Article

2006-04-04 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2006-04-04 08:58|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Its small fleet of P-3K "Orion" aircraft could conceivably also carry such a torpedo...

While the Orion is an excellent ASW plane, and not bad at taking out light/undefended surface targets, it's a prop plane. It simply couldn't get close enough to a defended target to deliver a torpedo with a 7nm range.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2006-04-04 09:41|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-04-04 09:41|| Front Page Top

#2 The only problem here is that these torpedoes would likely be used against tankers, not naval vessels.

Go read up on the "Tanker war" when the US reflagged vessels to protect them from Iranians (and Iraqis too - Saddam was flying French fighter-bombers and using French Exocet missles. Bet you forgot that!)

Iran refrained from attacking the United States naval forces directly, but it used various forms of harassment, including mines, hit-and-run attacks by small patrol boats, and periodic stop-and-search operations. On several occasions, Tehran fired its Chinese-made Silkworm missiles on Kuwait from Al Faw Peninsula. When Iranian forces hit the reflagged tanker Sea Isle City in October 1987, the US retaliated by destroying an oil platform in the Rostam field and by using US Navy SEALs to blow up a second one nearby.

Posted by OldSpook 2006-04-04 09:52|| 2006-04-04 09:52|| Front Page Top

#3 this is too what im begining too see this as, a tanker threat more then anything,a card to use in a any new tanker wars and a powerful card it is to when used against unprotoected supertankers. US navy or DARPA has developed a weapons system apparently that firs bullets into the water to defeat wake homing torpeados, i think it uses a LADAR system to search for and aquire the target then fires a type of super cavitating bullets - much like a close in defense system like goal keeper i think but the bullets have no bother with water and its rigged to fire into the water anyway if you get me. Perhaps systems like these will become standard issue much in the same way the certain countrys airline aircraft are now being fitted with advanced counter measure systems. The whole web seems to have gone wild with excitment over this though - find me a military forum or newsforum that dosnt say about it so the Iranians certaily got thier propaganda value out of this. Anyway back to counter measures which brings about another thought - Decoys? do warships have sonar spoofing decoys that are towed out behind like the is it 'ALE-50' system on fighter and bomber jets do, something like that would be handy i'd guess and then theres that Acoustic defensive system i said about the other day that again i think DARPA said they invented which uses pulses of sound i think to make a torpedo think its hit and detonate - like a big fck off shockwave slamming into it i think - something like that could also end up standard fit on Tankers and warships operating in that region. Slat armour like a Stryker? lol joking on that last one but don't US carriers have alot of armour on them or is all of that above the water line? and could even a super carrier bear to take the huge force of pressure detonated by one or think maybe 3 or 4 at once of these detonating against and even worse under it hull? Hell a Super carrier is big i know but the blast of a torpedo detonating directly underneath would surly still have a hell of a chance of snapping her back in two pieces. I think the plan is gonna be to use these to shut down the straights of Hormuz (spelling) by swamping the area with launchers fitted and in various types of differant platforms. Yes alot of them would be taken out but you get 5 or 6 of these coming at you in a coordinated fight then your in trouble. Perhaps engaging the US navy with suicide boats and what not for hours and days to wear them down (ok debatable) using every tool in the book then a suprise attack with a mass Shkval attack - at night too so the wakes less visable. Ok might sound like some kind of doom mongering but you don't win wars by under estimating the potential of the enemy.

Posted by ShepUK 2006-04-04 10:16|| 2006-04-04 10:16|| Front Page Top

#4 I am not a Naval expert but how effective would this weapon be in the (somewhat) shallow waters around Iran? Also if push come to shove wouldn't it be difficult for a sub to evade an ASW screen in those waters? But maybe the only correct move would be to destroy everything now and not wait and see if they can employ them.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2006-04-04 10:20|| 2006-04-04 10:20|| Front Page Top

#5 Look at the article again: this is an UNGUIDED torpedo, so decoys would work only if they fooled the launching submarine.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2006-04-04 10:26|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2006-04-04 10:26|| Front Page Top

#6 [speculation, uninformed]

I'ts hard to believe that the Navy would ever let the Air Force get all the robot money [Preditor, Global Hawk etc]. I'm sure we've wired the whole Gulf way back and keep updating the sensors. And I wouldn't be surprised if we've mined it with the latest smart mines and or smart varities of robots.

Posted by RD 2006-04-04 10:53|| 2006-04-04 10:53|| Front Page Top

#7 OldSpook, I agree. The Moolahs want to wage war on commercial vessels and choke off oil shipments. Their messages are intended for industry.

Posted by Captain America 2006-04-04 11:04|| 2006-04-04 11:04|| Front Page Top

#8 Insurance borkers. It's going to turn out to be a protection racket.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-04 11:06|| 2006-04-04 11:06|| Front Page Top

#9 The only problem here is that these torpedoes would likely be used against tankers, not naval vessels.

Against a target as slow and unmanaeuverable as a tanker ypou don't need this torpedo. This torpedo is supposed to go after war ships not tankers, now that it will be effetive its to be demonstrated.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-04-04 11:15|| 2006-04-04 11:15|| Front Page Top

#10 I'm no naval expert either but it's pretty clear from articles that the Shkval was developed as a defensive weapon for a sub to fire off against US sub which would have to evade, letting the Russian sub gain the initiative in a sub to sub battle. I guess it could hit a carrier too if the sub got in that close, but then so could the other Russian torpedo models.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't we also hunt subs effectively from P3s (which Iran also has but I assume we can shoot them down or we have other problems) and Helos. If so, aren't we really worried about Shkval-armed torpedo boats . I am curious if we have a problem tracking them.

Seems to me we're worried more about Exocet and Sunburn for our carriers.

As noted here before, blocking the Strait is not a necessarily a good idea for Iran which imports a lot of its own gasoline with tankers. I would assume such a provocative act would lead to a total blockade of Iran and we would destroy their electrical generation and distribution and petroleum refining capacity as well as their IRBMs and shore batteries. This would take a lot longer to restore than clearing the Strait.

Posted by JAB 2006-04-04 11:33|| 2006-04-04 11:33|| Front Page Top

#11 Shep, decoys only work against torpedos that can hear. These suckers are deaf.

Posted by 6 2006-04-04 11:58|| 2006-04-04 11:58|| Front Page Top

#12 And yes, really dumb.

Posted by 6 2006-04-04 11:59|| 2006-04-04 11:59|| Front Page Top

#13 Trying a harassment campaign against the US is fruitless, as our Navy Seals live for the opportunity to scuttle everything that floats in Iran larger than most bathtub toys.

So using this as an axiom, their first attack almost has to be against one or two of our carriers. Their entire campaign is rooted in whether this attack works or not.

Ideally, for the Iranians, it would happen in the area of Port Said, Egypt, at the entrance or in the Suez Canal; South to the Bab el Mandeb passage opposite Aden, Yemen. In the North, if it was a nuclear detonation, it might also rain fallout on Israel, as well as close the canal.

They would make it an al-Qaeda operation, and diplomatically deny involvement around the world.

The US has already warned them that any such attack would be interpreted as an Iranian act of war. So continuing, any response by the US would immediately be met with a massive conventional missile barrage against US airbases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They would calculate that with the US Atlantic fleet blocked from entering the region, the Pacific fleet a week or two away, and the complete shut-off of Persian Gulf oil causing massive disruption in the world oil markets and economies, along with major diplomatic efforts, might limit US retaliation to "acceptable" levels.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-04-04 12:03|| 2006-04-04 12:03|| Front Page Top

#14 Saddam was flying French fighter-bombers and using French Exocet missles. Bet you forgot that!

Nope. Had Iraqi Mirages doing fly-bys on me for six months. Got kinda old. Fun watching the Saudi patrol boats going apesh*t, though.

Posted by Pappy 2006-04-04 12:08|| 2006-04-04 12:08|| Front Page Top

#15 So what they have basically invented is an underwater unguided balistic missile that would have to be lit off close to the target? With the shallow depth around Iran, good luck with that.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2006-04-04 12:16|| 2006-04-04 12:16|| Front Page Top

#16 thing what is often forgotten though is Iran has no problem finding suicidal manpower to do these jobs - they think very very differantly to how we do when it comes to how they use thier forces. They have no worry for casualties regardless of number - these fckers would sacrifice 200000 just to kill 4000 of us, im not doom mongering again but this factor has to be bought into account when dealing with the Iranians. They have no shortage of brain washed idiots either willing to sacrifice themselves for Allan and the mad mullahs, also no media crying quigmire every 30 seconds either. These guys ain't stupid - they've been tooling up for this for decades and are willing to take heavy losses.

Posted by ShepUK 2006-04-04 12:30|| 2006-04-04 12:30|| Front Page Top

#17 The Persian Gulf is a noisy place. There are questions about how effective our anti-submarine efforts would be there. I assume that doctrine is being developed to deal with this but, the US Navy is primarilily a blue water Navy. The Gulf is not the environment that they have been designed for.

Posted by Formerly Dan 2006-04-04 12:53|| 2006-04-04 12:53|| Front Page Top

#18 My understanding was that the carriers would stay off in quieter, deeper waters or the Arabian Sea and that P3s (based in Quatar or some friendly country), our attack subs and ship based helos would hunt Iranian subs. Doesn't that make the Iranian theater ballistic missile threat more of an issue than the Shkval since it can be used to attack our air bases in the region from which P3s and refueling aircraft must launch?

I'm just a civilian, so I'm asking.

Posted by JAB 2006-04-04 13:04|| 2006-04-04 13:04|| Front Page Top

#19 I believe somebody posted this link about the "Tanker War," which OS mentioned, a few weeks ago. I greatly appreciated it, so here it is again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Will

Posted by Dar">Dar 2006-04-04 13:26|| 2006-04-04 13:26|| Front Page Top

#20 In my language, we call the Iranian P-3's "targets". Oh, wait, the navy ditched the Phoenix missle. Oh, well.

The Soviet version of this is a nuke. You don't have to get real close.

Posted by Chuck Simmins">Chuck Simmins 2006-04-04 14:09|| http://blog.simmins.org]">[http://blog.simmins.org] 2006-04-04 14:09|| Front Page Top

#21 I'd love to hear the explaination of how displacing water could be as easy as displacing air. Water to metal friction is only a fraction of the problem. I just don't see how this torpedo could work and I think the inherent design problem probably caused the Kursk accident.

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-04-04 15:48|| 2006-04-04 15:48|| Front Page Top

#22 #13 They would make it an al-Qaeda operation, and diplomatically deny involvement around the world.

One more reason to tell Iran, North Korea and all other rogue nuclear states that a single terrorist nuclear explosion gets all of them glassed over. We need to have enough other nations so petrified over Iran's potential usage that they all put pressure on the mullahs to sit down and STFU.

Posted by Zenster 2006-04-04 16:04|| 2006-04-04 16:04|| Front Page Top

#23 *cough* Bluefin-9 and its ilk *cough*

Posted by Valentine 2006-04-04 16:44|| 2006-04-04 16:44|| Front Page Top

#24 I don't care how noisy the Gulf is you can use active sonar to detect subs. I forget my basic sonar primer but I think it works better at shallow depths. Since we alreaady know where thse subs are based and I assume we are keeping an eye on them, so at the onset of hostilities they would be a first strike target. The other platforms (P-3, etc) are less of a threat.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2006-04-04 16:50|| 2006-04-04 16:50|| Front Page Top

#25 I forget my basic sonar primer but I think it works better at shallow depths.

Nah. All those echoes from rocks, the bottom, the SURFACE even. Active sonar is a two edged threat. It can detect but again only under certain conditions but then you've just announced to the listening world that you are out there.

The thing is meant to shoot down the throat of another attacking submarine and hopefully make it turn away, thus, breaking the control wire of it's own torpedo.

REMEMBER: There are only two types of ships at sea. (1) Submarines and (2) Targets!

Posted by AlmostAnonymous5839">AlmostAnonymous5839 2006-04-04 18:25|| 2006-04-04 18:25|| Front Page Top

#26 I'm pretty confident with our Navy that the gulf is the most-mapped/seeded with sensors body of water in the world....

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-04-04 18:50|| 2006-04-04 18:50|| Front Page Top

#27 We should be careful of this new weapon because in it's only deployment, it was 100% successful and sunk a submarine. Course, the problem is, it sunk it's mothership. I think it is more dangerous for them than us.

Posted by Brett 2006-04-04 19:33|| 2006-04-04 19:33|| Front Page Top

#28 Dipping sonar and sonobouys - thats the biggie that most forget. Active sonar, but no giving away a big naval target (sub, surface ship) to do that. If we had ann FFG's with SURTASS left, they'd probably do OK on picket duty just off the brown water in the Persian Gulf.

Shame the Navy has shrunk so much.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-04-04 23:39|| 2006-04-04 23:39|| Front Page Top

#29 #21 I'd love to hear the explaination of how displacing water could be as easy as displacing air. Water to metal friction is only a fraction of the problem. I just don't see how this torpedo could work and I think the inherent design problem probably caused the Kursk accident.

Okay, lemme' try at least.

First, the damned thing has a sort of "burbler" which disperses a constant bubble of gas from the nose. Think of a fountain, only this fountain uses gas underwater instead of water above the surface.

The gas flows down all sides of the missile, coating it in a constant stream for the few short seconds it's going to be active and moving.

Now, what happens is that the gas forms a sort of "bubble" or "cavity" (opening in the surroudning water) around the entire missile. This cavity pushes on the water ahead of the missile, constantly forming ahead of the missile and allowing it to travel through a less dense medium than the water surrounding the cavity. The result is that the missile is pushing against a gaseous bubble which is pushing against a watery bubble. This lets the missile attain much faster speeds than a normal torpedo can.

Of course, it's noisier than hell and any launch will be instantly detected by anything using sonar even in the passive role within miles.

The USN had 2 submarines watching the Kursk the day she went down according to most reports (Memphis & Toledo) and I'm sure we've seen the Shkval test fired (or acquired a few of our own and test fired them ourseves) and acquired its acoustic signature. This thing will be instantly detected, identified, located, and very quickly destroyed along with its firing platform.

The danger is that it carries a fairly heavy warhead and will likely be used against tankers rather than in a faceoff with the USN. It can do a lot of damage even to newer double-hulled tankers, but it's unlikely to be able to sink a carrier unless it cracks her keel (also unlikely in my estimation). The warhead is only about 500 lbs high explosive. I believe the Sunburn carries a substantially larger warhead.

The Exocets (2 of them) that hit our OHP (Stark; a tiny little aluminum hulled frigate) in the Gulf had a warhead of about 250 lbs HE each, as an example.

Go here,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet

or Google "Exocet missile warhead" and go to the Wiki site for a picture of the Stark after she was hit.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2006-04-04 23:45|| www.fire-on-the-suns.com]">[www.fire-on-the-suns.com] 2006-04-04 23:45|| Front Page Top

16:52 Elmash Phing8221
16:11 Elmash Phing8221
13:58 Elmash Phing8221
13:44 Elmash Phing8221
13:11 Elmash Phing8221
00:03 JosephMendiola
23:59 Frank G
23:51 JosephMendiola
23:48 Old Patriot
23:45 FOTSGreg
23:39 Oldspook
23:37 DMFD
23:36 JosephMendiola
23:32 JosephMendiola
23:32 Steve White
23:30 Oztrailan
23:24 RWV
23:24 Oldspook
23:22 trailing wife
23:17 FOTSGreg
23:11 DMFD
23:02 twobyfour
23:00 trailing wife
22:54 twobyfour