Spanning(en) rond Iran

[Oorlogsvis]

Als een fregat door een zwerm van die Iraanse bootjes wordt aangevallen kan hij het moeilijk krijgen....maar je ziet zo'n zwerm toch wel aankomen van veraf ?..ja, natuurlijk ! alleen begin je met je paar Harpoons niet veel....er komen pakweg 400 fast patrol's op je af...
Dan heb je volgens mij heli's nodig die de zooi met hellfire's uitschakelen en miltrailleurs/gatling/mini-guns. In iedergeval zou het plaatsen van twee milenium kanonnen of 30mm kanonnen per fregat extra geen overbodige luxe zijn, evenals een raketsysteem om kleine bootjes te grazen te nemen. Maar daar zal wel geen ruimte voor zijn aan boord vrees ik. Tegen dit soort taktieken is weinig opgewassen. Maar om een aanval met zoveel bootjes te lanceren is ook niet eenvoudig lijkt me.
Het is een beetje hetzelfde verhaal als wanneer 200 Mig's opstijgen met ieder een anti-ship raket onder hun buik, en die vallen tegelijkertijd een vliegdekschip aan....

[KapiteinRob]

Rob, ik ben het zeker met je eens dat in zo´n geval kwantiteit en snelheid telt.
Nou ben ik zelf ook geen fan van die OPV´s maar.. ik begrijp dat men per OPV 2 FRISC mee kan nemen plus NH 90.

Waarmee je dus zelf al aangeeft dat kwantiteit telt. Zo'n FRISC kun je naar ik aanneem op een cutterslipway kwijt. De heli kan vanaf het "moederschip" of de wal opereren.

Dit in combinatie met de Gatekeeper en de 76 mm lijkt mij het toch wel aardig geschikt.

Waarmee je dus ervan uitgaat dat de FRISC's onder de paraplu van het OPV opereren. En dus beperkt zijn in hun actieradius.

Nadeel van een kustwachtkutter is het gebrek aan sensoren lijkt mij.  


En jij denkt dat Thales niet een leuk mastje voor een cutter in elkaar kan flansen?

een groot aantal FRISC lijkt mij effectiever tegen een Swarm dan een kustwacht kutter...?

Wat moet die FRISC dan doen? Alle mee te voeren bemanningsleden met hun C7 laten vuren? Of eenzelfde mitrailleur meevoeren als die Iranzen dan bij zich (kunnen) hebben. Mwa, of je er dan van uit kan gaan dat je vuuroverwicht hebt...... Voor de Iranezen is zo'n FRISC een mooie schietschijf.....

Je kan een kutter wel volhangen met wapens maar hij kan niet op 100 plekker tegenlijk zijn.

Ik weet niet wat een cutter kost met wat leuke gadgets erop, maar ik vermoed dat je toch een veelvoud van 4 OPV's ervoor had kunnen aanschaffen. En een OPV met 2 FRISC's kan ook niet op 100 plaatsen tegelijk zijn.

[Maurice]

Rob, ik ben het zeker met je eens dat in zo´n geval kwantiteit en snelheid telt.
Nou ben ik zelf ook geen fan van die OPV´s maar.. ik begrijp dat men per OPV 2 FRISC mee kan nemen plus NH 90. Dit in combinatie met de Gatekeeper en de 76 mm lijkt mij het toch wel aardig geschikt.

Nadeel van een kustwachtkutter is het gebrek aan sensoren lijkt mij. 

een groot aantal FRISC lijkt mij effectiever tegen een Swarm dan een kustwacht kutter...?
Je kan een kutter wel volhangen met wapens maar hij kan niet op 100 plekker tegenlijk zijn.

[KapiteinRob]

Maar om op de Iraanse taktiek van de kleine bootjes die kunnen bijten terug te komen. In het topic over de piraterij heb ik al eens de suggestie gedaan om met een soort wapentechnisch opgepepte versie van de kustwachtcutters aan de slag te gaan, bijgestaan door een helidragend moederschip. Dus ongeveer zoiets als de Amerikanen dus nu overwegen. Nu heb je in de PG geen moederschip nodig vanwege de korte afstand tot westzijde van de PG, maar ik had dat concept veel interessanter gevonden dan dat geneuzel met die OPV's. Omdat je dan een kwantitatieve plus tot je beschikking hebt. Toepasselijk mastje uit Hengelo erop.....   

[KapiteinRob]

En het krioelt daar van de zeedoelrakketen in oorlogstijd...Een Goalkeepertje is wel handig dan!

Ach, je ziet alles op tijd aankomen, dus tijd zat om verlaatrol op post te praaien....

[KapiteinRob]

Lijkt mij de Holland classe hier wel geschikt voor. Zeker met de Frisc en NH 90.

Aha, die langzame, logge badkuip die alles aan ziet komen maar zich nauwelijk kan verweren?

[Hyperion]

Lijkt mij de Holland classe hier wel geschikt voor. Zeker met de Frisc en NH 90.

En het krioelt daar van de zeedoelrakketen in oorlogstijd...Een Goalkeepertje is wel handig dan!

[Maurice]

Lijkt mij de Holland classe hier wel geschikt voor. Zeker met de Frisc en NH 90.

[KapiteinRob]

Hoeveel mensen zitten daar aan boord 4500 of iets dergelijks ?

Maak daar maar 6 á 7.000 van!

Iets meer dan 5500....

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Harry_S._Truman_(CVN-75)

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Nou dat belooft wat met al die kleine attack bootjes van Iran, het zal ze toch lukken om een vliegdekschip te kelderen......
Hoeveel mensen zitten daar aan boord 4500 of iets dergelijks ?

Maak daar maar 6 á 7.000   5.500 van! (zie bijdrage Rob)

[Tanker]

Nou dat belooft wat met al die kleine attack bootjes van Iran, het zal ze toch lukken om een vliegdekschip te kelderen......
Hoeveel mensen zitten daar aan boord 4500 of iets dergelijks ?

[dudge]

Een stuk of 40 hamina class achtige schepen zouden idd wel effectiever kunnen zijn in de perzische golf.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Iran face-off drives new naval small ship focus
Wed May 23, 2012 8:29am EDT

* U.S. Navy sends almost all its small patrol boats to Gulf

* British Navy mulls new small "Black Swan" class warship

* But larger, pricier warships exert strong hold on navies


By Peter Apps, Political Risk Correspondent

WASHINGTON, May 23 (Reuters) - For decades, Western navies have built ever larger, more expensive warships. Those vessels now look increasingly vulnerable to thousands of small, fast Iranian attack boats that could dominate the Gulf in the event conflict there.

In response, the U.S. Navy has sent almost its entire fleet of small patrol boats and minesweepers to the region, hastily refitting some to dramatically increase their firepower

Concerns over the Gulf, a key oil conduit, play into a much wider debate about whether developed navies waste their money in pursuing a small number of sophisticated ships. Perhaps, some argue, they should follow the example of poorer states like Iran, who invest in large numbers of smaller ships rather than a handful of larger vessels that could be easily sunk.

In readiness for any potential war with the U.S. Navy and regional allies, Iran's navy and Revolutionary Guard have poured resources into small gunboats.

That, military officials and analysts say, would allow them to launch potentially devastating ""swarm" attacks.

Iran has said it would close off the Gulf if it were attacked by powers, including the United States and Israel, who accuse it of developing nuclear arms.

Western militaries say they are more than capable of meeting any threat and analysts believe that, given the sheer weight of U.S. military force in the region, Tehran would inevitably prove the ultimate loser in any conflict.

But privately, officers worry that their navies are relatively ill-equipped to manage an initial onslaught. Even the loss of a single large Western warship, with a crew of 700 and a cost of running to hundreds of millions of dollars, would be regarded as politically catastrophic.

"We are very concerned with the small boat threat out of Iran," said one Western naval officer with considerable experience in the region, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"They've got thousands of them that come from a bunch of locations, armed with everything from two crazy guys with a machine gun all the way up to antiship cruise missiles. Very dangerous for an unsuspecting target."

Certainly, the lessons of the only recent conflict to involve the kind of small boat attacks likely in the Gulf -- Sri Lanka's three decade civil war with Tamil Tiger rebels -- make alarming reading.

After losing several of its larger warships to small boat "Sea Tiger" attacks, particularly suicide strikes, the Sri Lankan Navy largely withdrew them from the conflict area to fight back with much smaller Israeli-built Dvora and locally manufactured fast attack craft that bristled with machine guns.

The U.S. Navy currently has five small Cyclone-class patrol craft based in Bahrain, with five more on the way, making almost all of its 13 such craft deployed in region, a source familiar with the matter said.

Until recently, these craft, with a crew of less than 30 but almost a dozen machine guns or cannon mounted on their decks, had been seen as something of an irrelevance. Several had been sold off to other navies or scrapped. But now, they are being refitted and having ever heavier weaponry added.

Washington has also deployed more than half its entire minesweeper force - 8 out of 14 vessels - to the Gulf, with four of the remainder based in Japan but ready to sail to the region.

"There's just never been a focus on small ships," says Nikolas Gvosdev, professor of national security studies at the U.S. Naval War College. "Navies, and perhaps particularly defence contractors and shipbuilders, just tend to like larger ships."


"BLACK SWAN" CLASS SLOOP

That, some naval experts say, ignores the fact that it has often been mass produced small ships that win wars.

With the size of frigates and destroyers in particular, the workhorses of modern navies, ballooning in the six decade since World War Two, even some political leaders have become exasperated.

"A Royal Navy locked into a cycle of ever smaller numbers of ever more expensive ships," British Prime Minister David Cameron complained in the House of Commons shortly after taking power in 2010. "We cannot go on like this."

Large warships still have a crucial role, naval experts say. The U.S. Navy's giant aircraft carriers, in particular, are seen as crucial to its ability to project force as a global superpower.

But for many current or predicted tasks, be it operating in an increasingly contested Arctic, tackling pirates in the Indian Ocean or operating in the Gulf or an increasingly restive Southeast Asia, the answer could be a much greater number of smaller multipurpose ships.

This month, Britain's Ministry of Defence Developments, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC) released their blueprint for a new class of ship they believe could become the mainstay of the fleet - the "Black Swan-class sloop".

here

The DCDC estimate the cost per vessel could be as low as some 65 million pounds, allowing several to be built for the cost of one large state-of-the-art destroyer. With a crew that could be as low as eight or as high as 60 when circumstances demanded, its flight deck could operate either a large troop-carrying Chinook helicopter or a menagerie of unmanned drones and weapons systems, although such extras would cost more.

Inspired by the fast sailing frigates of the Napoleonic Wars and the corvettes, destroyers and submarines hunters of the Second World War, the "Black Swan" project is controversial. It remains far from clear whether the concept will be adopted and taken further.

Most of Britain's admirals rose through the ranks as officers on large warships, insiders say, and remain hugely attached to expensive, world-class large warships.

"There is always a schism between the big ship and the little ship community," said one officer on condition of anonymity. "Pushing the "Black Swan" is almost certainly career death."


"SPREADING THE SMELL OF GUNPOWDER"

Certainly, for now, the Ministry of Defence seems lukewarm at best. A spokesman told Reuters that studies had shown frigate-sized warships or larger remained the best way for the Royal Navy to meet its requirements, which included "complex war fighting scenarios".

"This... was merely a think piece that speculated on the future shape of the maritime battlespace and made a number of assumptions on future technology, much of which is not yet sufficiently advanced to commit future equipment plans to," he said of the "Black Swan" concept document.

The experience of the U.S. Navy in their attempts to build a not dissimilar ship, the Littoral Surface Combatant, suggests keeping things simple could prove far from easy.

The eventual vessel - stealthy, fast and displacing close on 3,000 tons - is not only rather larger than some of the initial concepts plan, but also strikingly more expensive. Having initially embraced the concept of a small, light vessel, the Pentagon changed its mind mid-process and demanded more armour and safety features.

Critics say the assorted competing demands meant the project ultimately ran out of control, although the U.S. Navy says the ships will be a powerful new system in its inventory.

In April, pressure group the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) reported that the first ship of the $120 billion fleet, the USS Freedom, had been plagued by a total of 648 "chargeable" equipment failures since its delivery in September 2008. They included engine failures and at least 17 serious cracks in the four year old hull.

Even before they reach their planned deployment ports in Southeast Asia as part of the Pentagon's strategic "pivot" , they have also also enraged China - a nation with a uniquely particular historic sensitivity to being surrounded by western gunboats. An editorial in the Communist Party mouthpiece "People's Daily" last month said their arrival would help "spread the smell of gunpowder" across the region.

China's navy itself has long been built around small craft, and most of its top admirals commanded fast attack boats in the early stages of their careers. But in the last decade, Beijing looks to have become increasingly drawn to following the Western model of ever larger ships.

While analysts say China has struggled with its first aircraft carrier, a former Soviet carrier initially imported ostensibly to be used as a casino, it is now believed to be building several of its own from scratch.

"It's interesting," says Gvosdev at the US Naval War College. "They seem to be coming down with the same syndrome." (Reporting By Peter Apps; editing by Ralph Boulton)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/23/arms-navies-smallships-idUSL5E8GN01420120523

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Israel revives military option after Obama rejects its nuclear demands of Iran

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report May 24, 2012, 9:23 AM (GMT+02:00) Tags:  Iran nuclear   Israel   military option   Barack Obama   Ehud Barak   A fateful decision is reached on IranIsrael has withdrawn its pledge to US President Barack Obama not to strike Iran's nuclear sites before the November presidential election after he rejected its minimal demands for nuclear negotiations with Iran. This is reported exclusively by debkafile's Washington sources.

In public, Israeli ministers still talk as though they believe in results from the Six-Power talks with Iran, which Thursday May 24 limped into their second day in Baghdad with the parties still miles apart. But the presidential veto has essentially cast Israel outside the loop of influence on the outcome of diplomacy.
When Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak met US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at the Pentagon on May 17 he was told that Obama had rejected Israel's toned-down demands for Iran to at least to halt high-grade uranium enrichment, export its stocks of material enriched higher than 3.5 percent grade and shut down production at the Fordo nuclear plant near Qom. For six months, the Obama administration tried to sweeten the bitter pill of this rejection by bumping up security aid. The latest appropriation covered another $70 million for manufacturing more Iron Dome short-range missile interceptors.
After talking to Panetta, Barak turned to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Adviser Tom Donilon in the hope of winning their support for softening Obama's ruling. Clinton replied she was not involved in the negotiations with Iran and Donilon, that a personal decision by the president was not open to change.
A week of consultations followed the defense minister's return home, during which it was decided to tear up Israel's pledge to refrain from attacking Iran during the US presidential campaign. Wednesday, May 23, the day the Baghdad talks began, Barak signaled Washington to this effect.
It was conveyed in a little-noticed early morning radio interview with the defense minister. To make sure his words reached the proper address without misunderstandings, the defense minister's office issued a verbatim English translation from the Hebrew:
"There is no need to tell us what to do, and we have no reason to panic. Israel is very, very strong, but we do know that the Iranians are accomplished chess players and will try to achieve nuclear capabilities. Our position has not changed. The world must stop Iran from becoming nuclear. All options remain on the table."

As the Baghdad talks went around in circles, Israel's military option was put back firmly on the table and on the US-Iranian chessboard.

http://www.debka.com/article/22024/

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Detailed, 'engaged' Iran nuclear talks enter 2nd day

By REUTERS

05/24/2012 09:18

BAGHDAD - Talks between Iran and world powers to defuse a dispute about Iran's nuclear goals entered a second day on Thursday with Washington cautiously hopeful of progress towards an agreed framework for addressing concerns that Tehran wants to build an atom bomb.

"I believe we have the beginning of a negotiation," a senior US official said of the discussions, which opened on Wednesday in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, in a renewed effort at diplomacy that will seek to ease decades of ingrained mistrust.

"We have got engaged ... we have had detailed discussions" for a potential further round of talks, the official said, adding the meeting would continue into a second day on Thursday.

The discussions, watched closely by global oil markets as well as by Iran's arch-enemy Israel, are aimed at exploring ways to settle a long-standing dispute about a nuclear energy program the West suspects is aimed at nuclear bomb research. Tehran has long stated the program is strictly for peaceful purposes.

Both sides - Iran on the one hand and the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany on the other - have been publicly upbeat about the scope for an outline deal following a 15-month diplomatic freeze and exploratory talks in Istanbul last month.

In previous meetings, the two sides could not even agree on an agenda, with each largely repeating known positions and Tehran refusing any dialogue on changes to its nuclear path.

But international energy markets remain nervous, unsettled by extended Western sanctions imposed on Iran's crude exports and the specter of a Middle East conflict arising from possible Israeli strikes against Iran's nuclear installations.

Speaking after the first day of discussions, the senior US official said the meeting revealed a "fair amount of disagreement" but also areas of common ground.

"But still we have to come to closure ... about what are the next appropriate steps."

The overall goal of the six countries jointly negotiating with Tehran is an Iranian agreement to curb uranium enrichment in a transparent, verifiable way to ensure it is for peaceful purposes only. Iran's priority is to secure an end to sanctions isolating the country and damaging its economy.

The senior US official later confirmed that the six powers had also put specific measures to lessen sanctions pressure on the table in the discussions as part of a possible confidence-building package, but declined to elaborate.

Iran hints at flexibility

The pivotal proposal by the six, led by European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, was for Iran to halt its enrichment of uranium to the higher fissile concentration of 20 percent, her spokesman, Michael Mann, said as talks got under way.

That is the Iranian nuclear advance most worrying to the West since it largely overcomes technical obstacles to reaching 90 percent, or bomb-grade, enrichment. Iran says it is enhancing the fissile purity to such a degree only for medical research.

Tehran has repeatedly ruled out suspending enrichment as called for by several UN Security Council resolutions.

But Iran has hinted at flexibility on higher-grade enrichment, although analysts caution that it would be unlikely to compromise much while sanctions remain in place.

Iranian media close to the Tehran government said its chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili, presented its own five-point package of proposals covering a "comprehensive" range of nuclear and non-nuclear issues.

But a European diplomat, referring to the reported Jalili proposals, said: "We are not quite sure what these five points are. We are trying to find out. There are no details."

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=271241