Clarifying Iranian Naval/military situation

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

peterkhanzendran
by peterkhanzendran
23-Feb-2008
 

Recently some people have posted doubts about Iran's ability to defend itself and to the quality of it's Navy and military.  To those who wish to question me I suggest they read the sereis of articles I've written in the "Dumb vs. Dumber" series.  If you have not read them I will include parts of the here.

In terms of Naval capability Iran has the following warships.  One Jamaran class Guided Missile Frigate(FFG) with another rapidly under construction.  3 Alvand class FFG's, with the Sahand since raised as a demonstration of Iran's means to salvage sunken warships, 2 Bayandor class Frigates, 3 Tariq class Attack Submarines(SSK) purchased from Russia and 6 more recently ordered, 3 Ghadir class SSK's, which use stealth technology and are the only submarines which can fire rocket propelled torpedoes and missiles simultaneously, 1 Nahang class SSK, 4 Yugo class SSK's, 3 Sina class Corvettes, 1 Hamzeh class Corvette, 4 Hengam class Amphibious Landing Ships(LST), 6 Charak class LST's, 2 Iran class LST's,3 Logistical Support Ships, the Kharg, Bandar Abbas, and Bushehr which are constructed to be rapidly converted into LST's in time of war, 12 Houdong class Fast Attack Craft(PT) and some 60 PT Craft, including Bakhtaran, Tir, and Parvin class variants.  The weaponry on these ships are all modern and all are well constructed and battleworthy.

Despite the hype about america's navy and military american forces are already overstreched and short on critical supplies, which the people in Iraq and Afghanistan have forgotten in face of the surge, and american weaponry rapidly like the abrams tank and stealth fighter becoming obsolete.  The aegis system is becoming obsolete also, as it is simply a computer/satellite guidance system for guided missiles, and Iranian military technicians have developed the technolgy to intercept american guided missiles.  Furthermore, Irainan rocket propelled torpedoes and Shahab-3 missiles have the capability to put any of america's 12 Aircraft Carriers and 11 Amphibious Carriers out of action.  While the american navy has 22 Cruisers, 54 Destroyers, 30 FFG's, and 30 Amphibiuos Assault ships, the hull construction of these ships is poor and these ships can be put out of action easily, as the incidents involving the Stark, Roberts, Cole, as well as the american warships hit by Iraqi fire during the first Gulf war demonstrated.  People even forget that the USS Gettysburg, an aegis Cruiser, had trouble manuvering after colliding with the Frigate IS Bayandor on October 13, 1996.  The 53 Nuclear powered attack submarines and 18 Ohio class Submarines america's navy operates are noisy and easily detectable by Iranian sonars.  Essentially, america's navy is matched in terms of quality of ships, but not quantity, with iran's and in a ship to ship engagement major Iranian and american warships are equals.

To round off this consideration one must consider in addition to Iran's new Missile defense system capable of countering aegis that Iran is one of 3 countries that produces tactical stealth fighter planes and that Iran's DIO has the means to mass produce modern tactical jet fighters and main battle tanks in addition to major warships.  Any america invasion force which is headed up by an america Carrier Battle group would have to pass through the Srtrait of Hormuz where american warships could be picked off easily.  If any battle does occur between americaand Iran the end result will be, win or loss, that america's military will suffer heavy casualties that it will upset the balance of military power in the World and america will be extermely vulnerable to attack, be it from Russia, China, India, North Korea, or other countries that had issues with america in the past and chafe at america in the present like Germany, France, Spain, Venezuela, Libya may be emboldened against america. 

Any military confronataion between Iran and america will be a loss for america, no matter the outcome.  Iran is capable of defending itself and not to be pushed around and those that forget this will find out how wrong they are if they try to attack.

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by peterkhanzendranCommentsDate
Disgust over nyc persian parade
7
Apr 01, 2008
Princess Leila; The case for her murder
7
Mar 27, 2008
Setting the facts straight about 1953
3
Mar 25, 2008
more from peterkhanzendran
 
default

The Silence is Deafening..............LOL

by knocka (not verified) on Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:22 PM PDT

Still waiting Peter to hear HOW they are going to convert these ships to LST's.

Just another ludicrous statement by you that you can never back up with any facts...........like nearly everthing you write.


  •  
default

Tankers & Coastal Cargo Ships quickly convert to LST's

by knocka (not verified) on Tue Mar 18, 2008 05:11 AM PDT

Please explain to us all Peter how the Kharg & Bandar Abbas classes of AOR and the Charak class coastal cargo ships can suddenly be converted into LST's in time of war.
An LST is a beachable ship than can off load tanks & vehicles on to a beach via a forward vehicle ramp.

Can't be done by any of these classes of ship. Once again you are prooving what an idiot you are and how little you know.

I will await your explanation, it should be a really amusing piece of science fiction.

I really don't know where you get such fanciful ideas from. Or yeah, I do, I remember your standard answer "I have contacts on the ground in Iran who told me this" Like they told you the Sahand was raised and in the drydock. LOL. I think your contacts in Iran are "taking the piss" my boy. What an idiot!


  •  
default

What delusional crap!

by knocka (not verified) on Sun Mar 16, 2008 04:31 AM PDT

Once again the delusional Peter Khan Zendran writes sheer crap.
Any conflict between the US navy and the obsolete Iranian "fleet" will be almost wholly an air battle.
One American Carrier Battle Group's aircraft will take out the whole Iranian navy and airforce in one day.
Just like they took out the Iranian navy last time they came out to fight 20 years ago. Every ship they sent out, was either sunk or that badly damaged that they were no longer a threat to anyone.
The Iranian ships won't even get to see an American warship, but they'll sure see plenty of their aircraft and missiles, just like last time.
And Zendran is still going on about the Sahand being raised after 18 years on the sea bottom, yet he never presents any evidence for this other than "I have contacts in Iran who told me this"
Total delusional nutter who just cannot be taken seriously.


  •  
peterkhanzendran

Check your facts

by peterkhanzendran on Mon Feb 25, 2008 02:32 PM PST

//www.peterkhanzendran.com
//peterkhanzendran.blogspot.com
If anyone needs to do their homework it is you.  Not only is your sentence construction poor you do not even know your sources.

I have dealt with john pike, who runs globalsecurity.org.  He even tries to claim that his article he put up in 2007 about america not being able to invade Iran after 2007 was not based on my PersianMirror article "2007, Time for War?" which I published in December 2004.  Read that site further and you will see that info there is dated and much of it has NOT been updated for some time.  That article you quote is one example, as video and satellite info from Iran, including Bandar Abbas, shows the contrary of what you have quoted.

You more than overestimate america, and had you spent time aboard american warships and in shipyards as I have done and you will not be so quick to praise america to the skies.

You even forget the circumstances in which the ships you quote were in.  The Stark, Roberts, and Cole were NOT in a sea battle scenario.  The Stark being hit accidentally by an Iraqi jet after being mistaken for an Iranian ship while on patrol, the Roberts was saved only due to quick reaction which would not have happened in combat, and the Cole was not in a danger zone.  Had all 3 of those ships been in the midst of a sea battle they would certainly have been sunk.

Remember even that one reason for the mass concentration against Iraq and the hesitancy to concentrate against iran is the possession of SSK's.  The coalition massed in the gulf to attack saddam as they knew Iraq had no SSK's, unlike Iran.  Furthermore, the Gotland excercizes and the Song incident in october have shown just how effective SSK's are and how flabby america's response is.  One reason the cia helped back the mullahs and other anti-Imperial agitators in the 1978-9 revolution was they knew any Iranian government would not go through with the purchase of the 4 american Tang/Kusseh class SSK's, the purchase of which was cancelled by the IRI before the hostage crisis.


  •  
default

Foolish.

by Reality (not verified) on Mon Feb 25, 2008 06:48 AM PST

I read your article and I think you overestimate the Iranian Navy and underestimate the US Navy. Your statements "Essentially, america's navy is matched in terms of quality of ships, but not quantity, with iran's and in a ship to ship engagement major Iranian and american warships are equals." and "the hull construction of these ships is poor and these ships can be put out of action easily, as the incidents involving the Stark, Roberts, Cole, as well as the american warships hit by Iraqi fire during the first Gulf war demonstrated" are factually incorrect.

While on a pure numerical basis, the Iranian Navy may have more vessels, the majority of Irans Navy are small craft like boghammers and coverted private vessels, which are mostly unarmored, underarmed and highly vulnerable to primary & secondary arms fire. To quote globalsecurity.org;
"As of 2001 the regular Iranian navy was in a state of overall obsolescence, and in poor shape because they have not been equipped with modern ships and weapons. Iran's three destroyers are over 50 years old and are not operational. The readiness of the three 25-year-old frigates is almost non-existent, and the two 30-year-old corvettes do not have sophisticated weapons. Ten of 20 missile-equipped fast attack craft have limited operational readiness, and four of them are not seaworthy as of 2001. Only 10 Chinese-made Thodor-class craft are operationally reliable. The four 30-year-old minesweepers are obsolete, lack seaworthiness, and do not have a mine-sweeping capability. Iran has many amphibious and auxiliary ships, but these are superfluous to requirements and are used purely for training personnel. Iran's ten hovercraft are old and used sparingly. Iran's navy has 20,000 men, but they are young and inexperienced, and most of them are riflemen and marines based on Persian Gulf islands. And at higher levels, there is fierce rivalry between the IRGC and regular navies for scarce resources. Due to these shortcomings, Iran's three Kilo-class submarines would be vulnerable, and they are limited to laying mines in undefended waters. Mines, however, are one area in which Iran has made advances."

While Iran has been ambitious in recent years in procuring chinese and russian technology and ships, they are still nowhere near the US Navy, even in a stretched condition, in terms of available ships, readiness and most importantly, air cover.

Your statement regarding hull stregnth is somewhat indicitave of the fact that you have not done your homework. The USS Stark absorbed 2 exocet missiles into its superstructure and remained afloat and has returned to active service. The HMS Sheffield, a vessel of greater size was sunk by 1 exocet during the Falklands War. The USS S.B. Roberts remained afloat despite a direct hit from a Iranian Mine, and returned to service, and the Cole took the explosive equivalent of 2 torpedoes in her hull and did not sink. Yes, all vessels were badly damaged but that is what happens in war. They did not sink and were able to return to service despite their damages, which is a testament to their design, crew and the facilities that are available to repair them.

The Iranian Navy is a growing power in the Persian Gulf, but to say that a navy with fewer than 50 major combatant ships, none larger than a frigate can compare equally to a Navy larger than any other on the planet is a reach.


  •