The ships didn't "recognize" each other??? That's a good one!!

Posted by: gymgal at January 7, 2008 4:13 PM

I have been to Mayport near Jacksonville, it's kind of hard to mistake a USNavy ship for anything else.

Kind of reminds me of the time we were scalloping in the waters off BeBe Rebozo's house on Key Biscayne while Nixon was there.
Had to do some real fast talking there to get home.

Posted by: Aunt Bea at January 7, 2008 4:20 PM

A case of mistaken identity?

Oh, I am sure convoys of military ships disguised under US flags are frequent to Hormuz. The world laughs at you monkey games, mullahs!

Our boys and girls got a real world experience (not that they lacked it, no way!) in the area where they may have to put up some action soon. I say it was a good exercise.

Posted by: Charles Martel at January 7, 2008 4:27 PM

Make no mistake - the Iranians were conducting reconnaisance, to test our response for future reference. Hopefully they will repeat the exercise and be sent to Davie Jones' Locker next time. Shoot first, wipe up the mess later...

Posted by: BunrattyBill at January 7, 2008 4:34 PM

So if the ships "didn't recognize each other" just who did the Iranians think they were going to blow up?

Hasn't the US labeled the IRG a terrorist organization? A terrorist organization is running a navy.

Posted by: PMK at January 7, 2008 4:35 PM

WHAT!?

Didn't Recognize each other? Don't they have a neat piece of technology invented in more than 500 years ago?...called Binocular or Monocle! Or don't they LISTEN the warnings from the US ships?!
Do they have radars? Really, Iran is testing the free world's patience, lets see how long we can take this BS.

And of course, unfortunately, there will always be bigoted idiots who will defend Iran and blame US for this.

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan at January 7, 2008 4:40 PM

Should have sunk them all, they'd stop doing it then.

Posted by: Ian at January 7, 2008 4:44 PM

It is real simple.......release the audio tapes and the video tapes.

Play the audio and video on the 6:00 news tonight, the public will see that the Iranians are lying, which will justify the Navy to shoot the next time it happens.

Show the tapes now while you have this headlined in the news. Keep the momentum going Navy.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at January 7, 2008 4:45 PM

A quicker response, one hopes, next time, so no Iranian boat is left floating.

Posted by: Hugh at January 7, 2008 4:46 PM

Didn't recognize? Hmmmm. How many other navies floating around in the Persian Gulf region have one 5" mount fore and aft. No missile racks if the ships are of the latest design. One missile launch arm fore and aft. Grey. Oh yes, the US flag flying proudly. Right, easy to mistaken these ships as fishing vessels.

Posted by: Kevin at January 7, 2008 4:52 PM

One thing the Iranian's recognize.

Iran see's our economy is headed to the emergency room and intensive care.
Last week Nigeria had an 'oil problem'
Today Iraq.
But you won't hear this new from our sanatized U.S. MEDIA.
You will hear about Hillary tears all day long though.

I smell a rat and a plan with the fiesty Persian's.
They can't help thsmelves,and you do know they have supersonic cruise missiles that make our Aircraft Carriers obsloete don't you ?

That's another reality the worthless U.S. media
din't report on.

Make no mistake about it ,they have a calculating strategy.
If they can get oil prices up to $200.00 or more a barrel,they can easliy crash our economy.

An Accident ha,ha,yeah right.

Reports from Iraq say the country's biggest oil refinery, at Baiji, has been badly damaged in a huge fire.
The fire began with an explosion in the plant's liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) unit which had recently been repaired.
Engineers at the complex, about 180 kilometres (120 miles) north of Baghdad, said a tank was destroyed, but the refinery was still operating.
At least one person was killed and several others were injured. The fire was under control after two hours.
A police official in Baiji blamed the fire on an accident, and not sabotage which has plagued Iraq's oil sector since the US-led invasion nearly five years ago.
Although Iraq has large reserves, it is not a major exporter of refined petroleum. However, the Baiji complex serves as a key transfer point for crude oil being exported from Iraq.
It also refines some crude for domestic consumption.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7175605.stm

Posted by: rocketman at January 7, 2008 4:52 PM

Show the tapes now while you have this headlined in the news. Keep the momentum going Navy.

Easier said than done. The US news organizations are too busy covering New Hampshire and the many celebrations going on there. Too busy to do anything like cover the news. There's no time.

The Navy could give a news conference and no one would come. They're all in Manchester.

Posted by: PMK at January 7, 2008 5:08 PM

"Bush administration to Iran: please".......[please?]........[pretty please?]......[with sugar on top?].....

Nothing to worry about folks as Bush assures us that 'Islam is a religion of peace' : Iran = Sharia = Islam = peace..........I can go back to sleep now!

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at January 7, 2008 5:13 PM

We have been at war with Iran since the 1979 takeover of our embassy in Tehran. The Iranians are aware of this; we're the ones trying to run from it.

In all that time -- nearly 29 years! -- we've done nothing to teach Iran what it means to be at war with the world's preeminent superpower. Why don't we give them a sample and see how they like it? It might just cause them to pull in their horns, no? Or has Washington grown too comfortable with being derided and defied by an outlaw regime with ambitions to genocide?

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at January 7, 2008 5:18 PM

It's a fabled place, Ormuz. In 1622 the British shelled and destroyed the market of Ormuz. The "king of Lusitania" (i.e., the Portuguese king) apparently levied tribute from the "king of Ormuz."

Here's Ormuz (Ormus) in Milton's "Paradise Lost""

"High on a throne of royal state, which far
outshone the wealth of Ormus and of Ind,
Or where the gorgeous East with richest hand
Show'rs on her kings barbaric pearl and gold,
Satan exalted sat..."

Book II, lines 1-5

"Satan exalted sat."

Posted by: Hugh at January 7, 2008 6:00 PM

"I smell a rat and a plan with the feisty Persians.
They can't help themselves,and you do know they have supersonic cruise missiles that make our Aircraft Carriers obsolete don't you ?"

Exactly right Rocket man. The Iranians had a motive and something up their sleeve...like a volley of shore to ship missiles to take out the destroyers and frigate which was feasible considering the location of the incident. But our aircraft carriers obsolete? Don't know about that unless we get caught with our pants down.

Posted by: solomonpal at January 7, 2008 6:16 PM

“to refrain from such provocative actions that could lead to a dangerous incident in the FUTURE.”

Flashback to Millennium Challenge 2002 - a war game. The scenario envisioned a war in a fictitious Persian Gulf country. At a cost of $250 million, involving 13,500 personnel from all four services—Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines (the largest such simulation ever held)

The result was much of the American fleet was sunk by suicide-bombers in speed boats.

Only RECENTLY has the U.S. Navy acquired a weapon system to deal with this threat. The Mk 38 Mod 2 remote control 25mm automatic cannon. The navy will equip over a hundred ships over the next year...

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/articles/20071228.aspx

Posted by: Rob at January 7, 2008 6:39 PM

They got away with it when they took the Royal Navy sailors prisoner. Not retaliating then, That was a BIG mistake. It was enevitable that they would think they could also get away with it with the U.S.Navy,and they have. It is only a matter of time before a live fire incident occurs.It is the nature of the beast I'm afraid. Writing strongly worded letters and giving them a row just does'nt work with these animals. They have to be taught to be more afraid of you than you are of them. It's the only language they understand. "To combat terror, I have to become more terrible than my enemies" ( Some General I can't remember the name of.)

Posted by: rookie at January 7, 2008 7:08 PM

That sound you hear is Teddy Roosevelt puking from the grave. Our pathological deference to the evil mullahs extends from Dubya right on down the chain of command. (I think Teddy would have made the mullahs an offer they couldn't refuse back in '79. So would JFK, for that matter.)

Posted by: Infidel33 at January 7, 2008 7:10 PM

"fast boats?" I guess these could be called "swift boats!" Where is our "most experienced" swift boat operator? He could take care of this single handedly. Not!

Posted by: TexasInfidel at January 7, 2008 7:12 PM

The NATO designated SS-N-27B "Sizzler" are missiles are armed with a 70-kilogram HE warhead and can reach a target 16 nautical miles away. The missile flies near the surface of the ocean at subsonic speed until it nears its target, when it becomes supersonic and flies in an evasive flight path specifically designed to defeat the Aegis weapons systems that the aircraft carrier’s escorting ships are equipped.

In comparison the Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit, NATO designation SS-N-22 "Sunburn", is a anti-ship cruise missile. This is a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. It can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder "just in time."

The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, prior to the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also "saw" the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

Ships presently in the Gulf already have come within range of even more-advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made (speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles) deployed by the Iranians along the Gulf's northern shore. Every US ship in the Gulf is presently exposed and vulnerable to this threat.

Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Sizzler' Missile

By Tony Capaccio

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.

The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.

The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed.

``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its purpose.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a5LkaU0wj714&refer=home

------------------
This is an old article but nothing has changed.

I read an article at Asia Times Online written by an extremely knowlwgeble Philippino General about the new weapon's system and their advanced abilities that we have yet to catch up to.
Bush is an idiot and a paper tiger and Putin and others know this.
They will set us up for a fall on their time.

Russia,China,Iran and others have these weapons all pointed at us.

THE SUNBURN IS ONLY 1 OF THESE MANY NEW WEAPONS SYSTEM.
We are in more danger than the 'experts are letting on and the majority have been successfully dumbed down and are without a clue as to what is coming soon.

Posted by: rocketman at January 7, 2008 7:22 PM

Thank you Rob.
That makes me feel better. Without these kinds of exercises our military would not be the strong proud group of people they are.
Even though there have been things said by me about the lack of understanding of the higher ranks, I have no doubt we have the smartest, hardest working fighting force in the world.
I couldn't be prouder of them.
Thank you all for protecting us.

Even ABC's coverage made me think what a group of sets of those things that make guys strong and brave, that every person on those ships must have had. I don't mean any offense to the females (theirs are psychological).

Posted by: Aunt Bea at January 7, 2008 7:32 PM

exerpt:
U.S. Aircraft Carriers Vulnerable to Attack?: The Ticking Time Bomb
........However, there are a couple of little "flies in the ointment" in the form of the latest ship-killing unmanned weapon systems like supercavitating torpedoes and supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles being produced and/or developed by other countries that can probably sink the CVN-21, even if it is protected by its own highly-advanced, highly-lethal systems like fighter aircraft (primarily F/A-18s), ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare i.e. "sub-hunting") aircraft, the Raytheon Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS), Aegis-radar-equipped and highly-weaponized cruisers and destroyers, submarines, etc. That's not to mention unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) a.k.a. unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) being produced and developed by other countries that can also potentially wreak a lot of havoc and destruction on surface ships. And, at the end of the day, that's what the CVN-21 will be, a large, hulking, incredibly expensive (albeit very sexy) surface ship.
The thing about surface ships is, they're vulnerable to anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, AND UAS/UAVs, the whole trifecta, and these unmanned yet highly lethal weapons are increasing in sophistication all the time. Take the BrahMos Supersonic Cruise Missile, for instance. An Indian-Russian joint venture, the BrahMos can be launched from aircraft, ships, and subs, and flies at approx. three (3) times the speed ("high supersonic velocity") of standard subsonic cruise missiles like the Raytheon BGM-109 Tomahawk Land-Attack Missile (TLAM) (submarine or ship-launched) and Boeing AGM-84 Harpoon/SLAM (Stand-off Land Attack Missile) anti-ship cruise missile. It's fire-and-forget, has a low radar signature, and can be programmed for a variety of attack trajectories. The Brahmos Aerospace website has an "operational scenario" illustration that shows the BrahMos Universal Supersonic Cruise Missile's versatility with regard to launching platforms.
Basically, the BrahMos supersonic air-breathing cruise missile looks like an excellent complement/companion to the Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn (a.k.a. 3M-82 Moskit a.k.a. P270 Moskit) ramjet-powered anti-ship missile, SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missile (follow-on to the Sunburn missile, also ramjet powered) and VA-111 Shkval Supercavitating Rocket Torpedo, (which, by the way, is capable of speeds exceeding 200 knots under water).
A quick note on the Shkval: The VA-111 Shkval's high speed is achieved via supercavitation, where a vacuum bubble forms in front of and around the body of the torpedo, greatly reducing water resistance (i.e. friction). Pretty cool, except for the fact that the Russian military has it, and ours (U.S.) doesn't. The good news is, word on the street is that the Shkval is "dumb", meaning it's not a guided fire-and-forget torpedo. At least that's what the public's being told. The bad news? The bad news is, that even if this is true, the Russians aren't stupid, militarily complacent, or devoid of ideas and plans, and their military technology is constantly marching forward for the motherland just like ours is--sometimes even faster. So, it's just a matter of time (probably not much, at that) before a successor to the Shkval series of supercavitating torpedoes is developed that's a "smart" guided fire-and-forget weapon that will home in on our very expensive ships and subs with the single-minded precision and obsession of a lion pack on a wounded water buffalo.

By the way, what if the Russians already have a "smart" precision-guided supercavitating torpedo? Chances are, the Shkval isn't the most advanced supercavitating torpedo they've got. Remember, they don't have as open a press or society there as we do (especially under Putin), so theoretically it should be easier for them to keep the latest advanced military weapons a secret. Same goes for China. While we're on the subject, what if the Russians and/or Chinese have a more advanced supersonic anti-ship cruise missile (one with countermeasures and multi-mode guidance/targeting) than the Brahmos, Sunburn, Yakhonts, or any other missile that's been reported on so far in the press? It's not exactly unlikely, since the Russians and Chinese have their own classified systems just like we have ours. Using that same argument, let's hope we (the U.S.) have some classified ship-defense systems (particularly for our carriers) of which DefenseReview is unaware to counter anything (anti-ship weapons) the Russians, Chinese, et al could possibly have at their disposal.
It's ironic that in the post-cold-war world, some might say, well, "if somebody's got to have weapons like that, at least it's just Russia" (oh, and India), right? Not really. On January 18, 2006, Jane's Defence Weekly published an article on the development of a D-21 medium-range ballistic missile-based anti-ship missile being develped by the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA). And that's not all the Chinese have. Apparently, the Chinese now reportedly have Russian Sovremenny-class destroyers armed with the afformentioned Russian 3-M-82 Moskit/SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship missiles. Thank God the Chinese are our "friends", too, just like the Russians, huh? I mean, both of those "friendly" countries need us as a trading partner into the forseeable future, so they wouldn't launch those big, mean anti-ship missiles and torpedoes against our big expensive (approx. $5 billion--without the planes on it) Nimitz-class aircraft carriers or CVN-21 future aircraft carrier, would they? Of course not. For now.
That's the thing about this crazy world. Things have a funny way of changing. Sometimes they change gradually, and sometimes they change very quickly. The world turns, paradigms shift, and the next thing ya' know the Russians or the Chinese are launching a battery (let's say 20-100) anti-ship missiles and torpedoes at one time against a single U.S. aircraft carrier, and yesterday's friend is suddenly today's enemy sinking your very expensive battleship. But, again, why would the Chinese want to sink one or several of our aircraft carriers? After all, they don't still want Taiwan back. And, it's not like we've ever threatened to send in our aircraft carriers and other surface ships to protect Taiwan. Hell, they've probably forgotten all about that technologically and monetarily-rich little island sitting right off their coast. They're probably past it. On to the next thing. After all, the Chinese are known for their forgetful nature and let-bygones-be-bygones attitude.
O.k., so, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Indians can all sink our aircraft carriers faster than a pitbull can down a steak. At least the Iranians don't have anything like that. Ya' know, 'cause that would be alarming. What? The Iranian's do have something like that? Oh, God, that's right, remember what I wrote about the world changing? It seems that the Iranians are developing their own supercavitating torpedo called the "Hoot" (or "Whale") "sonar-evading underwater missile" a.k.a. supercavitating torpedo, most likely based on the Russian Shkval tech, since the Russians were helping them develop it, at least in the late 1990's. The Iranians claim that "no submarine or warship can escape." So, there's Russian technology and technical expertise behind it. Perfect. That's just wonderful.
Now, what if Russian president Vladimir Putin or his successor decides to sell the Sunburn or Yakhonts missile to the Iranians, just like the U.S. once did with the Stinger shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missile to the Afgani Mujahedeen in the 1980's. Just like the Stinger turned that war around for the Afghani's, so would the Sunburn or Yakhonts change the game for the Iranian's versus the U.S. Navy. If that were to happen, payback would truly be a bitch, for us.
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking "So what?" Even if the Iranians get one of those super-duper missiles, the U.S. Navy's got SeaRAM, which can defeat those nasty Mach 2.5 (approx.) anti-ship missiles. The SeaRAM Anti-Ship Missile Defense System can defeat it. It's our salvation. Well, not so fast. Ya' see, that little theory depends on two things: 1) that the enemy missile threat will be detected in time and SeaRAM will have a 100% kill rate, and 2) the 11-missile RAM launcher won't run out of missiles before the enemy does.
Boy, that's a lot to depend on. In the tactical shooting a.k.a. defensive shooting world, there's an old saying: "Action beats reaction." In other words, the actor always has the time advantage over the reactor. Time is the reactor's enemy, which means it will be our ships' enemy, if any of the now multiple countries who have supersonic anti-ship missiles and high-speed supercavitating torpedoes decide to launch them on us. Make no mistake, the first ships they'll launch against will be our aircraft carriers, and they'll probably launch a large number of these missiles at one time.
Let's give the U.S. Navy the benefit of the doubt, and say that it can stop 90% of the enemy missiles and/or torpedos streaking towards the carrier(s). The result's going to be the same. Understand that if just one of these missiles or torpedos hits the carrier, it's probably done. Even if it doesn't sink, it will most likely be taken out of operation. So, in effect, no more carrier. Let's say it takes two hits to destroy the carrier. All the enemy will have to do is fire at least 20 missiles at once, get its two hits on the carrier, and no more carrier. What if the enemy launches 20 missiles and 20 torpedos at the carrier at the same time? Get the picture? 20 anti-ship missiles and 20 torpedos might read like a big investment, but it's nowhere near the investement of a $5-$13.7 billion aircraft carrier. Not even close.
And, then there's the threat of bomb-laiden enemy unmanned aircraft systems/unmanned aerial vehicles (UAS/UAVs). Back in June 2006, an Iranian UAV/UAS flew and loitered over the USS Ronald Reagan supercarrier undetected and unmolested for 25 minutes before flying back safely to its base. That's a problem. One of the factors contributing to this blind spot/vulnerability for U.S. warships may be the lack of slow-speed/long-loiter time fixed-wing observation/reconnaissance/detection aircraft that can be launched from and fly continuously over U.S. aircraft carriers and the rest of the ships in the battle group, leaving them without the requisite air cover to defend against enemy UAV/UAS threats. As Defense Review outlined in a previous article, U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups are no longer launching S-3B Viking ASW/ASuW (Anti-Submarine Warfare/Anti-Surface Warfare) aircraft off the deck. Obviously, this leaves all the ships in a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group vulnerable to submarine attack (missile and torpedo), but the S-3B Viking, if it were still operational, could probably also assist in protecting against enemy UAV/UAS attacks.
Perhaps the best low-speed/long-loiter aircraft for this role would be an two-seat, navalized version of the Northrop Grumman A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog" ground attack aircraft, or "Sea Hog", if you will. Having a man in the second seat (rear seat) would be an important element in the Seahog's ability to protect the battlegroup. A second man would provide a second pair of eyes (a valuable addition in itself), and he could concentrate on the observation, reconnaissance and detection roles, freeing up the pilot to concentrate/focus on flying the aircraft (and not crashing). Basically, the second man would be an AFAC, or "Airborne Forward Air Controller".
By the way, while we're at it, we might want to consider bringing tactical seaplanes back. In case you're woried about speed, jet-powered seaplanes like the Convair F2Y Sea Dart proved a long time ago that seaplane fighter aircraft can fly just as fast as land-based fighter aircraft, not that they necessarily need to fly that fast (per the previous two paragraphs). Seaplanes would obviate the need for a catapult launch and recovery system, and give the battle group enhanced air defense and attack capability.
Bottom line, if we get into any kind of serious beef with ANY country that has a decent arsenal of these weapons, our aircraft carriers will most likely be destroyed and sunk within minutes. They're just too big, too slow, and too visible to survive, even with all their onboard and offboard networked defenses. The fact is that high-speed, sophisticated precision anti-ship weapons technology is cheaper and can therefore outpace our ability to protect our big, slow carriers. In the end, war is a financial transaction. Russian helicopters cost a lot more to produce, field and replace than Stinger missiles, and U.S. Aircraft carriers cost A LOT more to produce, field and replace than even the most sophisticated anti-ship weapons.
But, here's the kicker: The enemy might not even have to rely on the above-discussed weapons to sink our carriers. Back in 2002, the U.S. Navy conducted a training exercise called "Millenium Challenge 02", which was designed to showcase high-tech joint-force doctrine. Instead, it ended up showcasing the ability of the Opposing Force (OPFOR) Commander, Gen. Paul Van Riper, to sink two-thirds of the U.S. fleet with "nothing more than a few small boats (fishing boats, patrol boats, etc.) and aircraft." Here's how Gary Brecher a.k.a. "War Nerd" described Gen. Van Riper's naval combat tactics, and the ramifications (i.e. big-picture significance) of the resulting carnage to our warships:
"He kept them circling around the edges of the Persian Gulf aimlessly, driving the Navy crazy trying to keep track of them. When the Admirals finally lost patience and ordered all planes and ships to leave, van Ripen had them all attack at once. And they sank two-thirds of the US fleet.
That should scare the hell out of everybody who cares about how well the US is prepared to fight its next war. It means that a bunch of Cessnas, fishing boats and assorted private craft, crewed by good soldiers and armed with anti-ship missiles, can destroy a US aircraft carrier. That means that the hundreds of trillions (yeah, trillions) of dollars we've invested in shipbuilding is wasted, worthless."
And, that's about right. Pretty accurate assessment. DefenseReview recommends that you read the article.
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1048

Posted by: rocketman at January 7, 2008 7:41 PM

"...easy to mistaken these ships as fishing vessels..."

Kevin, of course, it could be easily mistaken by a fishing boat! Imagine, with ships like a destroyer or a frigate, you have to be 1 meter of distance to identify it!
They are invisible ships...no no... they camuflage really well! No wait, its silluette, which can be spotted by miles in the distance are the shape of a tiny little fishing boat!

The chopper is just a fat guy eating fish!

hehehehe, Kevin, you are so right... Besides, no enough amount of sarcasm can beat the lame Iran's excuse!

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan at January 7, 2008 9:16 PM

Our Supplicantor-in-Chief worries the Hell out of me.

Posted by: Havoc at January 7, 2008 9:20 PM

Rocketman;

I won't get into much details, but Russia technology is, recently, not so great. Because with the economic recession they had a couple of years ago, their armament and navy, army and air force is pretty crippled.

I grew tired and got really depressed seeing beautiful planes getting rusty, and destroyed by the weather.

Besides, the best naval air plane the Russian's got are the Su-33, which in fact, are only available in their Kuznetsov carrier.

US, created the catapult to help the planes to take off, the Russians tried to replicate the system and failed, of course, the Flanker can take off using the on-board ramp, but that is it.

You have as well, gattling cannons, both in destroyers escorts, and in the carrier. Which as well they have radar jammers and counter measures.

So, the only army that is actually keeping with the latest in release is the US, European is doing the same, but is a bit slower. Iran doesn't have nearly half of what you are saying, and even if they do, a couple of tomahawks, TLAMS or even the TASM missiles.

With satellite recon, and aerial recon you will get a pretty fast war with an un-trained enemy army.

Don't try to glamorize, or to make the Iranians innocent, you know as much as I do that they are the enemy, and that the Iran gonverment is pretty messed up, and their army and armament is really not that great!

You can't even deny that islam is even more dangerous!

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan at January 7, 2008 9:29 PM

A 5 inch shell will play heck with a 'swift boat'. Next time, we should give them the martyrs they so desperately desire to have. This kind of crap would stop if we stopped playing politically correct games. Just my 2 cents...

P.S.-
Just how damned close would they have had to come before the destroyers/frigate shredded the swift boats?

Posted by: livefreeordie! at January 7, 2008 9:59 PM

P.S.-
Just how damned close would they have had to come before the destroyers/frigate shredded the swift boats?
Posted by: livefreeordie! [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 7, 2008 9:59 PM
---------------------------

Not too close! Pretty far away, for example a neat anti missile gun is the Phalanx CIWS;

Back to youer question, the Otobreda 76 mm it is used in the Perry class Frigate, I don't know which ship was in there, but lets use this as an example

it has a range of roughly 18,400 m with HE(heat) shells. (18.4km)

You can find this information on the Net, one trustable source for info is Jane's ... www.janes.com

They publish books about this.

SO in other words, Us really doesn't want a war, and they really are innocent, imagine how many announcements and warnings the US gave to the Iranians with all this distance!

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan at January 7, 2008 10:30 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

If anyone is interested in the US and Iran short conficlt.

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan at January 7, 2008 10:32 PM

Rocket, might you link those LOOOOOOONG articles, they eat bandwidth like crazy.

On topic, these sorts of harassments have been happening for decades, but now we have the Iraq war and so everything becomes magnified. They occurred back in the late eighties when I was sailoring and they will continue to occur.

If the U.S. Navy sinks a few Iranian boats and the Iranians respond by salvoing everything they have back at our ships, their game would be over shortly and not necessarily by military means. Losing a few dozen men and launching the kitchen sink in response would be considered by most as an extreme overreaction, and probably not gain the Iranians the world sympathy they might be seeking.

The amount of rope the Iranians have to hang themselves is large and they realize it; when you have to import gasoline to keep the people happy, you had better tread lightly.

Posted by: Bacon-I Will Miss Thee at January 7, 2008 11:06 PM

We did just fine after losing a few battleships.

Posted by: pez at January 7, 2008 11:17 PM

Waste them. Waste them all.

Posted by: angryeagle at January 7, 2008 11:49 PM

It makes you want to have a look again at that case where the US ship shot down the Iranian airliner during the first Gulf War. Perhaps there was more to it than the official account...

Posted by: Brett_McS at January 8, 2008 1:36 AM

Rocketman - thanks for the briefing. Its hard to believe that the Navy has been idling on this threat for 6 years. But maybe that is consistent with everything else that is coming from the beltway these days. Somehow we muddle through, but that is due to the skill and daring of our boots on the ground, not the Beltway bigshots.

Just a comment on Hormuz island. I saw it up close in the '70s. At that time the village was much smaller than now ( see Google earth).

Basically it is a salt plug and in those days its only industry was harvesting salt, and probably fish. The fishery in those days anyway was unbelievable.

There is no significant fresh water. Runoff from these plugs is as salty as seawater. They must have a desal plant for water supply. Every house seems to have a tree in the back yard; I am surprised they grow in that soil. The housing is probably all for military families.

The town appears to be entirely new with a lot of military facilities around. A few small boats can be seen on the west side of town, ashore. Quite a few more around Bandar Abbas, north of the island.

It would not take much to vaporize Hormuz and Bandar Abbas as a warning against future harassment. Or at least the military and naval facilities.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at January 8, 2008 2:11 AM

"suggesting the Iranian boats had not recognized the U.S. vessels."

.....clearly shows the mentality and education level of your average Islamic terrorist martyr wannabee.....

.....Islam is a death cult on a death mission....no way should five Muslim speed boats get as close as 200 yards...."REMEMBER THE COLE"...

...I agree with others...Blast the boats and send the Muslims to their promised 72 hags....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 8, 2008 6:16 AM

The Navy's rules of engagement must read something like "Don't fire on them until your ship is aflame..."
I'm so surprised they got that close.

Posted by: Bingo at January 8, 2008 8:31 AM

I would like to give the Navy credit for avoiding a potential trap. Be it a Military or Political one.

A game of Chicken where the Iranians went cluck.

Our Forces have always been vulnerable to a Pearl Harbor type attack. The real question that needs answering is if any Country conducting one, could outlast the level of retribution unto them that would surely follow.

I doubt that Iran can defend itself from all 360 degrees the retribution would come from. Not to mention that the Navy may not even wish to engage Iran from within range of its launch platforms.

If push comes to shove with Iran, we would be better off forgoing the defense of the Persian gulf shipping and engage with stand off systems and land based assets. Pealing their defenses like an Onion, while striking every Economic target vital to their ability to continue what they started.

Any weapon system is only as good as its ability to come within range of the weapon itself, or the combined ability with its launch platform.

Eliminate one mission from the Navy and the ability for Iran to touch us is immeasurably reduced.

If shooting starts in the Gulf, it is unlikely Shipping there would even want to continue. Under those circumstances it would be pointless to put Ships in harms way until the Major threats to such operations were dealt with.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at January 8, 2008 4:03 PM

Had Iran been Iraq, Bush would have been in there a long time ago. But the fact is Iran will not bullied by anyone, including the unofficial 'world police'.
Iran's contempt for the Bush administrations threat's are pissing him (Bush) off. Why were US Navy ships in Iranian waters anyway? What would the US Navy do if Iranian boats conducted 'excercise missions' off the coast of Florida?

According to Bush, every country that does not have a democracy has to embrace it. If they don't they are given the cold-shoulder and have sanctions imposed on them; if they are already poor that is. All this makes your claims about Islam trying to impose Sharia on the rest of the world quite ludicrous. Why did Bush attack Saddam again? Didn't it have something to do with democracy in Iraq?

We're living in a strange world. Pakistan has nucleur weapons, how come Bush is not so adamant to dismantle their arsenal? Must have something to do with Pakistan's exemplary human right's record.

Posted by: thesaracen at January 9, 2008 3:20 AM

Thanks for all the info guys.

I harken back to the mid nineties when the Clintons (whores that they are) sold some of our best military tech to the Chinese.

We seem to be a 'Pearl' waiting to happen, again and again.

I guess thats why 'monkey man' in Iran brags so much about wiping our Navy off the surface of the sea.

Posted by: guide inside at January 9, 2008 5:00 AM

"According to Bush, every country that does not have a democracy has to embrace it. "
Posted by: thesaracen

...when and where did he say this?....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 9, 2008 9:00 AM

"We're living in a strange world"

Posted by: thesaracen

...the world is not strange, (the world is a beautiful place), however, it is becoming violent...at the insistence of the Radical Muslims....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 9, 2008 9:02 AM