Iran Test-Fires Sub-To-Surface Missile

[Charlie Monoxide]

Since I'm not a military expert (although I play one on TV), wouldn't the intended targets of the Iranian subs be something large and oil-containing? All the Iranians have to do is control the Strait of Hormuz.

Charlie (subs are for eating) Monoxide

 

[American]

In fact I remember the context, roughly... he was describing the fact that certain ocean maps released to the public had to be down-graded to conceal military interests, specifically submarines.

(He may have said radar, but I don't think so. Unless satellites use radar, which I wouldn't know.)

 

[Rob Lister]

Wasn't the super-silent US submarine fleet moth-balled?

erm...no. Although the numbers have been reduced, we still have many active boomers and twice as many hunter-killers. All [almost] perfectly quiet.

 

[Rob Lister]

In fact I remember the context, roughly... he was describing the fact that certain ocean maps released to the public had to be down-graded to conceal military interests, specifically submarines.

(He may have said radar, but I don't think so. Unless satellites use radar, which I wouldn't know.)

I suspect you are remembering our infrared surveillance satellites.

Yes, under the exact right conditions they could track nuke subs by the heat signature of the waters in which they traveled...or so the story goes. I too remember something of it. I have no idea of the accuracy.

 

[Rob Lister]

double post?

 

[BPSCG]

In fact I remember the context, roughly... he was describing the fact that certain ocean maps released to the public had to be down-graded to conceal military interests, specifically submarines.

(He may have said radar, but I don't think so. Unless satellites use radar, which I wouldn't know.)

Spoke with a friend this evening who's a sub engineer for the Navy department. Said if satellites could track subs, ther wouldn't be any need for attack subs. Said during the Soviet era, U.S. attack subs would tail Soviet boomers, with orders to destroy any Soviet sub on hearing the sound of the hatches opening to launch their nuclear missiles.

Guy acknowledged he doesn't know about satellites, but deems it unlikely that spy satellites could track U.S. subs.

 

[Dave1001]

In fact I remember the context, roughly... he was describing the fact that certain ocean maps released to the public had to be down-graded to conceal military interests, specifically submarines.

(He may have said radar, but I don't think so. Unless satellites use radar, which I wouldn't know.)

I'm no physicist, but I can say with authority that satellites don't use radar and never will to image anything on Earth.

 

[Rob Lister]

I'm no physicist, but I can say with authority that satellites don't use radar and never will to image anything on Earth.

With authority?

I suggest you google the subject.

 

[egslim]

The Kilo-class has a maximum range of 40 miles submerged at 3 knots, and only 12.7 miles at full speed of 17 knots. Shouldn't be too hard to keep track of.

You dropped a zero, according to that link: submerged (3 knots) 400 miles.

Those subs pose no significant threat to Israel. If they have weapons with enough range to hit Israel from the Persian Gulf, then those weapons could be fired from the Iranian mainland just as well. With only short range weapons they need to enter the Mediterranean to get in range of Tel Aviv or any other important target. That means crossing the Suez or Gibraltar, the former impossible to do in secret, the latter extremely difficult.

I don't know how skilled the Iranians are, but those Kilo's are much better suited to the Persian Gulf than the US Navy. Detecting submarines in shallow water like the Gulf is very difficult, and Kilo's are quiet. Similar Western subs have repeatedly 'sunk' US carriers during exercises. Most likely those crews were better trained, but they also had the disadvantage of operating in more open water. If I remember correctly, before the '90/'91 Gulf War the US Navy refused to even operate carriers in the Gulf.

If the US attacks Iran while the latter has one or more subs on patrol, there's a significant chance the US Navy will lose one or more ships before they manage to sink the sub. The possibility should not be discounted.

 

[WildCat]

You dropped a zero, according to that link: submerged (3 knots) 400 miles.

Yeah, it was a typo.

I don't know how skilled the Iranians are, but those Kilo's are much better suited to the Persian Gulf than the US Navy. Detecting submarines in shallow water like the Gulf is very difficult, and Kilo's are quiet. Similar Western subs have repeatedly 'sunk' US carriers during exercises. Most likely those crews were better trained, but they also had the disadvantage of operating in more open water. If I remember correctly, before the '90/'91 Gulf War the US Navy refused to even operate carriers in the Gulf.

If the US attacks Iran while the latter has one or more subs on patrol, there's a significant chance the US Navy will lose one or more ships before they manage to sink the sub. The possibility should not be discounted.

I doubt the US Navy would send a carrier group into the Gulf w/ those subs unaccounted for, and they certainly don't need to to get within range of any place in Iran, especially considering we have Air Force bases east and west of Iran now. And besides, they have at most 6 of those subs, and they can't stay underwater for very long. Sooner or later they'd have to surface or go back to base (I think 45 days is the longest they can stay out at sea).

I'd be more worried about the many smaller gunboats Iran has that can fire anti-ship missiles, but again there's really no reason to send naval assets into the confined space of the Persian Gulf.

 

[egslim]

I doubt the US Navy would send a carrier group into the Gulf w/ those subs unaccounted for

Actually, they do. I'm pretty sure that since the Gulf War the US has kept one carrier continuously in the Gulf, and they had at least one on may 30 2006 - when the USS Ronald Reagan was circled by an Iranian UAV: http://en.rian.ru/onlinenews/20060530/48833304.html

and they certainly don't need to to get within range of any place in Iran, especially considering we have Air Force bases east and west of Iran now.

True, but there's quite a lot of competition between Air Force and Navy - I expect the Navy would want to be part of the action too. They don't want to appear redundant when the next budget is allocated...

And besides, they have at most 6 of those subs, and they can't stay underwater for very long.

They can snorkel. That'll make more noise, but they'll still be hard to detect because it is done submerged. With 6 subs I would think they can keep at least 2 of them at sea at all times, possibly 3.

 

[BPSCG]

They can snorkel. That'll make more noise, but they'll still be hard to detect because it is done submerged. With 6 subs I would think they can keep at least 2 of them at sea at all times, possibly 3.

Do you think these subs aren't being tailed by U.S. attack subs?

 

[LW]

Actually, they do. I'm pretty sure that since the Gulf War the US has kept one carrier continuously in the Gulf, and they had at least one on may 30 2006 - when the USS Ronald Reagan was circled by an Iranian UAV: http://en.rian.ru/onlinenews/20060530/48833304.html

Call me surprised.

Can some one confirm that the carrier was actually in Persian Gulf and that the reporter didn't make a mistake?

Even though I'm nowadays classed as a navy reservist, my military training is from the other side (coastal artillery) so I'm not really qualified to question operational policies of carrier groups but there's no chance on Earth that I would sail a carrier group through the Straits of Hormuz: confined waters in the full view (from shore) of a not-so-friendly nation that has a sizable collection of anti-shipping missiles.

 

[Crossbow]

In some ways, the older diesel-electric subs (which the Iranains have) can be more of a threat than modern nuclear subs (which the USA has). When submerged, the older subs use batteries and electric motors for propulsion which is much quieter and difficult to track than a nuclear powered sub.

Also, I saw a notice regarding a new torpedo for their subs that is very, very fast and something like this could be a rather significant threat as well.

...

During the April maneuvers, Iran test-fired a new torpedo — the "Hoot," Farsi for "whale" — which is capable of moving at some 223 mph, up to four times faster than a normal torpedo. It also unveiled a new land-to-sea missile, the Kowsar, and a high-speed missile boat that skims above the water and is undetectable by radar.

...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060827...wgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

 

[LW]

They can snorkel. That'll make more noise, but they'll still be hard to detect because it is done submerged. With 6 subs I would think they can keep at least 2 of them at sea at all times, possibly 3.

Back in WWII when Germans introduced snorkel the captains preferred to use it for 2-4 hours a day and run with electric power for the rest of the time. The reason: it made so loud noise that it would carry underwater for dozens of miles for enemy destroyers to hear and it also deafened the hydrophones of the submarine itself.

This was with WWII vintage listening equipment and in Mid-Atlantic.

I would think that modern equipment and confined waters of the Gulf make the life of a submarine commander even more interesting.

 

[egslim]

Do you think these subs aren't being tailed by U.S. attack subs?

Do you have any evidence they are? Shallow waters have poor sonar performance, and Kilo's are quiet.

Can some one confirm that the carrier was actually in Persian Gulf and that the reporter didn't make a mistake?

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=23895
We’ve spent the past several months supporting the troops on the ground in Iraq, as well as conducting maritime security operations throughout the Arabian Gulf.

This was with WWII vintage listening equipment and in Mid-Atlantic.

I would think that modern equipment and confined waters of the Gulf make the life of a submarine commander even more interesting.

Don't forget the snorkel equipment has improved as well. For WWII subs the snorkel was an improvisation, no work had been done to make the diesel engine quieter. I read somewhere that a modern diesel boat snorkling makes approximately as much noise as a nuclear powered sub. And it's a fact modern Western diesel submarines perform quite well during exercises, despite their disadvantage of having to snorkel. That suggests the penalty is not so large.
Also, the confined waters of the Gulf are actually an advantage to Kilo's. Shallow waters have poorer sonar performance, not to mention all the interference from passing shiptraffic.

In some ways, the older diesel-electric subs (which the Iranains have) can be more of a threat than modern nuclear subs

Diesel-electric subs can be modern too, and the Kilo-class is. Fairly modern, anyway.
Nuclear boats have the advantage of longer range and higher speed, diesel-electric boats are quieter and smaller, thus harder to detect. It's a trade-off.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The Kilo-class has a maximum range of 40 miles submerged at 3 knots, and only 12.7 miles at full speed of 17 knots. Shouldn't be too hard to keep track of.

From your link:

Range
with snorkel (7 knots) 6,000 miles
submerged (3 knots) 400 miles
at full run 12.7 miles

fuel endurance 172 tons
sea Endurance 45 days

With an AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) kit, the calculus changes considerably. Also, since the Iranian subs are in home waters, the waters are heavily travelled, and they are in a strategically defensive posture, their indiscretion rate (how oftern the snokel, surface, etc) would tend to be low, as they don't need to patrol at high speeds.

ETA: I just noticed someone else called you on the typo.

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

Diesel-electric subs can be modern too, and the Kilo-class is. Fairly modern, anyway.
Nuclear boats have the advantage of longer range and higher speed, diesel-electric boats are quieter and smaller, thus harder to detect. It's a trade-off.

Not really. The real tradeoff is not between speed and noise, but between speed and cost. A diesel-electric, even a modern one, costs considerably less than a nuclear sub. The modern diesel-electrics are a possible major threat because countries which we might fight against are much more likely to be able to afford them in significant numbers, NOT because on-on-one they stack up against nuclear subs.

 

[BPSCG]

Do you think these subs aren't being tailed by U.S. attack subs?

Do you have any evidence they are?

I'm asking because I don't know. It would seem a logical thing to do, as opposed to tailing, say, Canadian subs.

 

[Ziggurat]

Since I'm not a military expert (although I play one on TV), wouldn't the intended targets of the Iranian subs be something large and oil-containing? All the Iranians have to do is control the Strait of Hormuz.

Charlie (subs are for eating) Monoxide

Quite so. Our naval ships have anti-missile systems which would make a sub-launched anti-ship missile probably not very effective (larger land-based missiles which go at very high speed pose a greater threat), and once the sub launched a missile, it would be killed shortly thereafter. But tankers have no anti-missile systems, they're big fat targets, and they don't normally travel in convoys which can strike back before the sub slips away. The real menace is indeed against shipping, not our navy.