This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Playing on Iran’s Home Court: The Great Strait of Hormuz Test
Playing on Iran’s Home Court: The Great Strait of Hormuz Test
Courtesy of Russ Winter of Winter Watch at Wall Street Examiner
Any good armchair general with a good search engine and time on his hands can figure out in a hurry that the song and dance about Iran being unable to close the Strait if Hormuz for long is just a plain crock. Worse than that. Yet, this big Orwellian lie persists, so I want to set the record straight. Iran has the capability of not only closing the Strait for some time, but creating a world of hurt for the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet.
Iran possesses a build-up of anti-ship weapons called Sunburn missiles, which it has procured from Russia and China over the last decade. These are top-notch weapons developed by the Russians as a low-cost challenge to the expensive, tech-heavy weaponry of the U.S., and specifically the aircraft carrier task force. A conflict, which I now assign a high probability to [see Scenario for an Israel Attack on Iran], is going to be a huge test of a global-naval doctrine that Russia and China will watch with tremendous interest. Iran's mix of anti-ship missiles (Sunburns, Onyxs, home produced, etc) is an unknown, but I think they are armed to the teeth. The big question: How many of these weapons does Iran have? I would suggest thousands, and that this is the real show.
Given that U.S. crony logic seems to be about squandering money on weapons in the military-industrial complex, I fear for sailors and marines on the 5th Fleet. Don’t get me wrong, the US Navy is professional, but the Strait doesn’t allow for the normal defense in depth available in open seas, in fact it offers the Iranians a cross fire setup or triangulation (see map of Strait below) . If you read discussions on various military sites, there is a lively debate on American ship defense system like the Aegis. However, almost nobody claims this to be fully protective against ship strikes. And an oil tanker, no way. It is important that the US is working on new generation lasar defense to counter these missiles, however they are still in development. This puts added pressure for Iran to have this fight now, not later. The following is from ”Russian Military Equality Network. (I have cleaned up the English a bit.]
U.S. Navy Pacific Commander Admiral Timothy Keating said that due to lack of sufficient funds for the procurement of simulated target missile defense system, the U.S. Navy can not now afford to fight “the club” category of supersonic anti-ship missiles. It is reported that the U.S. military that is used to simulate the “club” missile target missile is still being developed, and is expected to be put into use in 2014.
The Sunburn is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world, designed to fly as low as 9 feet above ground/water at more than 1,500 miles per hour (mach 2+). The missile uses a violent pop-up maneuver for its terminal approach to throw off Phalanx and other U.S. anti-missile defense systems. Given their low cost, they’re perfectly suited for close quarter naval conflict in the bathtub-like Persian Gulf.
The Sunburn is versatile, and can be fired from practically any platform, including just a flat bed truck. It has a 90-mile range, which is all that is necessary in the small Persian Gulf and 40-mile-wide Strait of Hormuz. Fired from shore a missile could hit a ship in the Strait in less than a minute. It presents a real threat to the U.S. Navy. Tests using the Aegean and RAM ship defense technology stops the Sunburn 95% of the time, but such testing was done in open seas, not a bathtub. The payload hit with a 750-pound conventional warhead can be witnessed at 1:53-1:57 in this video. Not enough to sink a carrier, but it could take down smaller capital ships and crew.
You don’t have to be Hannibal preparing for the Battle of Cannae to see that the Strait is a potential shooting gallery. Without a doubt, Iran has plotted and mapped every firing angle and location along the Gulf, their home-court coastline. This is going to put enormous interdiction pressure on U.S. warplanes to spot and destroy platforms, which may be as simple as a flat-bed truck. In reality, Iran has dug in from Jask in the east to Bandar in the west and can easily cover any ship, commercial or military, traversing the narrow Strait.
Equally disturbing is Iran’s missile range for the entire Persian Gulf. Bahrain itself could be hit by the longer-range version of the Sunburn, the Onyx. Is the U.S. (which has three aircraft carrier groups in play currently) going to stick around or clear out to the Oman Sea, leaving control of the oil lanes to Iran? Or will they stay and slug it out with the Iranians? If so, at what cost? Iran’s home court strategic advantage and weaponry may mean nasty losses for the 5th Fleet. If they leave, the Iranians would use naval mines to close the strait and missiles to hamper the mine clearing operations.
This is a classic fog of war situation, and has game changer potential.
For additional analysis on many topics, including trading ideas, subscribe to Russ Winter's Actionable – risk free for 30 days. Click here for more information.
»
- ilene's blog
- 13580 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Is oil going to be shipped by plane and tank or something? Maybe there are enough airforce jets to escort the oil tankers all the way back home.
No, through the Strait as usual, after a short conflagration in which the Iranian Navy is decimated by the USAF.
Now accepting bets on whether or not the current glut of oil sitting in tanks (no, not that kind) would suffice for the interim.
I recall reading an article written by someone that said it was impossible to close the straights because it would take 1000's of ships to stretch that far. This dummy actually thought closing them was like a road block. Wish I could recall where I read that. I had to lol about that.
Hmm, I watched the suggested video of this missle.
Evidently flat bed trucks are a heck of a lot bigger in Iran than the US.
Looks like the takeoff incinerates the truck it takes off from.
Delete. Fat finger.
Sunburn are toys compared to these
and Syria has 72 P-800s. One hit takes out a carrier.
Nonsense, it would most likely take multiple hits, extremely unlikely one could do it.
See also, "RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile", a small anti-missile missile system on current USN ships that is specifically designed to destroy such high-speed manoeuvring missiles (several km from the ship).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaRAM
US carriers are far harder to hit than you think. It would take highly coordinated and successive waves of scores upon scores of missiles, plus numerous decoys, in order to get hits against an alerted US fleet.
Don't kid yourself, the USN is a missile-based navy, and it knows exactly how this sort of battle will develop, and has prepared for it in astonishing depth and detail. The Iranians can potentially do a lot of damage, but they will not so easily demolish a carrier. The USN will get hurt but it won't be going away, for long.
When it comes back it will smash EVERYTHING in sight.
Problem is, that won't stop the tankers and export pipelines and infrastructure getting blown-up anyway, on a daily basis, for years to come after such a beating is doled out to Iran.
And that IS what the entire western world will face.
If it gets to the carrier.
Insert "oh we got a badaas here" pic..
THey are fired in a volley of 24 missiles, as P-800s approach the fleet they work together, actually creating a plan of attack in flight, to target the picket Destroyers so that they are too busy protecting themselves as six or more of the missiles attack the Carrier simultaneously. The missiles approach at Mach 2.5 and have a low radar profile. One volley is designed to destroy an aircraft carrier battle group. These are the most feared weapons by the U.S. navy. Does Iran have them? Their drawback is that they are very large compared to the Sunburn and cannot be fired from just any platform.
Ya think those firing platforms might be visible to a satellite?
So, Syria (not near the Strait), has enough for 3 "volleys".
Whites of their eyes indeed.
Remember that the U.S. fleet was poised to enforce a no fly zone over Syria from an Aircraft Carrier in the Med. but backed off at the last minute and now we can only watch as so many people are helplessly slaughtered. There are a couple of reasons why the US backed off. The first reason is that while Syria is known to have P-800 missiles, our Russian friends moved the S-300 AABM into Syria just ahead of the American Navy's arrival. The S-300 is the premier anit-aircraft system in the world and has the capability to detect and shootdown stealth aircraft. The U.S. would have to take the S-300 batteries before attacking the P-800's no small feat, very dangerous but possible. However, S-300 batteries are manned by Russians and a lot them would be killed; read WW III. So the U.S. had to back off. To destroy any dangerous anti-ship missiles that Iran has, the U.S. will have to attack, you guessed it, Iran's S-300 systems. Although there are no Russians manning them it will be very dangerous for pilots.
They are likely difficult to deploy within craters, which the US air force is well known for creating by the thousands to soften defences prior to invasion.
Once again (and again and again), kill one US sailor aboard one US ship and it is on like donkey kong, Obama not only gets permission to obliterate Iran he is faced with a raging demand to do so. And I would like to think that Iran would not be that stupid, but even if they are smart enough to avoid that future they are not sane enough to avoid it. There are no cooler heads with power there to speak.
As they say in martial arts, the only sure way to not be defeated (hurt, killed) is to not be there.
I'm not convinced about "Iran wanting to go to war now instead of later". If the straights were all that was involved then i'd agree.
I bet the surrounding countries will just love the radiation cloud.
many of you are underestimating the potency of new technologies - particularly those developed to recover deep heavy oil - the vast majority of hydrocarbons - previously unrecoverable. they are getting very close to being able to extract these resources economically -
most of the planet's heavy oil is in canada -
http://www.newtechmagazine.com/
As with so many new technologies across all industries, the determining factors of how, when, where etc the technology gets deployed is made by who will get rich and/or more powerful by the deployment. Not whether or not it will benefit mankind, increase the quality of life, improve safety, etc etc. And no industry is more bound by this notion than the oil industry.
Human burning of hydrocarbons is going to continue all this century.
Come to terms with it.
I think its gonna be a lot worst before it gets better. US is already a police state and they didnt even unleash the full power of it. Planning to get 20.000 drones in the sky for 2020.NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and and fuckload of executive orders in case of national emergency. And the fact that it is stipulated that congress cant do a thing for 6 months after the martial law is enacted. Plenty of time to get them to do whatever they want.
All the signs are there, are we fooling ourselves by saying this cant happen? I think we do.
No wonder smart guys leaving US(james cameron)
It's worse, not worst.
Is it impossible to build a pipeline from say, Kuwait, through sounthern Iraq (we won that war right?) across Jordan and Israel to the Med?
Not tomorrow obviously but aren't there a lot of disappointed and idle pipeline workers standing around at the moment?
Just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridiculous:
Britain begs to send a couple of rusty bath-tubs in support....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9064697/Britain-had-to-plead-with-US-to-take-part-in-Iran-flotilla.html
Next thing you know ,they'll have Camilla auditioning for Dancing with The Stars..
I still believe that the USA could win the outcome based on diplomacy rather than force or threats. To achieve this it first has to defeat the military/indsutrial complex's agenda. That one is tougher than than any missile.
This guy hasn't a clue what he's talking about and not nearly worthy as a guest post. He fears the Sunburn as if the USN doesn't know it and is ill-equipped to defend against. He fails in his analysis to understand, too, that should anything happen in Harmuz, the US can flank battle on Irianian soil, if only by air from Diego Garcia, only six hours away from Tehran itself. He overlook American installations from the west, east, north and south of Iran. He disregards US military assets in every dimension and solely focuses on Iran's 'mighty' anti-ship missles. Brother, let me tell you: if Iran shut down the Strait, even for a second, or attempted to sink a CVN, our response wouldn't be only from the Strait, but at every degree you see on your compass.
Exactly.
If Aircraft Carriers are vulnerable this is a gamechanger. Not likely at this point.
IMHO biggest vulnerability is to the Command and Control systems, anyone who can figure out how to disable those will become a deadly adversary.
Electro-Magnetic Pulse
Necessity is the mother of invention. Don’t underestimate a cornered animal that has nothing to lose. Male ego and arrogance has been the down fall of many mighty empires in the past and I will venture to say in the future too.
Someone took down two towers and we never saw that coming. I guessing we’ll all be saying the same thing in the future “Wow, never saw that coming”.
"You don’t have to be Hannibal preparing for the Battle of Cannae to see that the Strait is a potential shooting gallery."
The above quote from the article is to your point, Monoki. Of course military strategists consider theatre of battle in drawing up plans, even if armchair generals like this author don't think they do.
We hear it every war. In the first Gulf War, unseasoned US troops were going to get slaughtered by Saddam's seasoned elite Republicabn guard, fresh off years of fighting with Iran. Wasn't even an issue. Then in the latest war with Iraq, we were told again and again that it was going to be another Vietnam, another quagmire, to invade the country, and cost us 50,000 to 80,000 American lives. Though it was a long battle, the length wasn't due to the resistance of Saddam's forces but instead to our choice to nation build in the region. By the time Saddam was hanged US fatalities were bad but not 5% of the alarmists' predictions.
Might have paid off in the end to have had strong and friendly governments in Iraq and Afghanistan today from which to threaten, if not invade, Iran. I certainly don't think Iraq would mind somebody putting the wood to its old enemy, especially given Iran's nuclear ambitions.
I'm sure that, if this ever comes to blows, we'll see weeks of aerial bombardment of shoreline batteries as well as critical inland support facilities, followed by troop deployment, prior to sending the navy through the Strait if those Sunburns are really such a threat.
And civil ship traffic will stop ... and economics will die on the vine.
You understand a few million dudes in little boats can destroy oil tankers with limpet IEDs for the next 20 years after such a mighty demonstration of US combat 'power'... right?
You've considered the most likely outcome? ... right?
Iran COULD take out a carrier...to do so would be it's death. It would suffer "shock and awe" like none ever seen before. I'm sure we're (the US) is counting on it...why we sent the Enterprise. It's all been preplanned, I don't think "they" will be surprised. "We the people" may be...but not them.
Totally agree. Imagine what taking out a carrier would do psychologically to the US in terms of world perception of US strength. War is a confidence game too. If that US public sees a Carrier go down on top of the last 10 years of war you have a freakin gigantuan PR problem. Not only that your Allies are suddenly feeling nervous.
This would be a seminal moment when the world realised the US was vunerable. That in itself presents a new neurosis to the US. Not only is the economy in freefall now our military isnt bulletproof either. The Iranians will be chomping at the bit to have a crack.
No I don't think so,. War is not a 'confidence game' at all.
A politically manipulated fake whar is a confidence game though, and that is all we have seen since WWII.
A real war however is the opposite of a confidence came, it's a contest where the 'winner' is the most barbaric and efficent killer, who can unquesionably destroy the most, the fastest.
i.e. defines who is a 'superpower'.
The biggest potential killer out there, of course.
Yeah... 'cause shock and awe was so effective the first time it was tried.
Translation of Admiral Keating's quote. "Bring it on, Bitchez!"
It's all moot. Smart mines dropped from RIBs at night would close the gulf for years. It's lose, lose for us. For the price of a war in the Middle East we could develop domestic supplies of energy and be independent of crazy Middle East suppliers.
We will see if mines can close the shipping lanes, and it would be nice - no downright terrific if we could avoid a war and still have energy trade, while keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons through peaceful negotiations, although that strikes me as a bit unrealistic given how determined they are to get them.
But, I think if you want to explore alternatives to a major ME conflict overland routes for pipelines from producer states to the Saudi west coast would be far cheaper and far more successful than trying to satisfy energy needs without ME oil because that cannot be done with our current state of technology and is at least 40 years off. And most of the alternatives proposed for mass scale alternatives are even more devastating to the environment than carbon release from oil use.
Also, shifting the shipping points away from Hormuz is only a geographic solution to a non geographic problem, like a drug user who thinks they are going to straighten out their lives with a fresh start in a new state. Pipelines are more vulnerable than ships, and either end of the Red Sea is as tight or almost as tight as Hormuz.
No, the problem here is the belligerent and anything but peaceful and cooperative Iranian leadership. Iran, her people, I have neither a great love nor animosity toward, but the men running that country are a danger to everyone on the planet and especially the nearest neighbors. Iranian leaders ambitions exceed their grasp but they are far to stupid to realize that the world is not going to submit to their blackmail and that is why they have to be prevented from getting to the point of having nuclear arms, because once they understand that their blackmail will not fly they will be crazy enough to use them.
Lastly, I want to point out that if China were as dependant upon Persian Gulf oil as we are (for better or worse unchangeable for the time being) they would not hesitate to do anything and everything required to keep shipping lanes open. Ditto Russia. Those nations do not submit their international trade policy or risk their economies based upon the opinions of a few keyboard cowpokes on the blogosphere.
And there is one (badly mistaken) unifying belief among you pro Iran posters here, it is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. There is so much blind hatred here of Israel and Jews that you would suck the devil's own cock to see her destroyed. Guess what, if there were a devil in the world today he would be seeking nuclear weapons under the guise of peaceful nuclear electric generation even though he sits atop a thousand years supply of oil and gas.
If you mean domestic supplies of oil, we should investigate harnessing your crack habit as a solution to the energy problem.
The perfect opportunity for obama and soros to finish off the usa as a power, according to plan
Oh my!!!, again the same rethoric Pre-First Irak war about the astonishing capabilities of, then Irak, now Iran, army.
I, sure, dislike deeply a war scenario, but US, could clear the strait in no more than three days.
And Mr. zilverreiger, close martime traffic in a strait, is against all international laws. i.e. Geneve 1958.
Untrue. The Iranians sank the whole Fifth Fleet during the Millenium Challenge war games, one of the biggest naval war games ever. That was ten years ago, and we've made precious little headway in defending our ships against missiles that have greatly improved in quality and have become a lot more available to our enemies. Maybe that's why we stopped building aircraft carriers. They cannot be defended, particularly in coastal areas.
http://americasherojourney.com/Article-New-Pearl-Harbour.htm
When has that EVER stopped a commited aggressor ... like the USA ... or Israel?
You're talking drivel.
Russ Winter has no idea what he's talking about. We could eliminate Iran's navy in an hour and take the country in a week.
Sorry, my friend, but this is not Iraq. This a proxy fight between the US/Israel and China/Russia. Iran's weapons are different, the country is much bigger and more modern than Iraq, and the population is much more patriotic. These are not Arab towel-heads. These people think and act more like Europeans (and their women are gorgeous, BTW). Regime change? No way. In fact, I would not be suprised to see the rest of the Shiite populations in Iraq, Saudi, and the rest of the Arab nations surrounding the Persian Gulf to rise up in solidarity. That would mean that the oil-producing region in Saudi, which is heavily Shiite, could fall into the wrong hands... and where does that leave the Sauds, the hated Wahabbis that the Shiites consider to be inferior? Talk about an asymmetric conflict.
We "invaded" Afghanistan only because the Pakis allowed us to pass through their country with men and materials, and the Taliban was essentially unarmed, at least by our standards. Yet, we are still covering our collective ass ten years later, and we are now in peace talks with the Taliban. The invasion of Iraq happened only after six months of amassing men and equipment in Kuwait for the relatively straight-forward drive to Bagdad, a luxury that we do not have in Iran. The Iraqi army melted away, only to reappear as guerilla fighters that bogged us down and prevented us from actually mopping up.
Look at a map of Iran. There are massive mountains ringing the entire country. There are no land-based friendly countries on any side. Afghanistan is cut off, the Pakis want nothing to do with us, Iraq is lost to us, Turkey and Russia think we have overstepped our bounds. How do you invade this country, except as a WWII-style amphibious invasion? Somebody above mentioned that Diego Garcia is only six hours away by air... so what? Where do you land the heavy-lift aircraft? How do you supply our highly-mechanized land force with gasoline? If we even have a working beach-head after a week, I will be suprised.
Now think about the mountains in Iran and compare them with the Rockies. Imagine an amphibious landing in San Francisco, with supplies coming from Hawaii, an objective in Denver, and very little in between. There are rockets coming at your supplies from LA to Oregon. Now drive your invasion force through the Rockies, with no roads. Supply the quarter-million (minimum) personnel with uninterrupted ammo, food, fuel, and supplies. Once the forward units get through the mountains (if ever), they will be faced with a couple hundred miles of massive deserts, with long, vulnerable supply lines and an enemy that is much more determined to defend themselves than the Iraqis. As in any war, the objective is won or lost on the condition of the units supplying the front. This will be a lot less than Iraq and more like Stalingrad. Once the gasoline stops coming, which it will once a few supply ships are taken out by rogue missile launches, the front will bog down and will be lost.
Why are we wasting blood and treasure for a dubious cause?
For some odd reason the system did not let me give you and up tick, so here is my up tick to you analysis. +10
So a bunch of bed-wetting, chickenhawk nerds can reassure themselves of their own sexuality?
"War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it."
-Desiderius Erasmus
Will the reconstruction fund itself, Wolfie?
I think taking Iran would be absolute suicide for the US military--when Iran fought Iraq, they lost 1 million people but didn't lose. If the Mullahs receive popular support against an invasion, the insurgency would be massive.