| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran | |
| Iran building Shkval torpedoes? | |
| 2005-02-15 | |
The most nervous denizens of the Pentagon about a possible U.S. strike on Iran are the admirals, who fear placing their beloved carriers in harm's way in the constricted waters of the Persian Gulf. Now they have a new cause for concern; Iran has opened a torpedo production line in order to strengthen its maritime defense capability as the Bush administration escalated its threats against Iran. Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said at the opening ceremony of the factory that the production marked completion of "the Islamic Republic's defensive cycle at sea. Iran's marine units have now achieved an effective weapon with a complicated and modern technology in confronting surface and undersea threats. Some of the important features of this weapon are the possibility to use it in shallow waters, without being spotted by radars, as well as its extraordinarily high speed, while being notably cost-effective." Shamkani added that the torpedoes could be mounted on helicopters, surface vessels and submarines. No details were given of the torpedo production, but Western analysts nervously note that Iran is known to have acquired a number of Russian VA-111 supercavitating Shkval torpedoes, specifically designed to destroy aircraft carriers, and are worried that the Iranians now might be producing their own indigenous version. The 27-foot Shkval is potentially one of Russia's most lucrative arms exports. Spewing a fine stream of air bubbles from its nose to reduce drag, the Shkval literally rockets along underwater at 230 miles per hour in a linear trajectory, with a maximum range of about six nautical miles. One Russian submarine designer bragged that a Skhval attack would be like "the lightning stab of a dagger."
| |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #16 As far as I know the USN still opers under the Reagan-era doctrine of "flexible response", which means the CVBG can strike first with conventional andor nuke arms to protect itself from any real-time or future threat to itself and US policies.ANd even before the CVBG gets near the coast, SPECFORS and aligned will likely be there first to destroy Iranian naval and other targets before they even physic leave the docks or depots. WHat the anti-American Lefts and Commies want, for now, is [DEFENSIVE/ACTIVE DEFENSIVE] GROUND WAR ags US Milfors, i.e. ARMY-BASED/LED "NEW VIETNAMS" or insurgencies, where International diplomacy and "NO WMDS" PC will play significant roles. As illustrated by Hillary, Dean as DNC Chair, and President Kerry, I believe the Lefts are setting up a PC heirachy of future US Governance for when Dubya and the bulk of the national leadership of the GOP-RIGHT is wiped out - remember, Commmunism and SOcialism are the "GOOD GUYS", the Failed Left WANTS WAR, and will not accept America NOT waging war for new Global Empire! The Communists-for-Fascism-for Communism is NEVER going to blame itself. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-02-15 9:33:58 PM |
| #15 "US ships have a nixi system, which blows super fine bubbles over the bottom of the ship and absorbs the sonic noise the ship makes." mmurray821 That's Prairie/Masker. (one's for the hull, the other for the propeller) Nixie is a towed decoy system. |
| Posted by: Dave 2005-02-15 7:48:40 PM |
| #14 The German liner in question was the Wilhelm Gustlaf, every deck crammed with refugees from East Prussia, departing from Koenigsburg, now Kaliningrad, just a jump ahead of the Red Army. The Soviet Skipper died drunk some years later, embittered that Stalin et al hadn't recognized his contribution to the war effort. The rest of you know a lot more about recent military hardware than I do. |
| Posted by: mom 2005-02-15 7:41:58 PM |
| #13 Didn't an Aussie sub close and sink a CV in recent exercises? |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-02-15 7:31:06 PM |
| #12 SteveS got it per usual. 27-foot Shkval Just right for the average helicopter.:> A suicide weapon at best for a Russian attack sub. Shoot right up the track and BANG. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-02-15 6:55:28 PM |
| #11 The mini guns are phalanx systems, designed to shoot down anti-ship missles. The carriers and other US ships have a nixi system, which blows super fine bubbles over the bottom of the ship and absorbs the sonic noise the ship makes. Getting within 6 miles of the carrier is the trick, since Los Angeles class subs patrol the waters up to 50 miles away and the F-14s and F-18s keep anything away up to 100 miles. There is one point in the gulf (next to Iran of course) that this would pose a problem. The Straits of Hormuz (about 30 miles across at its narrowest point) |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-02-15 6:26:23 PM |
| #10 anyone ever seen those mini guns on ships that shoot missiles out of the air? There's your defense |
| Posted by: Thraing Hupoluper1864 2005-02-15 5:23:01 PM |
| #9 So, Russians actually fired a torpedo 60 years ago and they sank 1 ship? My point exactly. Torpedoes are very complex weapons as opposed to a AK-47 and the Russians don't do well with that kinda thing. Now, if were talking poison-tipped umbrellas, now your talking! |
| Posted by: Brett 2005-02-15 5:17:08 PM |
| #8 Lots of russian stuff is designed for operation under harsh conditions by inexperienced users with poor maintenance. The AK-47 and the ubiquitous RPGs are good examples that just work. The Squall torpedo was designed for sub-to-sub knife fights when you knew where the other guy was and didn't care how much noise you made. Due to its high speed, it has short legs and only goes about 8,000 yards. Getting within 4 nautical miles of a carrier is a good trick. Although social and usually surrounded by friends, carriers tend to be nervous and don't like strangers hanging about in their personal space. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2005-02-15 5:06:45 PM |
| #7 The most nervous denizens of the Pentagon about a possible U.S. strike on Iran are the admirals, who fear placing their beloved carriers in harm's way in the constricted waters of the Persian Gulf. It doesn't have to be that way. The carriers can sit further out in the Arabian Sea and USAF KC-10 tankers can refuel carrier aircraft over Iraqi territory before striking Iran, if it comes to that. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-02-15 4:29:00 PM |
| #6 Scoff if you like, but remember all that trouble Russian equipment gave us in Iraq, like their GPS jammers...and their...ummm... Well, they make a mean rocket propelled grenade, dammit! |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2005-02-15 4:25:47 PM |
| #5 What's the state of the art in anti-torpedo technology nowadays? And what happens to you if you try to sink a USN carrier? Has a Russian torpedo actually ever sunk anything anytime? Apart from the Kursk, there was that German liner Goya, sunk in the Baltic in '45 drowning about 6,500 - one of the biggest losses of life ever at sea. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-02-15 3:59:56 PM |
| #4 Scoff if you like, but remember all that trouble Russian equipment gave us in Iraq, like their GPS jammers...and their...ummm... Well, they make a mean rocket propelled grenade, dammit! |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2005-02-15 3:56:15 PM |
| #3 Wasn't that what the Kursk was launching; which was why all the brass was aboard. |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2005-02-15 3:54:01 PM |
| #2 Yes, the Kursk. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-02-15 3:49:04 PM |
| #1 I wonder if these Russian torpedoes are built to the same fine engineering standards as say, I don't know, apartments, or the Kursk? Has a Russian torpedo actually ever sunk anything anytime? |
| Posted by: Brett 2005-02-15 3:45:51 PM |