<John Robb: Power to the People? The Oil Drum More Sustainlane: U.S. Cities' Preparedness for an Oil Crisis>

160 comments on Iran again

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

joule on April 3, 2006 - 7:48pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
This latest Iranian test of a torpedo it claims can travel at 223 mph is interesting for several reasons.

If I understand correctly, any torpedo that can travel that fast is very likely a 'super-cavitating torpedo' (sometimes just called a 'cavitating torpedo').  Essentially, the principle is to rocket-propel the torpedo up to some critical speed at which point the unique frontal shape of the torpedo causes cavitation, or the formation of tiny bubbles of water vapor as the result of localized pressure drop. Once that point is reached, the torpedo finds itself surrounded by a blanket of micro bubbles that offers far less drag resistance than totally liquid water. Because of that, the torpedo, using the same amount of power, can travel at speeds several times faster than a conventional torpedo.

However, the development of such a torpedo has been fraught with a number of daunting problems, namely having to do aimability, control,  and range. The US Navy has done extensive work on super-cavitating torpedos, as have the Russians. The first version of a largely experimental Russian super-cavitating torpedo is named the Skvall (Squall). It is believed that the ill-fated Kursk may have been testing such a torpedo when it sank.

The main point here is that if indeed the Iranian claim is true, then that would almost assuredly mean that either the torpedo is a Russian Squall or its successor, or an Iranian-built torpedo based on technology supplied by the Russians.  I very seriously doubt that the Iranians would have the hydrodynamic R &D capability to develop something of this level of sophistication all on their own.

So, if this is not just fanciful propaganda on the part of the Iranians,  then it appears we might have a very disturbing situation in which the Russians have already supplied the Iranians with some of their top-of-the-line weaponry capable of doing serious damage to our naval presence in the Gulf, not to mention a much more serious threat to tanker traffic than already exists. Of course the trick is to launch the thing before you are detected and destroyed.

I don't claim to be an expert on modern naval weaponry, so I would be very interested to hear further comments by anyone out there who might be.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
RussFag on April 3, 2006 - 8:31pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I am not an expert too, but today the main Russian state TV channel has claimed that "Squall" might be smuggled into Iran through (the former Soviet republic of) Kyrgyzstan. Taking into account the level of propaganda, it may be just a diplomatic cover-up.
Anyway, the goal of Russian policy is downright: to arm the weakest so as the sides could shipwreck each other.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on April 3, 2006 - 8:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I found some interesting background on the Shkval.  Also, more evidence that the Iranian missile has Russian roots at DefenseTech.org, and other background at Airborne Combat Engineer.  Video footage of the Hout from Iranian TV at IranFocus
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack Greene on April 3, 2006 - 9:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The Hoot and this technology is hard to maneuver or change course.

Also, what they fired and showed film of left an obvious wake which would be a drawback. But like any new weapon, if you have it in penny-packets it does not help much. You need lots of them.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mkc on April 4, 2006 - 12:22am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Seems like if they could use them to sink a few tankers in strategic locations (or even anywhere), that would still be notable.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack Greene on April 4, 2006 - 12:54am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
One tanker hit will put oil through the Persian Sea back 3-6 weeks.

The BIG point here is:  What would the American reaction be to the hit, let alone sinking, of the CVN Ronald Reagan (currently deployed out there) have on the psyche of America (especially red state America)?

For starts, invest in naval construction firms.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on April 4, 2006 - 9:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
A penny or a pound(ing):

No, you (if you're Iran) don't get more than 3 shots, unless they're all going out in the same attack.  It's a good war-starter, but there's the bottleneck of defending the delivery vehicles, as well as your entire military/naval structure.  If we 'had to' take on Iran, tying them up would hang on air power.

Washington would LOVE to see them use one of those, on ANYBODY.  As soon as they throw a punch, GWB has his war.  Til then, Rice and Straw can taunt and tease, and maybe find new ways to trick out an attack..  

"As darkness settled over Europe on the evening of August 31, 1939, and a million and a half German troops began moving forward toward their final positions on the Polish border for the jump-off at dawn, all that remained for Hitler to do was to perpretrate some propaganda trickery to prepare the German people for the shock of aggressive war.

"The people were in need of the treatment which Hitler, abetted by Goebbels and Himmler, had become so expert in applying.  I had been about in the streets of Berlin, talking with the ordinary people, and that morning noted in my diary: "Everybody against the war.  People talking openly.  How can a country go into a major war with a population so dead against it?"  Despite all my experience in the Third Reich I asked such a naive question!  Hitler knew the answer very well.  Had he not the week before on his Bavarian mountaintop promised the generals that he would "give a propagandist reason for starting the war" and admonished them not to "mind whether it was plausible or not"?  "The victor," he had told them, "will not be asked afterward whether he told the truth or not.  In starting a waging a war it is not right that matters, but victory.

  -W'm Shirer,  Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich  (p593)

..and on 9/1/39, with German SS dressed up as Polish Soldiers, and concentration camp prisoners as the 'Casualties',  Hitler feigned the "Attack on a German Radio Station at Gleiwitz", amongst others, which precipitated the action he had 'Taken every diplomatic tack to avoid'.. (Operation 'Canned Goods')

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BOP on April 5, 2006 - 2:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The YJ-83 is believed to be a derivative of the C-801 anti-ship cruise missile but can travel at supersonic speeds, making it very difficult for ships to stop.

This is a Chinese variant on the Exocet. It is believed that this missile is in Iran's inventory. If true then the Arabian Gulf is an Iranian lake.

The "SQUALL" mentioned by Stuart has a range of 7.5 miles. The Straits of Hormuz are 21 miles wide at the narrowest point.

Both the Exocet and the C-801 are sea skimming missiles and are deadly. The Exocet is relatively slow. It can be defeated by shipboard computer controlled guns which fire depleted uranium slugs to bring down the missile. These guns require about 120 seconds to acquire the target and set up for a firing solution. The Exocet is slow enough that it can be defeated by such gunfire.

The C-801 has a range of 75 to 150 miles (the greater distance has not been confirmed). The claimed speeds are in the order of 28 miles a minute. The missile skims just above the sea surface and its radar signature is lost in the surface clutter. The defensive systems do not have any time to react before the missile makes impact.

During the first Gulf war the coalition air force never once was able to locate and destroy an Iraqi SCUD on the ground. The SCUD and its launch vehicle are the size of a large fire truck. The C-801 is less than a quarter of this size and therefore much more easily hidden. To add to the problem, the west coast of Iran is rocky and cut with inlets and gullys; it is perfect terrain in which to hide this type of missile.

Given the capabilities of this weapon, Iran has the ability to dominate the entire gulf, not just the straits. During the Iran/Iraq war Kuwaiti tankers were reflagged as US vessels to enable USN convoys to be run. Convoy is no longer a viable response.

Given the other weapons Iran has recently demonstrated, I suspect they have been preparing for a confrontation with the US ever since the US supplied WMD precursor chemicals and other assistance to Saddham. My hunch is that George II is full of bluff and bluster. He is not trying to intimidate the Iranians; he seeks to intimidate the US electorate prior to the mid-terms.


Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Everett on April 4, 2006 - 12:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CA29B-0EA6-1C70-84A9809EC588EF21&catID=2
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Sangiovese on April 4, 2006 - 3:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
This is my first post here after being a lurker for around a while. Firstly thanks for the splendid research undertaken by many on this site.

I have just seen a report in the UK here on the ongoing military exercises being undertaken by Iran. I was extremely interested in seeing a low flying aircraft that the Iranian's were reporting on which appears to be a 'ground effect' aircraft.

To my knowledge the Russians are the only ones that ever got anywhere serious with developing this technology. Larger test aircraft were flown during the last days of the Soviet Union.

Along with the torpedo I think this is quite significant.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
R W Reactionairy on April 4, 2006 - 9:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hi. I think I understand the potential military significance of the torpedo ... Ground effects might lead to a higher payload and some measure of stealth at the cost of flying only a minimal distance over the surface. Any other significance?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

160 comments on Iran again

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version