Bluffers Guide: Iranian Naval Capability 2007

I enjoyed reading your post, zraver. I'm surprised you know so much about the geography around the Persian Gulf.

But I think you totally discount many things:

1) It looks like you expect a sustained bombing campaign to reduce the infrastructure around the entire country. I don't think you can sustain a high tempo bombing for that long. The US would need to replenish its supplies several times before you can achieve your objectives.

- Iran has strategic depth and huge mountain ranges
- Iran is more than 3x the size of Iraq
- Unlike Iraq, Iran has not suffered attrition of its military due to sanctions
- Unlike Afghanistan, Iran is a modern middle eastern country with a lot of modern infrastructure
- Iran is far far larger than Serbia, the only state the US has actually beaten in the kind of pure aerial bombing war you describe

Given the mammoth task at hand, you don't haven't enough cruise missiles to do the job by itself. (Not by far.) Your stealth bomber can't generate enough sorties to put a dent in the Iranian infrastructure. You'll need to establish aerial superiority first, and then call in the B-52's to have that kind of firepower, and even then I expect it would take MONTHS!

I expect the Iranians to use the strategic depth of their country to reconstitute their infrastructure even while the US thinks it has finished one area and moved onto the next. You just have to stash things in the mountains, and Iran has a lot of them. Not to mention they probably have tons of fortified and entrenched facilities from the decades of hostility against Saddam Hussein.

The above assumes that the Iranian military is a roll-over.

2) You don't say it, but it looks like the ultimate goal is the removal of the regime, like in Afghanistan. Russia and China are simply not going to allow Iran to do down. Simple as that. And the two will supply enough arms to Iran to fend off the United States.

I would not be surprised if the US faces some S-300's. Ouch! Add to that Buk-1M and Tor M-1. Double Ouch! Add to that tons of cheap Chinese MANPADS. Tripe ouch! Add to that Russian and Chinese made multi-static radars for detection, tracking and engagement of stealth aircraft. Quadruple ouch!!

The main threat to the US will definite not come from the Iranian Air Force, it would be the great numbers of ground based SAM's, and an integrated layer air defense network -- with Russia / China supplied anti-stealth capabilities.

Russia and China would surely view this as a great opportunity to test out their anti-stealth equipment. This would get very ugly for the US. Expect B-2's and possibly F-22's to be shot down.

If tac-nukes are involved, European support will also be disappear.

3) You just assume missile defense works. I don't think it does. History has shown it doesn't work. PAC-3 is not going to work against ballistic missiles. Aegis cruisers are not going to work against ballistic missiles. Just like previous efforts, missile defense will be futile when defense firm brochures turn out to be a pile of lies in real life.

Russia and China will supply Iran with sophisticated mobile ballistic missiles like the Iskandar-E. And Russia can constantly resupply Iran through the Caspian Sea.

In the event of an an attack on Iran, ballistic missiles will rain down on Tel Aviv. They will be loaded with all sorts of nasty things -- biological, chemical and radiological weapons. Maybe even a crude nuclear warhead. At least tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Israelis will die.

US bases in the region will come under fire too by all sorts of nasty things.


I don't doubt that the US will launch a strike on Iran. I just doubt they would succeed.

Roger,

You don't need to take down Iran's entire infastructure. Total take down is just near the coastline around the straits of Hormuz, Bandar Abbas, and a few other areas where any Iranian repsonce has to be generated from. Strategic depth is only useful vs an Invasion which is sometig that is not in the cards.

Look at it this way, you want the piece of cake that says HA out of HAPPY BIRTDAY, you wont start a tthe edge an eat your way in. Instead you'll use a cake knife and spatula to cut out just the piece you want. Iran faces the problem of being a cake, the US doesn't have to attack the entire country just those parts of it that the US wants as to attack.

As for ballistic missile defense it does work and has been proven to work. The big problem with the Pac 1's in ODS was a timing gaff that had many of the missiles missing thier mark. Yet even then most were intercpeted and forced to the eath short of thier targets. As long as the warheads downt hit the Hi-Val targets like C4SRI facilites of the oil/gas platforms its a successfull intercept.

Iran might or might not be able to reach Israel yet, that debate is still on going and vice versa. However hitting Israel who has its own ABM system as well as what ever batteries the US puts in the missiles flight path is harder than a shorter shot across the gulf, becuase there is more time for intercept and a higher trajectory.

The big threat is not actually to Isreal, but to Western Iraq and Jordan who lay in the crash shadow of any intercepts. The best we can really hope for in a shooting war is that Iran won't pop the WMD cork, they might but it would be national suicide.

As for SAM's so far to date no SAM has ever stopped a raid, SAMs might or might not be able to attrit the US attack but they cannot stop it. I would point out that Russian technology desined to counter US technology hasn't always worked as advertised. Iraq's Russian supplied GPS jammers beign a good example.

Iran also faces a difficult question, where do they put thier most advanced SAM's. To close to shore and they are vulnerable to cruise missile and ARM strikes, how much do the nulcear facilites require, the politcal leadership, other critical super vulnerable infastructure points etc. Iran has fewer missiels than the US has planes, but more possible targets than missiles. They can't be strong everywhere, even everywhere they need to be just to defend against what I describe above.

Iran knows all this as well, and they don't really think they can beat the US. Thier military stance is like a guy with a hostage facing down a swat team. He knows as long as he keeps the SWAT team talking and a credible threat held to the hostages head they wont fire. Iran also knows that thier threat is a one shot weapon and once the line is crossed there is no comming back.

Bigstick,

1987 was 20 years ago when Iran was isolated, broke, and fighting a major war. Since then they have enjoyed 19 years of peace, high oil prices, and access to the international arms market. The level of capability is vastly greater than it was then, and we did not fair all that well in 87. I think we can do it, and do it better this time and we have more assets in region to do it with but it wont be easy.

Zraever, you are completely leaving out an important factor: Syria. Both Iran and Syria have a signed treaty in which they will defend each other in case of an enemy attack. And Israel refused to attack Syria last summer in the fears of a regional war being instigated. And buddy, add to the fact that if the Turks are going to invade and take over Northern Iraq (which is now becoming a distinct possibility), then the game completely changes. One last thing is that you also left out Afghanistan: Iran would completely destabilize Afghanistan and that would force Pakistan to jump in on who knows what side....it will be regional war indeed.

Now if the US does somehow win, well, actually, I can't see any side winning. It's going to be a huge slugfest to say the least and will probably end up with regimes that are even more unfriendly and hostile to the West. It can also result in the overthrow of friendly governments to the US (like Saudi Arabia or Egypt) and throw the region into much more chaos. This is probably the sole reason that neither Egypt or Saudi Arabia are interested in seeing air strikes against Iran.

Crazyinsane is absolutely right... attacking Iran would be crazy and insane.

A war against Iran would not be US / Israeli / Arab allies versus Iran. It would be versus Iran as a proxy for both Russia and China.

Even if you have just limited objectives of securing the Persian Gulf, consider that China can easily supply Iran would hundreds of YJ-83 launchers and thousands of missiles.



An old version of this missile was used to great effect to mission kill the Israeli Saar 5 frigate. That was ONE missile.

Iran would put the launchers on flat bed trucks and move them all around along its very long coastline. They would be extremely difficult to locate, extremely easy to hide, and they can blanket the Persian Gulf with swarms of advanced, yet cheap anti-ship missiles.

Russia too -- let's just say the word "Yakhont".

The same issue exists with respect to SAM's. No nation has tried to seriously challenge a modern air defense system. Both Russia and China can mass produce S-300's, Tor M-1's and MANPADS enough to cover all of Iran's coast and vital areas. Russia can supply Iran through the Caspian Sea and China can supply Iran through Pakistan (albeit more difficult).

These are mobile trucks, very difficult to find, and very easy to conceal, especially in rugged terrain. And they're designed so that even if the tracking radar is destroyed by a HARM, the missile would still go active and engage the target.

A huge X factor is the anti-stealth radars Russia and China would supply to Iran. Sure stealth would definitely reduce the range of the radar, but they're mobile so it's very difficult to weave your way "through" the radars screen to hit your target.

Finally, about missile defense, even the Israeli's found the Patriot missile to be no more than 40% effective in Gulf War I. It may be even less since some of the missiles broke up on their own, and were not intercepted. Israeli fired 4 patriot missiles at each incoming scud!



An Iskandar-E would be way more advanced and modern than 1991 Iraqi scuds, so I would expect the PAC-3 to be no more effective than 25%-40%. And once, again, "quantity is a quality all its own." Iran can be supplied with enough Russian/Chinese ballistic missiles to overwhelm any possible defense fielded by US or Israel. They are cheap and mobile.

An attack on Iran would definitely result in all sorts of nasty chemical, biological, radiological or even crude nuclear weapons falling on Tel Aviv -- which is the dense populated nerve center of Israeli. Iran essentially holds Israel hostage, to use your analogy.

Crazy,

You spin alot of possibilities that were outside the scope of my writing so I will try and adress some of them here.

Syria- is not going to do anything, Russia might let her tangle with Israel, but not the US and Israel. Syria is Russia's bargaining chip and diplomatic toehold in the Middle East, having its client destroyed by the combined might of US and Israeli air is not something they want, nor does Syria want to be destroyed. Israeli jets freely operated near the Syrian border durign the Lebanon war pounding the snot out of Syrias backyard and cutting the road to Damascus and Syria didn't say boo. The Syrian airforce isn't up to the task of defending itself let alone its nation and the Syrian army is totally outclassed.

Regional goverments- Each nation will act in its own best interests (see Syria above) and for the Gulf Arab states that means protecting the tankers and making sure the US wins, so that thier oil and gas based economis do not dry up. Turkey will or wont invade Iraq as it sees fit and the issue has nothing to do with Iran. Economically invading would be a disaster for them adding fuel to a fire that threatens Europes oil supply is hardly the way to gain EU memebership, and Turkey still needs US military technology specially with a re-arming Russia and rapidly arming Iran.

Europe will howl as prices spike, but they will rush minesweepers to the region, keeping the tankers sailing is more important in the short run than stopping the bombing.

Afghanistan is already destabalized. Iran might funnel weapons into the country, but chances are those weapons would be used vs NATO not US forces thus increasing diploamtic pressure on Iran, as well as giving NATO nations a legit excuse to retaliate by sending minesweepers to the gulf thus further degrading Iran's military capabilies in the strategic areas that matter.

Roger,

Iran is not getting any new weapons or overt Russian and Chinese support both members of the P5 voted for sanctions UNSCR 8980 (arms embargo) because Tehran has gone off the deep end. Nor will China risk upsetting the apple cart with the US. Iran isn't Taiwan and Chinese jobs (trade) come before Iranian lives. Putin will undouably snarl and yap but it will be diplomatic posturing to gain an advantage for Russia and Russia's interests not Irans.Russia will put Iran out like a dog in trade for concessions in the CAR, NATO, and the ABM issues. One thing Putin has been very on level about is his legalism. Russia will abide by the existing UN resolutions concerning Iran. On top of this Iran is broke, the sanctions and nuclear program have gutted thier forgien cash reserves so they can't afford more or better weapons. In realpolitik Iran doesn't have any freinds willing to risk what it would take to confront the US. While the US has all the cards it needs to make sure the rest of the world plays ball. prior to 2003 the US could have done this on its own and the world would have played along. The only differance between 2003 and 2007 is that now the US will have to give some pretty hefty concessions thanks to Bush's adventurism in Iraq, but Iran's ass is still in the fire.

There will be no thousands of missiles magically rushed past a US blockade (how is China going to supply iran?) for the nutjob nuclear wannabees to seek immolation at the hands of the US. if the ballon goes up then the US will take some losses possibly many losses, some tankers will burn, missiels will fly like fire works we will all take it in the wallet as gas prices go through the roof, but Iran's fate will be sealed and it's ambitions in the region will die.

As for ballistic missile defense, the US is the most advanced nation in th world, its Ageis systems have demonstrated hard kills (skin/skin) vs true ballistic threats and the Patriot Block II/III have shown sucess vs theater level ballistic threats and the Block I hit often enough vs SCUDS in ODS that volley fire almost always ensured that the missile landed well outsides its target CEP and thus never threatened critical sites. Iran's missiles may be a bit more advanced than what Iraq had, but not much- most are based on North Korean designs or older SCUD technology, they are not high tech and lack any type of cross range manuverability to defeat counter measures.

Don't know about the Turkish army and their actions. The fact that they have massed up all those troops along the border isn't exactly for show. The situation in Kurdistan is rapidly detoriating even as we speak and EU membership or not, Turkey will invade if it sees Kurdistan as a threat. The Turks would be willing to sacrifice EU membership if they're entire southern border is at stake of being united with a Kurdistan...

Kurdistan is a pipedream as long as the US is in Iraq. Creatign a third front vs the US would force US troops out, and then the Kurds would have no restraining influences. Right now the Turks are using commandoes to hunt the Kurdish raiders and the Kurdish Goverment, iraqi Goverment, and US are looking the other way. I suspect this status quo will continue almost unchanged. Turkish troops might go farther and prosecute harder with their raids, but they won't invade.

alwaysfresh said:

Iranian Submarines = US coastline...

Iranian Submarines should be as secretly as possible sent to as close as possible to the US coastline. Using any means necessary (converting some cargo ships or something into a secret supply ships for the submarines). In the chance that a war breaks out, these submarines will then move into firing range of cities of the US and unleash their missiles.

Each submarine firing on two cities that would be potentially 6 cities targeted. This I think will end the war by public unleash on the government in the US, forcing to end the war.

Click to expand...

I think this would be a disastrous use of Iran's submarines. Iran's biggest hope in a conflict with the USA would be an American public who were strongly opposed to war. Attacking American cities would, I believe, have just the opposite effect to what you have described. Like Pearl Harbour and 9/11 this sort of action would almost certainly unite the American people with a determination to destroy those who had attacked their country. I believe that using submarines to attack cities or other civilian targets in the USA would cause a huge backlash. I think it would be far better to use the submarines and other naval assets to try and shut down oil supplies by targeting tankers and also to try and restrict the movements of the USN.

Cheers

AlwaysFresh said:

Iranian Submarines = US coastline...

Iranian Submarines should be as secretly as possible sent to as close as possible to the US coastline. Using any means necessary (converting some cargo ships or something into a secret supply ships for the submarines). In the chance that a war breaks out, these submarines will then move into firing range of cities of the US and unleash their missiles.

Each submarine firing on two cities that would be potentially 6 cities targeted. This I think will end the war by public unleash on the government in the US, forcing to end the war.

Iranian Submarines in the shipping lines ok they might destroy some ships or they might be destroyed, as long as the US public does not notice it will not really affect the war... Look at Iraq.

Click to expand...

Tasman said:

I think this would be a disastrous use of Iran's submarines. Iran's biggest hope in a conflict with the USA would be an American public who were strongly opposed to war. Attacking American cities would, I believe, have just the opposite effect to what you have described. Like Pearl Harbour and 9/11 this sort of action would almost certainly unite the American people with a determination to destroy those who had attacked their country. I believe that using submarines to attack cities or other civilian targets in the USA would cause a huge backlash. I think it would be far better to use the submarines and other naval assets to try and shut down oil supplies by targeting tankers and also to try and restrict the movements of the USN.

Cheers

Click to expand...

AlwaysFresh, Tasman is exactly right, if the Iranians used their subs to attack US cities, particularly with any WMDs, it would be the complete and absolute total end of Iran as a modern state.

No sense in even going there.

Tasman, on a lighter note...in the 1980s US Naval Aviators had a joking name for the Yak-38 Forgers the Soviets flew off their first carriers.

FUGSD - Fly up, get shot down. (I'll let your imagination figure out how they actually pronounced it).

I believe a similar acronym would apply for most of the Iranian Navy in the unfortunate event that they tried to challenge the US Navy, even in the confined waters of the gulf, and particularly in the Arabian Sea.

SOGS - Sail out, get sunk.

Maybe even...

SAWGS - Start a war, get sunk (whether they sail out or not).

No personal animosity towards any individual Iranian, and not trying to be funny or trying to get any one mad...it's just the hard cold reality of the severe disparity.

Jeff Head said:

FUGSD - Fly up, get shot down. (I'll let your imagination figure out how they actually pronounced it).

I believe a similar acronym would apply for most of the Iranian Navy in the unfortunate event that they tried to challenge the US Navy, even in the confined waters of the gulf, and particularly in the Arabian Sea.

Click to expand...

Their chance of success and indeed survival would not be good!

Cheers