Whether we attack Iran with tactical nukes or just the usual barrage of conventional bombs, our naval vessels located in the Persian Gulf will be at great risk. Why? Because Russia and China have been supplying Iran with the latest technology in anti-ship warfare: supersonic cruise missiles. Here are excerpts from a timeline compiled by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (an organization headed by Ted Turner and former Senator Sam Nunn) at their website:
More below the fold . . .
28 January 2005
Two anti-ship missiles identified as the JJ/TL-6B, JJ/TL-10A and KJ/TL-10B, and designed by China for Iran, were displayed at the China Air Show in November 2004. Knowledgeable sources affirm that the missiles are identical to Iran’s Nasr and Kosar, also known as the TL-6 and TL-10. Jane’s Defense Weekly states that the FL-8 and FL-9 also represent previous designations for these missiles.
––“China Reported to Start Marketing of Missiles Designed for Iran,” Middle East Newsline, 28 January 2005.2 February 2005
Ukrainian Parliament member Hrihory Omelchenko claims that 12 Kh-55 [U.S. nomenclature is AS-15] air-to-ground missiles were exported between 1999 and 2001, half to Iran and half to China. These cruise missiles boast a highly accurate guidance system and a range of up to 3,000 km, putting Israel within striking distance of Iran. A former Ukrainian secret police (SBU) officer, Omelchenko says the SBU prevented an attempt to export 14 KH-55s last year and accused former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma of covering up the illicit arms sale.
–Tom Warner, “Ukraine ‘Sold Cruise Missiles to Iran, China’,” Financial Times, 3 February 2005.[snip]
31 March 2005
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko confirms that Iran acquired nuclear-capable missiles from Ukraine under the previous administration. He adds that the missiles were delivered unarmed using a forged contract listing Russia as the final destination. Oleksandr Turchinov, Ukraine’s top security official, says that the investigation into the affair is complete and that the court is to announce its ruling “in a few days.”
–“Report: Iran Has Bought Nuclear-Capable Missiles From Ukraine,” Haaretz, 1 April 2005; “Security Chief Says Missile Smuggling Case Solved,” Kyiv Post, 1 April 2005.[snip]
1 August 2005
According to Kanwa Defense Review, the China Shipping and Trading Company (CSTC) plans to sell Iran 10 “China-Cat” missile boats, which could be modified with the Iranian indigenous TL-10 or NOOR (C802) serial anti-ship missile system. . .
“Kanwa: China Exports OPVs to Thailand, Iran; Iran’s Plan Described,” Kanwa Defense Review, 1 August 2005, in FBIS Document CPP20050803000124.
A Wikipedia article also lists Iran as a rumored customer for Russia’s Moskit supersonic cruise missile. The Moskit is also known by it’s NATO designation as the Sunburn, a missile technology that Russia has also sold to China. Here is a description of the characteristics of the version most likely to be deployed against US forces in the Gulf:
The 3M82 “Mosquito” missiles have the fastest flying speed among all antiship missiles in today’s world. It reaches Mach 3 at a high altitude and its maximum low-altitude speed is M2.2, triple the speed of the American Harpoon. When slower missiles, like the French Exocet are used, the maximum theoretical response time for the defending ship is 150-120 seconds. This provides time to launch countermeasures and employ jamming before deploying “hard” defense tactics such as launching missiles and using quick-firing artillery. But the 3M82 “Mosquito” missiles are extremely fast and give the defending side a maximum theoretical response time of merely 25-30 seconds, rendering it extremely difficult employ jamming and countermeasures, let alone fire missiles and quick-firing artillery.
Even worse, some experts are claiming that, at present the US Navy has no effective defense against such supersonic cruise missiles:
No US defense vs supersonic cruise missiles
The US and UK aircraft carrier battle groups do not have any known defense against the new supersonic missiles of their adversaries. The Phalanx and Aegis ship defense systems may be effective against subsonic cruise missiles like the Exocets or Tomahawks, or exo-atmospheric ballistic missiles, but they are inadequate against the sea-skimming and supersonic Granits, Moskits and Yakhonts or similar types (Shipwreck, Sunburn and Onyx – North Atlantic Treaty Organization codenames) of modern anti-ship missiles in China’s inventory.
Not only China and Russia have these modern cruise missiles, so do[es] Iran. . . These missiles can be delivered by SU-27 variants, SU-30s, Tu22M Blackjacks, Bears, J6s, JH-7/As, H-6Hs, J-10s, surface ships, diesel submarines or common trucks.
So what do we know? Iran has likely acquired cruise missiles with speeds up to 3 times faster than current American anti-ship cruise missiles. The ones it has likely acquired from the Ukraine have a range of up to 3000 kilometers. It probably also has a number of shorter range supersonic cruise missiles (we can’t be certain of exactly how many) to augment its inventory of slower Silkworm cruise missiles (the Silkworm is a Chinese variant of the French Exocet). And even these slower Silkworms can be very dangerous to our naval forces as demonstrated by the 1987 incident involving an Iraqi Exocet missile attack against the USS Stark:
. . . At 10:10 PM, the AWACS crew noticed that the Mirage had banked suddenly and then turned northward, as though heading for home. What they failed to detect was the launching by the Iraqi pilot of two Exocet AM39 air-to-surface missiles. The Exocets had a range of 40 miles and each carried a 352 lb. warhead. For some reason, the sea-skimming missiles were not detected by the Stark’s sophisticated monitoring equipment. A lookout spotted the first Exocet just seconds before the missile struck, tearing a ten-by-fifteen-foot hole in the warship’s steel hull on the port side before ripping through the crew’s quarters. The resulting fire rushed upward into the vessel’s combat information center, disabling the electrical systems. The second missile plowed into the frigate’s superstructure.
Imagine these cruise missiles being deployed in mass attacks against our ships in the Gulf, and against oil tanker traffic (the reason our ships would be in the Gulf in the first place). The chance of incidents much worse than the one that happened to the USS Stark becomes greatly magnified. Unless we know the location of these cruise missiles and can take them out before they are launched, our sailors will be at tremendous risk in the event of a shooting war with Iran.
Furthermore, any such conflict with Iran will be a classic example of asymmetric warfare: Iran’s array of relatively inexpensive cruise missiles against very expensive US Carriers and their equally expensive missile defense system, the US Fleet’s complement of Aegis Missile Cruisers. We know that the Aegis is very efective against traditional, limited Exocet-type cruise missile attacks. However, American defenses have never been tested against large scale mass attacks from cruise missiles, which, in Iran’s case, will include some missiles traveling at the sea skimming speed of more than double the speed of sound.
Instead of speeds of 300 to 400 mph (i.e., the Silkworm/Exocet class of cruise missiles), they’ll be racing at our ships at speeds of 1200 mph or more. That’s faster than a rifle bullet. And behind them will be additional waves of Iran’s slower Silkworms. Add in the risk from mines and the possibility of attacks by Iranian ballistic missiles as well, and the window of time in which to defeat all of these threats grows very tight indeed.
If we attack Iran, Bush and Rumsfeld will be essentially betting that our Navy can fend off whatever missile and/or other attacks Iran can muster against our massive Carrier groups. And perhaps they will be right. Perhaps our defenses will be more than adequate to prevent the catastrophe of one or more US Carriers being sunk by Iranian forces. However, based on this Administration’s track record, would you be willing to bet the lives of our sailors that they’ll get it right this time?
Cross-posted in ORANGE.
The Iranians reported a test of a land-sea missile ten days ago. Was it one of these?
Could have been. We don’t know. Hopefully someone in the Pentagon does.
My understanding is that it was. I’ve posted on this before; we’re going gaga over nukes they don’t have and say they don’t want, and ignoring a very real threat to our ships in the region.
This could get ugly really fast. We could easily lose a carrier or two. The “missile absorbers” (destroyers, frigates) probably won’t be able to fully-protect the flagship. Given the geography of the region, it’s entirely possible that a war with a Iran could cut off over a third of the world’s oil supply. If we can’t protect the Straits of Hormuz, the Western economy is in very deep trouble. And this doesn’t include the likelihood of a run on US currency, as our former allies finally and irrevocably (and rightly) disown us.
Perpetual war and economic ruin: All part of the Bush / neo-con plan for turning this nation into full-blown dictatorship.
If you want to create a new form of government, the old one has to first be destroyed.
nuking the entire country out of existence, military “vicotory” in Iran is an infantile fantasy.
US PsyOps: Iranian nuclear weapons for Venezuela? (pimping my diary that fell off the scroll)
regardless of whether they operate on land or sea.
Nor is it intended to benefit ordinary Americans, ordinary Germans, Frenchmen, etc.
France and Germany have now been brought on board with Operation Iranian Freedom, or Operation Divine Sword, depending on whether the invasion and occupation are accomplished using conventional or nuclear bombs.
That is, the “leaders” of France and Germany are on board. As, I imagine, are the “leaders” of the client states in the region. If not at this moment, they will be shortly, although naturally there will be an increase in funds needed, to maintain those populations under crackdown.
And it is quite likely that at some point, America’s western “allies” might also require some help with maintaining their populations under crackdown.
Just in case they turn out not to have as much Resolve as Americans.
“France and Germany have now been brought on board with Operation Iranian Freedom”
Where did you get that? France and Germany are putting pressure on Iran about their nuclear program, but they are not likely to join the Bush administration for an attack on Iran.
their nuclear program?
As Mr. Danger himself has pointed out repeatedly, some nations may prefer to keep some aspects of their help in the war on terror on the down-low. What contribution France, Germany, or any other “ally” of the US will be making once the decovertization process is complete we cannot know at this time.
Both Germany and France have given their seal of approval to the premise that obtaining or possessing weapons is a privilege that can only be bestowed or witheld by the US, and have made public statements to the effect that Iran having this or that weapon that the US, and both France and Germany have gone on record with statements to the effect of that it is “unacceptable” for Iran to have this or that weapon which the US has in abundance, and I believe Germany and France themselves may have one or two stashed away, which boon, in addition to the generous autonomy the US has allowed both, neither will be inclined to risk losing.
Again, to quote Mr. Danger, one is with the US, or with the terrorists, therefore any nation who opposes whatever US wishes to do puts itself at risk of losing more than autonomy.
Of course, the realpolitik causes the converse to be true: One either opposes US policies, or one is on board with them.
Regarding Iran, the US is allowing a bit of flexibility with this rule, both to its domestic subjects as well as its foreign “allies;” it is permissible to openly debate whether Iran should be attacked with nuclear or conventional bombs, with the understanding that Mr. Danger is the “decider.”
This relative leniency is in actuality a very shrewd move. Not only does it give Democratic politicians the freedom to argue for conventional bombs to be used against Tehran without being accused of not supporting the war on terror, if that option is chosen, both Democrats and “liberal” Old Europe can claim a great victory for prudence and moderation.
At the same time, should a robust initial conventional bombardment fail to “get the job done,” or should the Iranians follow the ungrateful example of the Iraqis and resist US operations, then Washington can truthfully say that all other options were exhausted before deploying Operation Divine Sword.
In the first Gulf war we had two large ships extremely badly damaged by mines. One struck a free floating world war one generation spiked mine. The other was blown literaly out of the sea by an Acoustic mine (a mantra I think). In narrow stretches of sea these paasive weapons are more likely to be a danger to the US navy than any guided weapon that relies on an active guidance system. Quite simply we are so far ahead electronically that we can jam nearly anything that uses an active guidance system.
Now if anyone were building anti-ship or anti-aircraft missiles that just homed onto their target’s radar systems that would be another matter.
This is a very cogent comment. What makes mines even more applicable in an asymetric warfare context is that they are cheap, cheap, cheap to deploy and expensive, expensive, expensive to remove. Even Iran’s announcing that they have deployed mines in the Straits as a defensive move against American aggression would shut down commerical traffic through the Straits. And, the Iranians could blame it all on the Americans. If they really wanted to rub Dubya’s nose in it, they could offer to convoy commercial vessels through the minefields under Iranian escort.
Do a Google search and look up “Tanker War” and see the hundreds of cargo ships sunk during the Iran-Iraq War. The U.S. Navy might have all kinds of sophisticated radar and anti-missile defenses but cargo ships don’t.
Point being that the INSANE STUPIDITY of a war with Iran won’t be army vs. army, but total war on every level.
Pax
Speaking of mines and the Persian Gulf, I’ve got a book coming out in July (“No Higher Honor: Saving the USS Samuel B. Roberts in the Persian Gulf”, Naval Institute Press) about the last time U.S. and Iranian forces clashed. The companion website has photos of the U.S. reflagging and convoy effort, the seizure of an Iranian minelayer, and the daylong battle waged in retaliation for the 1988 Iranian mining of the Roberts. Brad