plus the New York State Fisheries Regulatory Commission, and joined by the one hundred or so boats and ships from 10 meters or larger of the US Coast Guard in New York harbor is a serious and legitimate threat because of swarming tactics to the combined forces of all European Navies, and Europeans better be weary of the threat.

I understand respecting your advesaries, but if you put the combination of what is listed above for New York State against the Iranian Navy I'd say it would be a close fight, with Iran having the advantage because of thier large number of sea mines. To say either is a serious and concerning threat to the US Navy, or any combination of European Navies seems unrealistic to me though.

After all, the only country spending money to build up their fleet assets to counter the Iranian Navy "threat" is Saudi Arabia, which is probably why the Europeans spend just as much time claiming the Iranian threat exists, since they sell Naval goods to the Saudi's too.
 

Rich

Member
Does anyone get the impression the US Pentagon intentionally inflates the status of the Iranian Navy and feeds off every bit of paranoia the media adds to the Iranian Navy? A lot of what is being said simply doesn't hold up to logic, and sounds way too much like the desciptions of Iraqi Armor units in 1990.
A good point but there are some differences. First off there are still remnants of Yank equipment, Yank training, and western doctrine, in Irans armed forces. The impact of this was seen in the war with Iraq when the Mullahs released the air force pilots from jail and they did a great job against the Iraqi air force. Granted over time this has lessened but I still can imagine fighters I'd rather not see in the air then the few dozen F-4 and F-14s the Iranians can drum up. Dont forget at the time of the '79 revolution, a time I was a few hundred air miles away from Iran, their armed forces, and especially air force, was the best in the region.

Even still, even the least optimistic would have a hard time imagining an Iranian victory against a coordinated American attack. The Iranian navy would be destroyed in short order. The real question is what impact they would have before this happened. We have every reason to respect high-tech anti ship missiles and mines. These two weapons, along with a terrorist dinghy, are what has damaged American warships in the past. The Iranians are correct in basing their defense around these two systems. I would also hazard the Iranians would fight smarter and better then the Iraqis did. They are an Asian people, not Arab, and strike me as Learners from the mistakes of others. Also, unlike the Iraqis in Gulf-1, they have seen Yanks fight in their region before and they have an idea what we will do.

No disrespect to your NYNY analogy but its irrelevant. We would be fighting in "their" backyard, in terrain, air, and water they know.

I understand respecting your adversaries, but if you put the combination of what is listed above for New York State against the Iranian Navy I'd say it would be a close fight, with Iran having the advantage because of their large number of sea mines. To say either is a serious and concerning threat to the US Navy, or any combination of European Navies seems unrealistic to me though.
Using mines is exactly the way to fight the USN. They sure aren't going to leave the Gulf and take on a CV group wheeling around at 30 knots with a kill zone of 600 miles in a 360% around it. They'd never even get close enough to it to launch weapons. The only card they have is to lure the USN into the Gulf by terrorizing commercial shipping. Why do you think we are trying to get the LCS system operational? Even still the Iranians have no hope of winning. They simply want to cause unacceptable damage to our ships, close down the Gulf, and force a favorable diplomatic resolution to the conflict.

After all, the only country spending money to build up their fleet assets to counter the Iranian Navy "threat" is Saudi Arabia, which is probably why the Europeans spend just as much time claiming the Iranian threat exists, since they sell Naval goods to the Saudi's too.
Another gun boat navy, well, they have a few nice frigates. And assuming they even join in and fight. I'd say of all the, so called, friendlies in the Gulf the Saudis are to be counted upon the least.

Its true we have a habit of over estimating our enemies. Some of it comes from pure caution but much of it comes out of the mouths of Politicians, talking heads, and activists who dont know which end of the gun shoots. An example was Teddy Kennedy and Jesse Jackson before Gulf-1. Neither had ever worn a uniform, neither are to bright to begin with, and both had Political axes to grind. Which is why both strategy genius's predicted a 6 month ground war and 50,000 American casualties. Anyone who knew anything about the military knew that Iraqi army was as good as dead once the coalition buildup crossed a particular thresh hold.

As would the Iranian navy be. I wouldn't, however, count on them being stupid. They will fight the naval equivalent Fallujah style fight on and under the water. They will study the "war of the tankers" during their war with Iraq, the Falklands war, and the damage Yank ships have gotten from mines. And they know we will eventually have to come after them if they close down the Gulf. Mines and Missiles. Thats how they are going to fight us. Draw us into ambush!

I think you have to respect sophisticated thinking like that.
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Rich,

I didn't mean to give the impression I am discounting Iran's anti-naval capability, I was trying to stay focused simply on the Iranian Navy proper. Indeed I actually have a great deal of respect for Iran's anti-navy strategy, between the series of island positions set up along the Strait of Hormuz through the Gulf or whether we are discussing the 4th largest naval mine inventory in the world, Iran certainly has denial capabilities regardless of which Navy it faces off against.

In terms of Naval vessels though, I simply don't see the Iranian Navy even with thier infamous potential for swarming boat attacks as a major threat against any warship. I understand suicide boats can cause damage, but I think it would be more difficult to hit a warship with a suicide boat in a shooting war than conducting an air raid against a fully prepared US Navy CVN Task Force.

I think you may be misreading the Saudi situation, or simply may not be current on the situation. Up until 2003, Iraq without US assistance was the major power in the region that counter-balanced Iran in the Gulf. One of the key primary strategies of the Iraq war was to change the status quo regarding the US/Saudi relationship. In regards to that specific strategy surrounding Iraq, it has been very successful, because now Saudi Arabia finds itself without the traditional US security blanket, and as the counter-balance to Iran in the Gulf.

The other Gulf nations, from Iraq to Kuwait to Bahrain to Qatar to UAE all find themselves under the coalition security blanket. Saudi Arabia does not have the same protections, a subtile side effect of the fallout from Saudi Arabia's role as financial backer for Al Qaeda and no support for the US in the Iraq conflict. You see the results of this strategy materializing in recent strategic purchase decisions of Saudi Arabia, whether from the Eurofighter, large helicopter purchases, interest in buying submarines, and/or FREMM ships Saudi Arabia is not only in the market, they have risen to become the worlds second largest military market in only 3 years. Saudi Arabia is quickly searching for new solutions to match thier new role in the region, a role they didn't exactly want or expect only a few years ago.

Ask yourself, how many US troops are in Saudi Arabia? How many Navy ships have made port in Saudi Arabia in the last 2 years? You'll find the bases in Saudi Arabia are almost completely shut down as of late last year, with no US planes left and only a few hundred US military personal left, all of which on their way out. The number of US ships making port in Saudi Arabia has dropped to 0.

Strange how the US media has failed to report on the fallout of Saudi/US strategic relations. Somehow that one has happened barely discussed, but I bet most Americans take for granted the US/Saudi relations, and assume relations are as good as ever.
 

Rich

Member
I think you may be misreading the Saudi situation, or simply may not be current on the situation. Up until 2003, Iraq without US assistance was the major power in the region that counter-balanced Iran in the Gulf. One of the key primary strategies of the Iraq war was to change the status quo regarding the US/Saudi relationship. In regards to that specific strategy surrounding Iraq, it has been very successful, because now Saudi Arabia finds itself without the traditional US security blanket, and as the counter-balance to Iran in the Gulf.
Iraq after Gulf-1 was pretty eviscerated military wise. Their navy has never been a force. In their war with Iran I dont remember the Iraqi navy ever firing a shot and in 1991 we destroyed all of their navy in short order. I dont understand your statement about Saudi Arabia. Iran is surrounded by Americans and they are as contained as they ever have been. Whatever the ins and outs of our situation with Saudi Arabia the west needs their oil. We need their oil. Its that simple.

The Saudis are investing heavily in defense systems. I know they have picked up some good frigates with good radars but I'm unaware of any purchases of submarines. As far as I know their submarine wishes have never gotten past talking.

There are no US troops on Saudi soil, again as far as I know. Ive never trusted the Saudis. Having served in the region myself Ive been long aware of Saudi support for terrorism. The House of Saud itself made a deal with the Wahhabi's back in the 1800s that they can do whatever they want as long as they dont attack the House of Saud. In exchange the Saudi Kings allowed Wahhabism to be the form of Islam practiced in the Kingdom.
 
Top