Iran, China Intent on Countering Navies

Sam-9

New Member
Iran, China Intent on Countering Navies
U.S. and Israeli Ships Targeted, Hezbollah Successfully Strikes with Iranian Missile

The aircraft carrier - a mobile island of air power - provides U.S. officials with a range of options in conducting relations with hostile or potentially hostile states - from merely a “presence” to the insertion of power ashore in wartime. Often, the enormous firepower that the aircraft carrier and its associated group of ships bring to bear is sufficient to deter acts of aggression before they are carried out or quickly extinguish any that may have begun. Not surprisingly, enormous military resources have been invested into protecting these critical assets. Recent events in the Pacific Ocean, the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea could indicate that carrier force protection has slipped even as regional powers increase their ability to project power above and below the water’s surface.
USS Kitty Hawk in Sydney Harbor, Australia.

On November 13, roughly 24 hours before experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reportedly discovered traces of plutonium and enriched uranium at an Iranian nuclear waste facility - further escalating tensions between Tehran and Washington - the Iranian government released what it claimed to be video from an indigenously-built unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that penetrated the air defenses of a U.S. carrier group operating in the Persian Gulf. The one-minute movie aired on the state-run Al Alam television network and showed a U.S. aircraft carrier underway with a flight deck packed with aircraft. While the Iranian broadcast did not mention when the footage was shot, it was claimed that Iranian officials possess ten such films that show, “more precise information and details about military equipment, foreign forces, and their activities in the Persian Gulf.”

Iranian officials claimed to have over flown another U.S. aircraft carrier in May 2006. And although no footage from that incident was released, Iranian press reports claimed that U.S. naval aircraft were launched in response to the incident but the UAV was able to return to Iranian airspace unscathed. U.S. Navy spokesman Lt. Bashon Mann “categorically denied” the incident took place and dismissed the media accounts of the story as “erroneous,” insisting, “no [U.S.] planes were scrambled at all, that did not happen,” according to the Navy Times, June 2, 2006.

Iranian/Russian Surveillance

U.S. Navy officials believe the video of the aircraft carrier released by Iran on November 13 is much older than Tehran claims. One reason in particular is the presence of F-14D Tomcat fighters on the flight deck. The F-14 was retired from U.S. Navy service in September and hasn’t operated in the Persian Gulf since late February. Moreover, the U.S. Navy puts out a public media release when U.S. ships are entering and exiting the Gulf, so claims by the Iranian government to surreptitiously locate and track American naval vessels, if accurate, are greatly exaggerated.
Russian Su-27 aircraft.

A confirmed breach in carrier air defense, however, did occur some six-and-a-half years ago when two Russian military jets conducted high-speed, low altitude flyovers of the USS Kitty Hawk in the Sea of Japan. On December 9, 2000, Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon acknowledged Russian warplanes flew over the Kitty Hawk on three different occasions, October 12, October 17, and November 9, 2000. During one of these encounters, a Russian Su-24 Fencer and a Su-27 Flanker allegedly buzzed the Kitty Hawk’s tower at an altitude of 200 feet and the ship was unable to launch an intercept for 30 minutes because it was taking on fuel from another ship and was on a reduced “Alert-30” status of readiness, a level of alert congruent with their location and lack of regional threats, Captain Kevin Wensing, a spokesman for the Commander in Chief Pacific Fleet, told Stars and Stripes, December 9, 2000.

Bacon added that carrier personnel had detected the inbound aircraft when they were 30-45 miles away from the Task Force. “We see Russian aircraft and Russian ships … all the time. We’re not in the Cold War anymore. No one looked at this as being much of an incident,” Commander Matt Brown, a spokesman for the 7th Fleet Command in Yokosuka, Japan, remarked, according to Stars and Stripes. Adding to the perception that the fly bys were a bit of showmanship, the Russian pilots allegedly sent hi-resolution photographs to the Kitty Hawk’s website and Russian officials reportedly released the same images a few days later that showed a flight deck in disarray and chaos as the crew scrambled to launch intercept aircraft.

Referring to Kitty Hawk’s reduced alert status, Wensing told Stars and Stripes “the battle group decides what kind of status they should be on. If you’re in the middle of the Persian Gulf, it would be a lot different than if you were in the middle of the Indian Ocean,” where the 2000 flyover took place. And it involved a non-hostile country. “If [the incident with Russia took place in] 1960, it would be a different sort of scenario. But it’s 2000.”
The INS Hanit.

Six years later the same cannot be said of Tehran, where the international community may well be on a collision course with Iran over the country’s nuclear enrichment program. Tensions in the Gulf region remain high and the ability of foreign UAVs to penetrate U.S. carrier airspace, if true, is alarming for a number of reasons, not the least of which would be Iran’s ability to locate, identify and track U.S. Navy vessels and monitor operations in the Persian Gulf.

Israel Blunders and Ship is Struck

A breakdown in fleet security occurred in the recent summer war between Israel and Hezbollah forces operating in southern Lebanon. An Israeli Saar-5-class missile corvette, the INS Hanit, was struck on July 14 by a sea skimming, anti-ship missile launched from the Lebanese coast, killing four sailors, crippling the vessel’s steering system and staring fires below the helicopter pad.

The incident reportedly involved two missiles in a coordinated, simultaneous “high/low” attack - the first “high” missile passed over the Israeli ship. Missing the target, it continued flying, hitting and sinking a civilian Egyptian ship cruising 32 miles from the shore. The second missile followed a sea-skimming flight profile hitting the Israeli vessel at the stern, killing the four sailors and setting the flight deck on fire and damaging propulsion and steering systems, according to media reports citing Israel Defense Forces sources. The Hanit was towed to Israel’s Ashdod naval base for repairs. This attack method, according to defense-update.com’s July 17 article “INS Hanit Suffers Iranian Missile Attack”, would require the launch of two types of missiles, a C-801/802 for the “high” profile and a C-701 TV-guided missile for the “low” profile. Both missiles are assembled in Iran from Chinese designs.
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/artic...4/documentid/3652/history/3,2360,656,164,3652
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rish

New Member
A confirmed breach in carrier air defense, however, did occur some six-and-a-half years ago when two Russian military jets conducted high-speed, low altitude flyovers of the USS Kitty Hawk in the Sea of Japan. On December 9, 2000, Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon acknowledged Russian warplanes flew over the Kitty Hawk on three different occasions, October 12, October 17, and November 9, 2000. During one of these encounters, a Russian Su-24 Fencer and a Su-27 Flanker allegedly buzzed the Kitty Hawk’s tower at an altitude of 200 feet and the ship was unable to launch an intercept for 30 minutes because it was taking on fuel from another ship and was on a reduced “Alert-30” status of readiness, a level of alert congruent with their location and lack of regional threats, Captain Kevin Wensing, a spokesman for the Commander in Chief Pacific Fleet, told Stars and Stripes, December 9, 2000.

Bacon added that carrier personnel had detected the inbound aircraft when they were 30-45 miles away from the Task Force. “We see Russian aircraft and Russian ships … all the time. We’re not in the Cold War anymore. No one looked at this as being much of an incident,” Commander Matt Brown, a spokesman for the 7th Fleet Command in Yokosuka, Japan, remarked, according to Stars and Stripes. Adding to the perception that the fly bys were a bit of showmanship, the Russian pilots allegedly sent hi-resolution photographs to the Kitty Hawk’s website and Russian officials reportedly released the same images a few days later that showed a flight deck in disarray and chaos as the crew scrambled to launch intercept aircraft.

Referring to Kitty Hawk’s reduced alert status, Wensing told Stars and Stripes “the battle group decides what kind of status they should be on. If you’re in the middle of the Persian Gulf, it would be a lot different than if you were in the middle of the Indian Ocean,” where the 2000 flyover took place. And it involved a non-hostile country. “If [the incident with Russia took place in] 1960, it would be a different sort of scenario. But it’s 2000.”
The INS Hanit.

Six years later the same cannot be said of Tehran, where the international community may well be on a collision course with Iran over the country’s nuclear enrichment program. Tensions in the Gulf region remain high and the ability of foreign UAVs to penetrate U.S. carrier airspace, if true, is alarming for a number of reasons, not the least of which would be Iran’s ability to locate, identify and track U.S. Navy vessels and monitor operations in the Persian Gulf.

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/artic...4/documentid/3652/history/3,2360,656,164,3652


What do you guys make of this? Any other reasons why the fleet could not respond to the jets and why the aegis didn't pick it up?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
What do you guys make of this? Any other reasons why the fleet could not respond to the jets and why the aegis didn't pick it up?
Simply that the ship was in a "non-threatening" environment and it wasn't alert due to the fact that it was receiving fuel from an Underway Replenishment Vessel.

As noted, the jets WERE detected at a range of 35-40k's. They didn't do anything because they didn't feel threatened. The fact that they were detected meant that counter-measures could have been employed if necessary. Plainly it wasn't.
 

amatsunz

New Member
Who said that Aegis didn't pick the threat up?, we just don't know. Also at the distance they buzzed the island, assuming Aegis didn't pick the threat up and the aircraft were hostile the aircraft would have been downed by Phalanx or sea sparrow.

I think the original poster of the thread, i assume is Iranian, as he is located in Iran. I think if i'm not mistaken he is trying to state that in this time of tension with his country the US carriers aren't safe. The evidence he has assembled is an ad hoc collection of irrelevant stories/propaganda. Yes in times of peace these warships are easier to access, of course they are! flying a light weight drone near a ship in international waters in the congested Persian gulf in times of peace is NOT the same as delivering large amounts of TNT on a carrier to sink or even cripple it in a war situation. The UAV carried a camera! even the dedicated predator B only carries Hellfire, What sort of dent do you think that would make in a CVNs HY 100 steal flight deck. I Think the argument about the recent Chinese sub near the Kittyhawk is slightly more worrying for all freedom loving countries. But to rehash the argument about the Kilos effectiveness again is a waste of time, its been done to death on this site. needless to say, i would much rather be on a US Nuke Sub in the gulf than a poorly trained Iranian Kilo, in fact i would much rather be on a US CVN than a Iranian Kilo!.
I think a far more useful analysis would be to see how many enemy forces have been able to penetrate a US Battle group in war NOT Peace!
lets see, didnt happen in the Korean war, didn't happen in the Vietnam war, didn't happen in the Gulf war (1991) in fact its NEVER happened in war.:)
 

Pathfinder-X

Tribal Warlord
Verified Defense Pro
I think the Americans were simply too stingy to waste a missile on the little plane Iran bought from Toys"R"Us.
 
Last edited:

Rich

Member
If anyone has heard a Yank military response to this incident, or supposed incident, pray point me to it. Because I cant find one. And I agree its difficult to believe Aegis didn't pick it up and that this little UAV flew around that carrier at will. Were I commander of that ship I would have sent the boys out with M16s and promised a case of Milwaukee's finest to whomever shot the thing down. I sure as heck wouldn't have wasted the $$ on a SM to shoot it down. The Iranians already know "they" work, "USS Vincennes".

I think Iran is following a historical pattern for repressive regimes in vaunting and parading around their "magical weapons systems". You saw the same thing with communism, fascism, South America militarism...ect Such regimes like trying to install fear in their enemies and evoke nationalism in their own people. Make no mistake, these are high stakes propaganda wars.

Did you ever notice in the Western, and Asian, Democracies you never hear a peep? We tend not to brag, or, parade around. And the USN is the last entity in the world that "needs to".
 

contedicavour

New Member
I think Iran is following a historical pattern for repressive regimes in vaunting and parading around their "magical weapons systems". You saw the same thing with communism, fascism, South America militarism...ect Such regimes like trying to install fear in their enemies and evoke nationalism in their own people. Make no mistake, these are high stakes propaganda wars.
I agree with you though I'll be a bit mischevious ;) the Germans did materialize magical weapons systems in 1945 such as the first jet engines on Me262, the V2, etc.
Though the other regimes never materialized anything... luckily enough

cheers
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
If anyone has heard a Yank military response to this incident, or supposed incident, pray point me to it. Because I cant find one. And I agree its difficult to believe Aegis didn't pick it up and that this little UAV flew around that carrier at will. Were I commander of that ship I would have sent the boys out with M16s and promised a case of Milwaukee's finest to whomever shot the thing down. I sure as heck wouldn't have wasted the $$ on a SM to shoot it down. The Iranians already know "they" work, "USS Vincennes".

I think Iran is following a historical pattern for repressive regimes in vaunting and parading around their "magical weapons systems". You saw the same thing with communism, fascism, South America militarism...ect Such regimes like trying to install fear in their enemies and evoke nationalism in their own people. Make no mistake, these are high stakes propaganda wars.

Did you ever notice in the Western, and Asian, Democracies you never hear a peep? We tend not to brag, or, parade around. And the USN is the last entity in the world that "needs to".
Mind you, I saw a video once of a British Frigate doing anti-air training during "work ups" for Gulf War II, they had a little drone flying around and all their "high end" missile and gun capabilities failed to knock this thing down. Guess who shot it down in the end?

Some bloke with a flex mounted MAG-58 7.62mm GPMG... :D
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Mind you, I saw a video once of a British Frigate doing anti-air training during "work ups" for Gulf War II, they had a little drone flying around and all their "high end" missile and gun capabilities failed to knock this thing down. Guess who shot it down in the end?

Some bloke with a flex mounted MAG-58 7.62mm GPMG... :D
As I said in another thread there is still a case for the manual 0.5MG! :D

Cheers
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I agree with you though I'll be a bit mischevious ;) the Germans did materialize magical weapons systems in 1945 such as the first jet engines on Me262, the V2, etc.
Though the other regimes never materialized anything... luckily enough

cheers
First operation deployment of a Jet powered aircraft, yes for the Me262. First jet aircraft, sorry no.
 

Sam-9

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
unnoticed to the Americans for 25 minutes

I cant say when the flight took place, but i will add that U.S. radars picked up the unmanned aerial vehicle after "25 minutes", and that four USAF fighters and two helicopters were scrambled to intercept it. However, the Iranian plane had already crossed the border back into Iran and landed at its base. "This points to holes in the U.S. military reconnaissance systems deployed in the Persian Gulf,". How would it have gotten past American radar? Stealth?
as soon as it was picked up by radar and us aircrafts were prepared for the interception mission, the drone slipped back into iranian airspace. and I don't think us would violate iranian airspace to intercept a UAV.
 

goldenpanda

New Member
Did you ever notice in the Western, and Asian, Democracies you never hear a peep? We tend not to brag, or, parade around. And the USN is the last entity in the world that "needs to".
Does bragging about not bragging count? :confused:

What do you think the UK/Spanish/French peashooter carriers are for, if not for bragging do you think they have ever been used to hit anything?
 

contedicavour

New Member
This thread is going down the drain for the usual nationalistic reasons ... :rolleyes:

A small UAV approached a carrier battle group... ok so what ?? Until the day the Iranian use armed UAVs to try to bomb Western ships, its only real use is spying around. Though that can be done by civilan ships in the Gulf. Iran uses hundreds of small tankers and fishing boats in temporary Pasdaran service, and I don't think the US would shoot out of the water any fishing boat unless it approaches menacingly close...

cheers
 

Falstaff

New Member
Does bragging about not bragging count? :confused:
At least we can brag about not running over protesting students...

When I first saw that video I too thought: So what? I could have switched to Discovery Channel and see better pictures of a carrier. What's the use of these pictures. Does Iran have UAVs that can really spy on a carrier group (SIGINT, ELINT etc.) or do OTH targetting? That would be a matter of concern, but not a camcorder hung under a toy R/C plane.
Would be interesting to know if these pics triggered anything in Iran?
@ sam-9: Where did you read about the Americans trying to intercept that UAV?

Talking about the Hanit-incident: The Israeli release about this incident states that the ship wasn't expecting any such attacks and wasn't ready (see www.defense-update.com, which is based in Israel). I don't know if the Hanit was equipped with Phalanx or not (as "The ship is equipped either a Raytheon / General Dynamics Mk 15 Phalanx close-in weapon system (CIWS) or Oto Melara 76mm gun." www.naval-technology.com).
It would have been very interesting if the ship had been combat ready and had tried to defend itself against the incoming missiles, but this way it doesn't mean anything.
 
Last edited:

goldenpanda

New Member
One use I could think of for UAV is to reduce the time to radar lock the ship. If you know exactly where the ship is, just point the radar, turn it on, fire c802 or whatever. Gives the target less time to respond.

Alternatively don't turn on the coastal radar at all. Let the c802 find its own target.

The Hanit(Spear?) was having systems problems so crew helpfully put it on 2 minute standby to reduce "fatigue". I posted a link to the investigation under another thread.
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
this is kind of interesting, looks like another type of FAC that China is exporting to Iran. It carries 2 C-701 and 2 324mm torpedo (yu-7 I guess).
I uploaded a picture and some of its specs (it has English translation so I don't think I need to say more).
Interesting we haven't heard about this one before.
 

goldenpanda

New Member
That's a very fast boat.

Why couldn't a 16 ton boat carry two c802's (1.5 tons) instead? In general why do ships have such a small part of their displacement in missiles? For example the type 52 displaces 6500 tons but only carries 8 tons of missiles. The Soviet shipreck missiles are considered gigantic at 7 tons and only suitable for cruiser sized ships. Why can't you just stack the boxes higher and stuff more missiles? What's the problem?
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
That's a very fast boat.

Why couldn't a 16 ton boat carry two c802's (1.5 tons) instead? In general why do ships have such a small part of their displacement in missiles? For example the type 52 displaces 6500 tons but only carries 8 tons of missiles. The Soviet shipreck missiles are considered gigantic at 7 tons and only suitable for cruiser sized ships. Why can't you just stack the boxes higher and stuff more missiles? What's the problem?
It can take surprisingly little to effect stability. Too much weight too high and a boat will become unstable and perhaps capsize with catastrophic results. This has always been a major problem for naval designers.

Cheers
 
Top