US/Iran Naval confrontation

[Pburgh]

[fwbbreeze]

Change in Iranian military strategy? ....Good luck with that Iran!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_ ... pe/us_iran

WASHINGTON - The recent confrontation between Iranian and U.S. navy forces in the Persian Gulf reflects a shift in military strategy by Tehran to use its Revolutionary Guard's fast boats in a more aggressive manner in the region, the top U.S. military officer said Friday

[x-y-no]

Amazing that a few in this thread are trying to place some blame with this situation on the American warships. Its blatently obvious the Iranians tried to invoke an American reaction and they just about got their wish. Personally, I hope they try this again (they won't) and get their dingy's shredded to pieces.

Why is this "blatantly obvious?" Why is this not simply the same kind of probing and testing that we do all the time? Every military is interested in learning all they can about the reactions of any potential adversaries. That's normal behavior.

If they had wished to provoke a response, they would have headed straight towards the ships rather than cruising parallel at a distance and/or crossing behind as the video shows.

And I'm baffled why anyone would want an incident that could escalate to a very damaging war.

Their would have been no "Egg on the America face" even if the radio transmission originated from some place other than the Iranian boats. And with all due respect Chacor, I would rather destroy a bunch of Iranian pontoon boats than go through another incident like the bombing of the USS Cole.

As I said above, there's absolutely no prospect that a ramming attack could work in this context - it only worked against the Cole because they relaxed their security procedures in port.

[fwbbreeze]

Amazing that a few in this thread are trying to place some blame with this situation on the American warships. Its blatently obvious the Iranians tried to invoke an American reaction and they just about got their wish. Personally, I hope they try this again (they won't) and get their dingy's shredded to pieces.

Why is this "blatantly obvious?" Why is this not simply the same kind of probing and testing that we do all the time? Every military is interested in learning all they can about the reactions of any potential adversaries. That's normal behavior.

If they had wished to provoke a response, they would have headed straight towards the ships rather than cruising parallel at a distance and/or crossing behind as the video shows.

And I'm baffled why anyone would want an incident that could escalate to a very damaging war.

Their would have been no "Egg on the America face" even if the radio transmission originated from some place other than the Iranian boats. And with all due respect Chacor, I would rather destroy a bunch of Iranian pontoon boats than go through another incident like the bombing of the USS Cole.

As I said above, there's absolutely no prospect that a ramming attack could work in this context - it only worked against the Cole because they relaxed their security procedures in port.

I personally think that we will have to take military action against Iran now...or later. I am sure Iran wont be quick to duplicate the recent incident, but if they do eliminating the threat is a reasonable solution. Iran's constant disregard for the UN regarding its Nuclear Program and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blather for the destruction of Isreal is enough evidence for me to eliminate Iran as a threat in the Middle East.

I still do not undertand the quick defense of Iran in this situation?

[x-y-no]

Basic critical analysis is "quick defense of Iran?"

I don't understand that.

[fwbbreeze]

Basic critical analysis is "quick defense of Iran?"

I don't understand that.

Just what I have seen from a few posters in this thread. But hey, it's not worth getting feathers ruffled about it. It is my opinion and I stand by it.

[mf_dolphin]

As I said above, there's absolutely no prospect that a ramming attack could work in this context - it only worked against the Cole because they relaxed their security procedures in port.

I would have to disagree with your assessment of the potential for this type of attack to have some measure of success. While the Phalanx is one formidable weapon, a well timed attack from a multiple speed boats might have a chance to to get one through. The Iranians give all new meaning to the term "acceptable loss".
Just for example, based on some quick calculations the US crew would have 5 - 7 seconds to react to an attack from 200yds. It would be even less if you considered a head-on attack because you would have to consider the closing speed of the 2 ships as they headed toward each other.

[fwbbreeze]

Interesting development from earlier incidents!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - The U.S. Navy said Friday that one of its ships fired warning shots at a small Iranian boat in the Strait of Hormuz in December during one of two serious encounters that month.

[Brent]

Interesting development from earlier incidents!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - The U.S. Navy said Friday that one of its ships fired warning shots at a small Iranian boat in the Strait of Hormuz in December during one of two serious encounters that month.

CAIRO, Egypt (AP)—The top U.S. military commander in the Mideast said Friday that Iran runs the risk of triggering an unintended conflict if its boats continue to harass U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf.

Great... This is just what everyone needs.

[x-y-no]

As I said above, there's absolutely no prospect that a ramming attack could work in this context - it only worked against the Cole because they relaxed their security procedures in port.

I would have to disagree with your assessment of the potential for this type of attack to have some measure of success. While the Phalanx is one formidable weapon, a well timed attack from a multiple speed boats might have a chance to to get one through. The Iranians give all new meaning to the term "acceptable loss".
Just for example, based on some quick calculations the US crew would have 5 - 7 seconds to react to an attack from 200yds. It would be even less if you considered a head-on attack because you would have to consider the closing speed of the 2 ships as they headed toward each other.

OK, I'll grant that "absolutely no prospect" was too strong. I ought to have said "little prospect."

And I'm by no means minimizing the hazards of episodes like this. I'm just trying to introduce some perspective and some dispassionate analysis. This kind of thing went on all the time during the cold war (from both sides) and it's not strange that it happens in this situation. The unfortunate fact is that there's significant prospect of conflict and therefore both sides will want to do all they can to feel out the opposition. For example, I'm sure we send drones (or maybe even piloted aircraft) into Iranian airspace in order to induce them to light up their defenses. Not doing so would be irresponsible, I think, since we need intelligence on their defenses in case we really do launch an attack some day - but one has to admit it's also provocative in much the same way that this probing by the Iranians was.

[Chacor]

Why am I not surprised some people, who might not have weighed all sides of the situation, are immediately jumping to the American defence have started to suggest that I've tried to "place some blame with this situation on the American warships".

I'm just stating possibilities. At no time have I placed any blame on the Americans; indeed all I've said is that senior American officials admitted they got it wrong, and that I think a third party is involved. Watch what you say, and don't put words into my mouth.

[Chacor]

Latest developments:

On Friday, the US authorities released what it said was the entire unedited footage of the incident.

Although some images in this longer version - lasting more than 30 minutes - are not very clear, they do not appear to show anything very different from what was already seen in the extract of some five minutes already released, the BBC's Vincent Dowd in Washington says.

The audio track is present throughout and very short exchanges of dialogue can be heard on the bridge of the USS Hopper, the destroyer from which the pictures were taken, our correspondent says.

He says the latest video does not shed more light on the origin of the voice hear on tape which initially the Pentagon came from one of the speedboats.

[mf_dolphin]

For those that may want to read about the capabilities of the US ships involved in this incident here are some links.

USS Hopper - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ddg-51.htm

USS Port Royal - http://www.navybuddies.com/cg/cg47class.htm

USS Ingraham - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ffg-7.htm

[Rainband]

Like we need ANOTHER war. Hopefully a democrat gets elected...give me a scandal over a war anyday

[Cryomaniac]

Like we need ANOTHER war. Hopefully a democrat gets elected...give me a scandal over a war anyday

Except that Clinton is hardly anti-war (ok, she's no Bush, but...), and I can see her winning...

[Rainband]

Like we need ANOTHER war. Hopefully a democrat gets elected...give me a scandal over a war anyday

This was meant as a joke. It was political....Duh I should know better.... and I apologize to anyone I offended..too many beers last night

[Ed Mahmoud]

Not really political, but Bush doesn't look like he will do anything, Obama certainly won't, Hillary probably won't, and Iran will build nuclear weapons. Anyone who believes the country that has the second highest natural has reserves in the world, difficult to export but perfect for clean burning gas powered turbine generators, that supports Hezb'Allah and Hamas, that arranged the bombing of the Jewish Cultural Center in Buenos Aires, has peaceful intentions for nuclear power is delusional.


Either Israel, with a limited number of aircraft with sufficient range to bomb Iran, will try to set them back a few years, or Iran will have the bomb. Besides Shia terrorist groups like Hezb'Allah with the bomb, Iran might support Sunni terrorists (they already do, supporting Hamas, which is the Palestinian branch of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which is tied to al Qaeda), Iran may supply Sunni groups. Or, Saudi Arabia, a natural rival of Iran, may purchase nukes from Pakistan or North Korea. A different route to al Qaeda possibly with nukes.


War delayed does not always mean war denied.

[MGC]

The phalanax is an air defense weapon designed to shoot down low flying cruise missiles or aircraft. It would have little use against a close in surface target. The backscatter of its tracking radar due to sea return would blind the weapon. The only defense these ships have against such a close in surface threat is its 50-Cal machine guns......MGC

[Ed Mahmoud]

The phalanax is an air defense weapon designed to shoot down low flying cruise missiles or aircraft. It would have little use against a close in surface target. The backscatter of its tracking radar due to sea return would blind the weapon. The only defense these ships have against such a close in surface threat is its 50-Cal machine guns......MGC

Don't know whether the ships involved had the latest upgrades, but the Phalanx has been upgraded to counter surface threats.


Forgot the Link


Link

[MGC]

Ed, thanks for the update, I stand corrected. It is good to see that the Navy has identified and corrected a potential shortfall of the original Phalanax system. This weapon sure does beat the pants off the old and ineffective basic point defense missle from back in the 70's......MGC