Is This Iran's Last Chance? - Page 2

I was just reading that the Georgian troops that were withdrawn from Iraq were stationed on the border with Iran. Hmm...

Which you seem completely devoid of.


Yes, you posted three pictures of the Straits of Hormuz because you think that Iran is going to hit oil terminals in Basra (Iraq), Ras Tanura (Saudi) and Bahrain. None of which appear on the maps you posted and only appear on the general pictures of the entire gulf. I'm guessing you couldn't find Bahrain on the map without googling.

Note that while the refineries are subject to ballistic missile attack, the Saudis have purchased Patriot missile batteries and there would be Aegis ships in the area. THAAD is in the pipeline (Army missile BTW, perhaps you've heard of it) and expected to IOC in 2009.


Double-hull rather than single-hull tankers are now the industry standard, and nearly all ships in the world maritime oil transportation fleet are expected to have double hulls by about 2020.

http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?rec...98#description

For example, all single-hull oil tankers are to be phased out. We know that, it is one of the provisions of MARPOL and the only question currently being addressed is whether or not the timetable for doing so should be accelerated again. No new single hull tankers have been built since the mid 1990s and so there will come a time, sooner or later, when all oil tankers will have double hulls.

http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainfram...62&doc_id=2953

Wrong again.

Hey, they wont need them. According to the blog the TR is also carrying the Rafales from the DeGaulle.


Ah, learn something new every day.


Heh...I forgot about that. I suppose we do have a good deal of MCM capability...of a sort.

As of right now, I'm right, I wasn't talking 2020, I was talking about 2008, you know, like today, therefore you are in fact wrong. Besides, why don't we make them all triple hulled, or whatever, the whole double hulled argument is a moot point to begin with anyway.

Also it's obvious as to why I'd post the SoH images, along with images of the entire Persian Gulf.

They haven't been building single hull tankers for over a decade. Therefore they are not the "exception" as you stated but "industry standard". Or in other words...yes they are "the rule".

The double hull thing is simply another factual error.

Like hull plates thickness.

Like the number of ballistic missiles in Iran.

Like the need for 4-5 carriers to strike Iran.

Like the area and ease in which Iranian missiles can hide and operate.

Like the assumption that on the modern battlefield there is anything "safe and deep behind the lines".

Like the mistaken belief that we can't hit those targets with land forces if we really wanted to.

The USMC has an entire doctrine to put marines up to 200 miles inland directly from the sea and the Navy has an entire doctrine keep them supplied called Sea Based Logistics (SBL). If you really were a logistics expert you'd have a good guess at which ranges and which force levels and for how long this is actually sustainable from the open literature and simulations on the subject.

If you were a real logistics subject matter expert (SME) you'd have at least heard of sea basing.

You can't even discuss the issues but simply dismiss them as "acronyms". If you were a SME you'd know what the acronyms meant and why they are relevant and you'd have a counter.

But you don't.


Yes, because you thought that they could easily close the straits. They cannot for a very long duration and their PRIMARY weapon for doing so is mines, not the limited stock of missiles as you suggest.

Even so, they have a limited number of influence mines and will very quickly lose the capability to deploy mines.

What is clear is that you are also no expert on this topic. You offer no support for any of your assertions except your own self-declared expertise on "army logistics".

Probably some of their best guys. Yeah, if I though Russian tanks were closing on Tbilisi I'd be screaming to get them home too.

Not that Georgia could resist an all out Russian push. Abkhazla and Ossetia are lost.

This is the true cost of Iraq. Russia completely ignored us and we completely wimped out.

I italicized some portions of the above posts to indicate what I am going to be deleting for.

One last attempt to explain what's not permitted.

Starting tomorrow, these comments, all of which start with the second person singular, are going to result in the voted-on 10 day ban.

It's been a week for people to get used to the idea.

So if someone claims "I AM AN EXPERT" you can't refute that?

Because that's what's going on here.

Here's the relevant section:


His argument rests ENTIRELY on his claim to expertise. It should be fair game to point out that he's neither an expert on "army logistics" or this domain.

NOTE: I will not be commenting on your moderation past this period but if you're going to highlight pieces of my text then I would like clarification during this test period.

There are fewer full on double hull tankers then single hulled tankers today.

Sea basing? Yes of course. Way more then I can tell you that's for sure. Been there, done that, twice as a matter of fact.

Oh, and don't get all hung up on your own assumptions or your own movement of your own goal posts.

I would say more, but since you clearly are not a SME, why waste my time on your assumptions? Seriously? I have nothing more to say on this matter. Have a nice day.

I can only comment, that I've been there, done that, with this individual in the past, several times in fact. Same MO each and every time. Same method of attack. Same endgame on my part.

The whole point of my original post was to get some people here to think outside the box. Not having too much luck on that one though, it would appear.

Getting sorta back on topic...


Iran Stepping in to Bring Electricity to Iraq


As we do nothing, Iraq's former enemy steps in. Ironic.

Citation needed. Otherwise this is unsupported assertion.




Given that it's a concept still in development this is like saying "Landing on Mars? Been there, done that, twice as a matter of fact."

It has many pieces available in 2008 but is in reality a 2015+ solution. Meaning we can do Sea Basing today using the assets we have but it's trickier. High speed heavy lift is still a capability gap. The HSV-2 is an experimental ship being tested to see how to fill that kind of need (as well as the Global Fleet Station concept).

Sustainment time for a STOM force is limited as a result.

Operational Maneuver From the Sea looks great doctrinally on paper but hasn't quite been battle tested against a modern opponent. Korea is an example from the 1950s but no one has tried it at the same scale since against modern weapon systems and capabilities. STOM no one has done before but why we have OV-22s.

So it was something of a trick question and you answered incorrectly.


As I said, you know nothing about me. I can claim unwarranted SME status as easily as you can but you might want to consider why I might be able to converse intelligently about such an esoteric topic.

I argue with facts and citations...not a presumption of expertise which cannot be proven on the internet.

According to IMO you would be correct wrt double hulled tankers.

Hey now, the Iraqi oil is flowing, what more do you want?

I know I'm going to get somebody's ire up, it happened before, but...

Why hasn't the U.S. offered their experience, knowledge and expertise with Iran's nuclear reactor and energy needs? I mean they stress that it is for peaceful purposes, so why not? If anything, having American scientists and physicists there would be an advantage for intelligence purposes too. Also, being helpful and cooperative with this matter may mend some fences...

Just saying (dreaming I guess...) \

We actually pay part of Iran's civillian nuclear program. DOE funds Russian nuclear institutes in Nizhny Nogrod as part of the non-proliferation programs to keep unemployed Russian nuke weapon experts from going outside of Russia.

These two institutes helped build the Iranian Bushehr reactor.

How's that for truth being stranger than fiction?

I thought the French offered a civ nuke plant but they went Russian but perhaps I remember that incorrectly.

Besides, we haven't built a new plant in years. The Russians and French have more recent practical experience.

Divine Strake.

If we do this, Iran and the U.S. are fucked.

Been there, means attending two conferences (in 2005 and 2006) where a large section was devoted to the Navy's sea basing research. Of course, there have been two additional conferences, which I've been unable to attend due to health reasons (in 2007 and 2008).

Just needed to correct the record.


So for now, we'll assume that you run, or write entries for, or read, the globalsecurity.org website.

As for STOM, what does it stand for: Ship To Objective Maneuver or Safe Transport of Munitions?

We aren't nuking Iran anytime soon.

This is the usual MAD type developmental effort. There's no such animal as a "tactical nuke" regardless of actual warhead yield.

... Tactical nuclear weapon from wikipedia.

The expeditionary warfare conference is in October. I suppose your ATDC might have some relevance there.

There are, of course, other conferences that would talk about sea basing but few that I recall with a big emphasis on it. Which do you attend?


Nope. Although I do use globalsecurity on occasion as a nice online reference.


Which do you think applies in this context when I mention Marines hitting objectives 200 miles inland, sea basing and operational maneuver from the sea? This should be quite obvious given the conferences with large sections on sea basing.

As I said, regardless of yield, there's nothing tactical about nuclear weapons.

They will always remain a strategic asset and used accordingly.

Actually the last one was in April 2008.

I work directly for dot mil not dot org TYVM. Perhaps you meant ACTD?

I think what was meant is that there is no practical real-life use for a tactical nuke. They are almost as dangerous to your forces as the enemy.

This is OT, but any time tactical nukes get mentioned I always think of the RPG style nukes in Starship Troopers. Not quite that clean to use nukes in the real world, unfortunately.

Which would of course mean that this wasn't written?

The Future of Tactical Nuclear Weapons

Why would you work for a .org?

http://www.ndia.org/Template.cfm?Sec...ontentID=21717

Yes, it would make sense to talk sea basing at the log conference in April. That's certainly a conference I'd never go to...or want to...no offense. The old saw that amatures study tactics aside it's still not all that interesting a topic for the layperson.

Yes, ACTD. Typo. We already know where you work. You told us a while back when you showed us your bridge.

I know that you're trying to catch me being "wrong" and I was being terse above because I was in a rush.

The point is that you can call a weapon "tactical" if you want but for nuclear weapons no COCOM gets tasking authority. Nobody but POTUS gets to authorize use of a nuke regardless of yield or label. If a 4 star can't sign off on a weapon, it sure as hell isn't tactical.

Even at the height of the cold war, where we actually deployed "tactical nuclear" weapons in largish number in the Europe no one SERIOUSLY envision their use at the "tactical level" (or even operational level of war) regardless of official doctrine/propaganda. There are two major reasons for this:

1) There a saying that the average distance between two german cities is 10 kilotons.

There's no way in hell the Germans would have let us use nukes on their soil unless they had a death wish for their nation. Soviet field armies pouring through Fulda Gap or no. Better Red than Dead and glowing in the dark.

2) Soviet response to NATO use of tactical nuclear weapons on tank formations in Fulda Gap would have been tactical nuclear weapons on NATO rail heads, ports and supply points. These are located in or near major German, French, etc cities.

Now we're deep into the "escalation phase" that ends around 30 mins later. If no one else will, the French will pull the trigger and nuke Moscow in response to use of nuclear weapons on a French city. That it was just a "10KT tactical weapon" used on Le Harve is immaterial.

Tactical nuclear weapons were a strategic counter to the gazillions of soviet tanks and a statement to the Soviet Union that they could pour through the Fulda Gap anytime they wished to risk mutual suicide. They probably didn't think we had the balls to do it but it sure as hell wasn't worth the risk. Arguably they never seriously intended to anyway.

As actual tactical weapons...well, pretty much you get to use them when you know the end of the world has arrived. Yippee.

I read the article and while it is interesting it's from 2001 and note this comment:


This has been shown to be untrue. We didn't have sufficient troops for occupation. We had plenty of fire power to kick ass. This questions the basic premise that conventional weapons and increased accuracy doesn't provide sufficient capabilities that tactical nuclear weapons would be desired. Even the author hedges a lot on that point.

The next paragraph that discusses nuclear Tomahawks is even more questionable. No country is likely to ever permit overflight.

No country with nuclear response capability can afford to not respond with nuclear weapons when it detects Tomahawk launches because there's no way to tell if it's going to be a "conventional" tac nuke strike or a decapitating strategic strike with a dial-a-yield tac nuke warhead set to the high end of the scale.

It is far safer just to deploy an assload more conventional tomahawk and have a no nuke policy than a Tomahawk with nuclear sub-munitions.

I can find various articles from the Navy Proceedings with the same kinda "opinion" analysis about various things. Everything from how we need our battleships back to the end of usefulness of carriers (that takes a brave or retired soul). You have to take them with a grain of salt and read them as intended.

My read on the tests is that it is what it says it is. It is capability intended to hold all potential enemy assets at risk. Meaning regardless of how deep you build your bunker we'll STILL kill you if you use a nuke on someone. And we will do so without necessarily killing all of your civs in the process. The B61 is a dial a yield weapon. If we can figure out how to kill the deepest bunker using 0.3KT vs 1.5KT or 10KT all the better for everyone involved.

It's a message for North Korea and eventually Iran when it gets it's nuke.

But use on Iranian nuke research facilities buried in a deep bunker? Not a chance. You open up Pandora's Box. Better to just let the Iranians get their nuke sooner or later.

Interesting article. I didn't know it was possible to make fusion (aka hydrogen) nukes without a fission 'pit'! Scary stuff, kind of like the (rumored) non-nuclear EMP producing Tomahawks.


Summed up the whole 'tactical' nuke thing pretty well.

All of the Navy's TLAM-Ns (nuclear Tomahawks) were withdrawn from field service (W-80 warheads removed) due to SALT, and (according to shipmates in the Tomahawk program) all got converted back to conventional versions after Desert Storm anyway, to make up the inventory that had been nearly depleted by the war. Although I'm sure that they could be reconstituted, if it was determined they were needed.

Yes, the LMCS that is supposed to be used with the Army's (err Navy's now) HSV. With sea basing at a standoff distance of ~25 NM (at one time it was supposed to be ~250 NM). A vessel of that type is needed since the LCAC can't transport the Army's M1A2 main battle tank. The main issue is still the same skin-to-skin transfer of military assets. IMHO a customized HSV would need an open cargo bay near the stern to drop wheeled/tracked equipment through, the other option would be mating up each vessels transportation ramps. The Navy has the R&D lead now, but it is envisioned that Army types would command these vessels in theater.

The Army started the whole thing off in the middle of this decade by leasing 4 commercial high speed ferries from Bollinger Incat.

The wikipedia article that got me to thinking about Iranian massive missile forces;

AFAGIR missile forces

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]


The conferences that I've attended are actually symposiums. Held each winter in Duck, NC, mostly Navy types from Carderock, Army types from Natick, and our lab. The Navy contingent is ~3 times the rest of the attendies in total. Skin-to-skin transfer of cargo gets the most attention from the Navy types.

Oh, I misread the April conferences list, you were/are correct, the Expeditionary Warfare Conference is in October as you originally stated. My bad.

Can you deploy the LMCS via LCAC? Then you can go directly to from the High Speed Connector to the beach with the LMCS as a portable pier? That's nice. The HSVs still draw some water so you need a quay or pier.

The HSCs conceptually have an open mission deck that the HSV-2 doesn't.

So you see using the HSVs as a super LCAC to get M1A2s from LPD/LSD to shore via LMCS? I can see that working for some shorelines. You'd need a fairly protected patch of water right?


The problem with the wikipedia entry is they are including unguided artillery rockets in that count of thousands. If you are Iran, you want to count them to seem more impressive. But many folks count from Shahabs (SCUDS) up with respect to a ballistic missile threat.

Can you blow up an oil terminus with a rain of artillery rockets? For sure. You just need to be able to get your batteries within range. Lebanon to Isreal is easy for Hezbollah. Iran to Basra is easy for Iran...at least until counter battery fire.

Bahrain not so much.

Even the Zelzal/Frog-7s only go 100 mi or so with a CEP of 500m. And the really big guys like that take a truck/tel and are a little harder to hide.


No big deal.

Yes, you could deploy the LMCS from a LCAC or any other footprint (e. g. land based) of roughly 25 ft x 25 ft. It's basically a very low draft rapidly assembled gap crossing technology for the various military lighterage.

Yes, the HSV's are expected to be the Army's prime movers. They are roughly the same size as an LSV/ELSV and have ~4X the speed. I'd have to look up the payload for each vessel class but I don't think the ELSV has even 2X the payload of an expected production HSV. Draft of either vessel class is about the same, but of course the LSV can beach itself and discharge cargo given the right bathymetry. The current ACTD calls for a final demonstration exercise where the LMCS will be deployed from the stern of an LSV, then the vessel will turn around and discharge cargo off it's bow ramp and onto the LMCS.

The LMCS can survive in high sea state conditions, but is not expected to be operational above SS2 (which is typical of most other shore based lighterage systems), and yes it needs to be protected (or sheltered) from small arms fire directed at the flotation tubes. It could of course, be uparmored, but that isn't in the current ACTD. The term usually thrown about is to be able to discharge cargo through an austere port.

If the Army comes up with a much lighter main battle tank in the future than this will determine the maximum design payload for a future even lighter LMCS.

U.S. refuses Israel weapons to attack Iran: report


It's not often I have respect for a decision made by the US Government, but this is exceptional news. As aggressive and shortsighted as America is, Israel is a lot worse. I wish we would refuse to help them at all, but their offer of helping them with their defense but not with their possible attack is the most reasonable choice I've seen made by us since my childhood. I hope this doesn't lead Israel to thinking they can use nukes to gain an advantage.

Isreal is so audacious. Everything about it, from creation, to its politics stokes the fire of hostile Western(especially US) - Arab relations. It is a breeding ground of resentment. The continual vetoing of UN resolutions by the US and its economic and military "aid" helps nothing, blocks diplomatic and fair Israel/Palestine peace strategies, and simply adds to the fire.

I see Iran's possible pursuit of nuclear weapons as not an all-together bad thing, you can't blame them for wanting to address the massive power imbalance which swings overwhelmingly in Israel's favor. Countries do have a right to have a say in their regions, but it seems that to have any kind of say you need a nuclear alternative, whether the intentions are peaceful or defensive.

This may (at a push come to shove) in the future cause Israel to think twice about aggressive settling of disputed areas, and may even in time see the instigation of a Palestinian state.

For conspiracy nuts everywhere:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...EDCD129NI4.DTL

and last but not least:

http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/2..._feels_wro.php

Fellows

Heh, I thought it was all SBCTs from now on. All you need to do is support the ~20-25 ton MGS Styker variant...okay I kid, I kid.

If they go with a 140mm XM291 or NATO FTMA I wouldn't count on lighter...

Which is understandable if one also realizes that the United States and Israel backed Georgia in the first place.

This isn't conspiracy theory, it's fact. The fact that whether the MSM media reports it or not isn't the question.

I find it interesting that there hasn't been a single topic or post regarding the Georgia/Russian/USA/Israel "situation" here. Yes, it's complicated and hard to understand in political terms, but it's the same thing...oil, power and money.

Buh, buh, But the Olympics are on!

I kept waiting for you to start the thread bro.

I stepped in it "so to speak" for starting so many threads. I was hoping you might start that thread topic.

Fellows

If you were a tiny country like Isreal, with a tiny population, surrounded by folks that would like you dead you'd be pretty agressive too. From Haifa on the med to the Jordanian border is 36 miles. From Netanya to the West Bank is 9 miles. At the widest point it's 60 miles. Think about it. The width of this country is likely shorter than your daily commute.

Playing the defensive game is ultimately a losing one for Isreal. There's not that much land to trade for time and only so much punishment a tiny little country can take. 65% of the population loves in a 9 mile wide section around Tel Aviv.

So I'd say there's some sensitivity to large bangs that we don't quite share. One big nuke and Israel is pretty much done as a country.

Isreal proper (not counting west bank and gaza) is around 8,000 sq miles. Or slightly larger than New Jersey.

On the surface (especially in portrayed in the MSM) it only seems to be only a Georgian/Russian conflict, but it is so much larger. And yet still relative to almost every other situation dealing with those three things; oil, power and money. Maybe that should be the topic.

Because it all eventually has the same results...

Israel needs to understand that their power and influence is wearing thin. Their crimes against the Palestinians has gone on far too long. I neither support the Palestinians, but this war against religion, land and power has become redundantly tragic and sad.

Georgia wanted friends. As a country that was trying to get into NATO I don't see why the US wouldn't support them. Or why Isreal wouldn't sell them UAVs.

Note that neither country sold them advanced weapons like tanks or aircraft. Georgians are mostly light infantry with a few old Soviet era tanks and aircraft. Georgia wanted modern western weapons. They got training instead. That's pretty reasonable.

It's not complicated at all. Georgia wanted in NATO and EU because they don't want to be a Russian province. It is pro west and a democracy. We support them and they're a nice friend to have because it allows a non-Russian controlled pipeline and you need Abkhazia for that.

There's chunks of territory that is theirs that the Russians wanted and took. They tried to take it back. They lost. That's not "invading" anyone. That's defending your territorial sovereignty. At a particularly stupid time. Saakashvili really screwed up.

You can argue that those provinces should have been Russian to begin with but geez, then Russia should have kept them in the first place during the break up. What is fact today is that the territory is Georgian and the Russians are trying to take them away.

There's a real reason that Georgia wants to keep South Ossetia (aside from what might be in the ground there). Without it Tbilisi is within shouting range of the Russian border. The Russians claim to be paranoid about Germany and France historically invading them but the little tiny countries around Russia know about Russian and Soviet occupation and oppression. They're more than a little paranoid having been there and done that.

The Russians have been selling advanced weapons to Iran. It's always about power and money. Screw Russia. They sure as hell aren't our friends.