Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iranian official: UN sanctions may lead us to seal off Persian Gulf
www.haaretz.com ^ | 09:26 24/01/2006 | Yossi Melman

Posted on 01/24/2006 5:58:58 AM PST by Esther Ruth

Last update - 09:26 24/01/2006

Iranian official: UN sanctions may lead us to seal off Persian Gulf

By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent

A senior Iranian official threatened that Tehran may forcibly prevent oil export via the Straits of Hormuz if the UN imposed economic sanctions due to Iran's nuclear program, an Iranian news Web site said on Monday.

This is the first time an Iranian official makes military threats in a public statement on Tehran's recent disagreements with the West.

The news site, affiliated with the radical student movement in which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was once a member, quoted Mohammed-Nabi Rudaki, deputy chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission.

(Excerpt) Read more at haaretz.com ...


TOPICS: Israel; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: axisofevil; iran; iranian; israel; persian; persiangulf; sanctions; un; zot; zotiran
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-124 last
To: ChinaThreat
the Virginia class submarine was built with littoral combat in mind. So we have that part down cold.

Did the brits have CIWS (Close In Weapon System) during the Falklands?

121 posted on 01/25/2006 12:04:11 AM PST by Paul_Denton (Tagine under repair.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: ChinaThreat
The Brits did not have Aegis. No comparison. Also, most of the damage they sustained came from dumb bombs off A-4 Skyhawks doing low level bombing runs, not from ASMs. Which they were vulnerable to because they lacked airborne early warning, limiting their radar horizon. (They also had very limited Harrier CAP with only heat-seeking AAMs, short range - they still shot down scores but frequently intercepted after, not before, an attack). The few escorts that were hit by missiles were out on picket duty precisely to extend that radar horizon. And their Sea Dart SAMs were not designed for skimmers. The USN does not have any of these vulnerabilities.

As for weeks for air force, um, the Navy brings its own. As for very restricted waters, you can fire from outside the straits, easily. US surface combatants have Tomahawks. And their primary air defense umbrella extends out to 100 miles. The main worries are (1) mines, which the Iranians would lay by sub and by small boats operating at night, and (2) shore batteries of SSMs. But the second of those can be shot out of the sky by modern air defense, which all our DDGs and CGs have. Of course you'd also want to go after the launch sites, with F-18s and Tomahawks.

On mines, we are much better prepared than in the 80s because of the lessons then. The first line is all the helos the surface ships carry can deploy sweeping gear. There are also a number of special mine warfare ships prepositioned in the area.

Might a US surface combatant take a hit occasionally? Sure, it is possible. All that have in recent times have survived, and we aren't going to run out. Won't seriously hamper operations at all. The Japanese hit 500 US ships off Okinawa and never stopped a single operation. The USN does not stop for donuts.

A more realistic worry is the shore battery SSMs, mines, and perhaps also their few subs directly, hitting civilian shipping in the gulf, rather than warships. So you have to take out those toys and you have to escort shipping in the meantime with air defense capable ships. All do-able, with some period of disruption of traffic, obviously. That is the only cost the Iranians can seriously impose.

122 posted on 01/25/2006 5:44:46 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Paul_Denton
Not on the picket ships that got hit by missiles, no. They had Sea Dart SAMs for air defense, not designed for down to the horizon threats. We are miles better at all of this, with a generation more of technology, starting with phased array radar. Plus improved Standard SAMs, the best jamming in the world, chaff, CIWS and oh airborne early warning etc. Not to mention our ability to hit the shooters at home, which the Brits did not have in the Falklands. It really isn't remotely comparable. The force they sent there is what our Marines amphib groups have, not our carrier battlegroups.
123 posted on 01/25/2006 5:48:19 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Paul_Denton

Good point, there Type42s were retrofitted with CIWS after the Falklands war.

They currently, and since the early 90s, have been using the "Goalkeeper" ciws system. It is a 30mm gatlin gun with 7 barrells.

30MM VULCAN PHALANX (CIWS) (2): The Primary Close in defensive weapon of the Destroyers are the primary defence against inner range aircraft and missiles. The 30mm Cannons are manned by gun crews and are very effective against low flying aircraft.

PRIMARY PURPOSE: Anti-Missile
SECONDARY PURPOSE: Anti-Aircraft
RANGE: 1 Mile (1.6 KM)
DAMAGE: 3D6 M.D. per 10 round short burst
RATE OF FIRE: Equal to the controller's number of hand-to-hand attacks. If set on automatic by the Principal Weapons Officer it can fire up to 4 bursts per round.
PAYLOAD: 500 rounds


124 posted on 01/25/2006 5:48:39 AM PST by ChinaThreat (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-124 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson