PDA

View Full Version : Iranian Coastal Artillery (Missiles)



Nickdfresh
05-08-2010, 01:29 PM
Next-Gen Coastal Artillery
http://defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads//2010/04/Old-School-Coastal-Artillery.jpg
That was then.

This is now.
http://defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads//2010/04/Iranian-C-802-Noor-Anti-Ship-Missile.jpg
Above, an Iranian produced version of the C-802 anti-ship missile, concealed inside a commercial truck, from Iran’s Great Prophet 5 military exercises.

Having puffed its chest mightily during the just concluded Great Prophet 5 exercises, Iran figured it would continue in that vein and issued another one of its periodic threats asserting it holds the keys to the Strait of Hormuz. Mohammad-Nabi Habibi, secretary-general of Iran’s conservative Islamic Coalition Party, put it rather artfully: “If America goes lunatic, the children of the nation in the Islamic Republic’s armed forces would choke the West’s throat at the Strait of Hormuz.”

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Iran earlier this month, Joint Chiefs vice chair Gen. James Cartwright said if export-import dependant Iran brought Gulf shipping to a halt, they’d be choking themselves. The military leadership believes they could keep the Strait open, he added.

Some aren’t so sure. CSBA’s Andrew Krepinevich, in his report, “Why AirSea Battle?” (.pdf), says U.S. ships transiting the Gulf would face a “hornets nest” of Iranian precision weapons that can easily range the Strait, creating a potential maritime “no-go zone.” Iran is adding missiles to its “anti-access” arsenal and the Gulf’s geography favors the Iranians. For example, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy has tunneled into a cluster of islands near the Strait, building underground missile bunkers, what they call “static warships.”

Iran is thought to have several hundred anti-ship cruise missiles, including the very capable Chinese made CSS-N-2 Silkworm, with a range of 60 miles, and the CS-802 Saccade, with a range of 75 miles. Some hundreds of these missiles have been mounted on trucks. Looking at past U.S. truck hunting campaigns, 1991’s Scud missile hunt comes to mind, such weapons pose a potentially game changing challenge.

The Navy and Air Force are jointly working on a new warfighting concept called AirSea Battle intended to beat back Iranian, and of course Chinese, anti-access capabilities. To begin with, I’ll be very curious to hear how the concept defines access. Is it steaming through the Gulf in the face of Iranian anti-ship missiles or is it the ability to influence events on shore by accessing that shore?

Are traditional Marine Corps concepts of amphibious operations even operative in the face of the new generation of coastal artillery? If an enemy can dot a coastline with a few hundred missiles like the one below that can take out a small vessel or amtrac, is it even realistic to think about putting costly platforms within range of those missiles? What are the implications of these weapons on the Navy’s seabasing concept? Lots of questions in need of answers.

Link (http://defensetech.org/2010/04/27/next-gen-coastal-artillery/?ESRC=mr.nl)

Read more (http://defensetech.org/2010/04/27/next-gen-coastal-artillery/?ESRC=mr.nl#ixzz0nMcRhFaa)

Uyraell
08-04-2010, 12:35 PM
This isn't going to be a popular answer, in some places/with some folk.

My central thought is of the simplest, and most brutal.
The very moment Iran blocks access to the Strait of Hormuz: Bomb it back to that same stone age it seeks.
I'm not for one second interested in the civilian casualties: they are no more important than were the Citizens of Hiroshima, Dresden, or Hamburg.

As I see it, Iran would dearly love to hold the rest of the remaining civilised world hostage, subjected to Iran's religious leaders' stone-age views of how the world should run.
That makes any Iranian casualties irrelevant in my eyes.

Therefore, the admittedly brutal, yet most effective, response to a blocking of the Hormuz Strait would be to bomb Iran back to the stone-age. Thereafter, it might well serve as an example to other religiously led nations to better regard the opinions and needs of the rest of the world.

I realise there "would be" significant "fallout" from elements of the remaining Muslim world. However: in the end, they too depend on the transit of oil through the Hormuz Strait, since the largest part of their imported technology is paid for by moneys earned from the exported oil. Deprive them of said technological imports, and they'd not long raise much fuss over the fate of a rogue nation that Iran is.

Kind and Respectful Regards, Uyraell.

Chevan
08-09-2010, 02:13 AM
I don't think their technological military development depend on oil. How many do you know arabic states which do produce own wearpon?Iran probably one of the first among the arab world.
Their "modifications" look weird and ridiculous but it cheap , and therefore might be repeated in manies copies.Taliban succesfully use more simple wearpon.

Iron Yeoman
08-11-2010, 01:51 PM
This isn't going to be a popular answer, in some places/with some folk.

My central thought is of the simplest, and most brutal.
The very moment Iran blocks access to the Strait of Hormuz: Bomb it back to that same stone age it seeks.
I'm not for one second interested in the civilian casualties: they are no more important than were the Citizens of Hiroshima, Dresden, or Hamburg.

As I see it, Iran would dearly love to hold the rest of the remaining civilised world hostage, subjected to Iran's religious leaders' stone-age views of how the world should run.
That makes any Iranian casualties irrelevant in my eyes.

Therefore, the admittedly brutal, yet most effective, response to a blocking of the Hormuz Strait would be to bomb Iran back to the stone-age. Thereafter, it might well serve as an example to other religiously led nations to better regard the opinions and needs of the rest of the world.

I realise there "would be" significant "fallout" from elements of the remaining Muslim world. However: in the end, they too depend on the transit of oil through the Hormuz Strait, since the largest part of their imported technology is paid for by moneys earned from the exported oil. Deprive them of said technological imports, and they'd not long raise much fuss over the fate of a rogue nation that Iran is.

Kind and Respectful Regards, Uyraell.

I agree, Iran is fast becoming a major headache for the west. It has always been a problem nation but it is now more so than ever. Building a large scale anti-maritime threat is really something that can't be tolerated, especially when other shipping lanes are under threat, it isn't exactly the act of a friendly nation. They should either tone it down or the yanks should bomb them as Uyraell said 'back to the stone age'

Nickdfresh
08-11-2010, 09:44 PM
Iran has recently made some subtle overtures to the West, or more specifically, the U.S. gov't. The speculation is the Tehran regime is beginning to feel the heat of both sanctions and the underground Green Movement and neither side really wants a war as both have historical ties. I hope negotiations begin...

Uyraell
08-12-2010, 10:11 PM
Iran has recently made some subtle overtures to the West, or more specifically, the U.S. gov't. The speculation is the Tehran regime is beginning to feel the heat of both sanctions and the underground Green Movement and neither side really wants a war as both have historical ties. I hope negotiations begin...

What is needed for successful negotiations between the US Govt. and the Teheran Govt. is, unfortunately, the one thing missing:
A personality with the fortitude of Bismarck, and the humanity/caring of Count Bernadotte.

Thus far, no person I can think of approaches that need, nor possesses in equal measure those very necessary qualities.
Nor, offhand, can I think of a personality that Teheran would regard as "acceptable" in representing US interests (or indeed, the interests of the wider world, for every nation is affected by the Hormuz Strait issue, one way and another) in any contact/discussion between the two Governments, at whatever level.

I suspect it would take the good offices of a Dutchman or Dane or Norwegian: a person Teheran would regard as acceptably neutral regarding the core issues.

The problem is that the core issues themselves do not easily admit of neutrality in any guise, it being that national economies world wide are so intensively tied-in to the free flow of oil and other goods not only through the Hormuz Strait but via shipping lanes worldwide.

I would be very interested to see suggestions of who such a suitable person (acceptable to Teheran) might be.

Kind and Respectful Regards Gentlemen, Uyraell.

Chevan
08-12-2010, 11:37 PM
The problem is that the core issues themselves do not easily admit of neutrality in any guise, it being that national economies world wide are so intensively tied-in to the free flow of oil and other goods not only through the Hormuz Strait but via shipping lanes worldwide.

I would be very interested to see suggestions of who such a suitable person (acceptable to Teheran) might be.

.
I think Moscow could be.
But it seems Tehrain doesn't any consider us as neitral any more.Coz Russia began to support the Washington's sanctions , which however CHina rejected . Pekin is a last actualy neitral side in this conflict

Uyraell
08-13-2010, 01:19 AM
I think Moscow could be.
But it seems Tehrain doesn't any consider us as neitral any more.Coz Russia began to support the Washington's sanctions , which however CHina rejected . Pekin is a last actualy neitral side in this conflict

A reasonable statement.
The problem with Peking/Beijing though is that it conceivably has little interest nor advantage to gain in adoption of the negotiator role.
Moscow might have been a good choice as you say, my friend, but again, I'm not at all certain Moscow would see any advantage in helping the US or the wider world, for that matter.

And lest it be thought otherwise: I blame the Western World for that, fully.

As I have said in other threads on this forum, the West has in some ways treated Russia badly in the last couple decades.
On the one hand, the West speaks of friendship and co-operation with Russia, but yet on the other hand maintains a specie of aloof disdain: neither truly engaging with Moscow nor truly co-operating.
We in the West (our politicians) speak of "Our Russian Friends" yet do little if anything to make Russia feel valued as part of the modern family of nations. No wonder then, that Moscow often feels either ignored or overlooked. And the West is largely to blame, for not having been fair and decent towards Russia in the first place.

Russia **should be** an equal partner with and in the modern western world and family of nations. To the shame of the West, we have yet to treat Russia that way, and it is long overdue, if ever there is to be progress for humanity as a whole.

{{Online Translator for the following, to clarify my point.

Россия ** должна быть ** равный партнер с и в современном западном мире и семье наций. К позору Запада, мы должны все же рассмотреть Россию тот путь, и это давно ожидается, если когда-либо должно быть продвижение для человечества в целом. }}

Kind and Respectful Regards Chevan my friend, Uyraell.