Military Review

How can Iran close the Strait of Hormuz?

36
How can Iran close the Strait of Hormuz?


As long as only politicians participate in discussions of a problem, there is hope for a peaceful outcome. But when the military take the word, all hopes begin to melt rapidly. Something similar is now observed around Iran. After economic and political sanctions against this country, representatives of the armed forces of various countries began to make more and more statements. There are bad prospects for Iran and the region as a whole.

One of the last commander spoke Fifth fleet US Vice Admiral M. Fox. He believes the Iranian naval forces are constantly improving in quantitative and qualitative terms. And in the very near future, Iran will be able to achieve such a potential that the threat to block the Strait of Hormuz will no longer be just words. But 40% of all oil extracted in the world is transported through this strait. Of course, the United States has a sufficiently powerful navy to withstand the Iranian Navy without any problems, but not everything is cloudless here. Fox says the Iranian maritime command could take the most extreme measures in a difficult situation. The fact is that in the Iranian fleet there are a number of small submarines of the Al-Sabehat 15 and Al-Ghadir types. Initially, these boats were designed for covert transfer of small sabotage groups. But, according to American analysts, the construction of Al-Sabehat-15 or Al-Khadir allows you to install a fairly powerful explosive charge on them. Thus, these boats can carry out sabotage operations of a suicide nature.



As long as the Islamic republic does not need suicide bombers, the country that attacked it also risks losing. Fox notes the fact that a huge number of sea mines have accumulated in Iranian warehouses. Naturally, this is not universal or absolute. weaponBut even now, mines, including obsolete models, can cause many problems to any navy, not to mention the merchant fleet. In addition, in quantitative terms, the basis of the Iranian Navy is rocket boats, which in itself does not facilitate the war with such a fleet. It is noteworthy that in recent years Iran has focused precisely on the development of this part of its naval forces. Whether this strategy is correct or not, only practice can show. Nevertheless, even if Tehran chose the wrong path, its step looks very bold. A few decades ago, the leading maritime powers no longer actively develop the so-called "mosquito fleet." With all the advantages of small ship formations armed with anti-ship missiles, they proved to be less effective than other methods of warfare at sea. In particular, “mosquito” compounds almost do not pose a threat to carrier-based strike groups. It is unlikely that Iranian military leaders would pretend that they did not know about it. Well known, but still decided to develop this area. Commendable courage. The main thing is that it should not be fatal in the end. True, only a half dozen missile boats of the Kaman type, ten boats of the Houdong type (made in China) and three small patrol boats of the Parvin type may not make the weather even within the Strait of Hormuz. But do not underestimate the missile boats, because it was they who, in the middle of the 80's, destroyed most of the targets in the three years of the Tanker War.



Another area that is not particularly popular in the world and that Iran is developing is small and ultra small submarines. At one time, the technology did not allow making such a technique with at least tolerable characteristics, and then they forgot about this class. Nevertheless, in this regard, Tehran has its own opinion, different from the global one. Therefore, in recent years, a number of the already mentioned boats of the Al-Sabehat 15 and Al-Ghadir projects have been built. At the end of 2009, the US Navy intelligence published information about a contract between Iran and the DPRK, which implies the supply of semi-submersible submarines for Taedong-B and Taedong-C projects. The Americans could not figure out a specific number of Korean boats, as well as Iranian-made equipment. Iran also prefers not to spread, but unofficial sources estimate the total number of all four types of submarines to be several dozen.

As we see, the Iranian admirals have their own views on the development of their own fleet. But there are also “traditional” things in it - the rest of the Iranian Navy looks quite similar to the fleets of other countries, including the leading ones. With the difference that in quantitative terms, Iran is far behind, for example, from Russia or the United States. In particular, the submarine fleet of the Islamic Republic, in addition to small submarines, includes only three multi-purpose diesel-electric submarines. These are Tareg, Noor and Yunes, which were commissioned by the mid 90's. All three boats were made in the USSR / Russia and belong to the 877ECM “Halibus” project. Despite the twenty years of age of the two most senior Iranian diesel-electric submarines, they can still compete with a considerable number of similar foreign submarines. In 2011, the tests of the head submarine of the Fateh project of its own Iranian development were completed.



Present in the Iranian Navy and large surface ships. These are the frigates of the types Alvand and Modge (less than a dozen in total), three corvettes of the projects Hamzeh and Bayandor. In addition, in the first half of this year it is planned to introduce the second destroyer of the Jamaran class into the fleet. Iran also has a number of landing ships, minesweepers, tankers, supply vessels, etc.

Of course, Iran’s naval forces cannot be called world leaders, but you shouldn’t call them completely incapable of withstanding the sea enemy. This is a typical navy of a medium-sized country with relatively large sea borders. A large, if not dominant, amount of light equipment - rocket boats, etc. - at first glance it may not seem quite right by completing the fleet. But over the past decades Iran has managed to take part in several armed conflicts, including the ones in the sea. Accordingly, the command of his naval forces could not only get the necessary lessons, but also create on their basis the concept of fleet development. And it cannot be said that the chosen emphasis on small boats and ships is the wrong decision. The main adversary of Iran, before and now, is the United States of America. This country is undoubtedly the world leader in the quantity and quality of warships. It would be foolish to assume that Iran will be able to fight with it in sea battles. Therefore, missile boats were chosen as the main striking force - cheap, high-speed, maneuverable and possessing sufficient combat potential. Larger ships are easier to detect, and for the American fleet it is also easier to destroy. As for suicide sailors, the general morale of the Iranian armed forces, and even more so the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, suggests that in a difficult situation not only submarines with an explosive charge can go to enemy ships boats with similar "surprises".

However, Tehran threatens not to destroy enemy ships, but to block the Strait of Hormuz. Of course, kamikazes can be useful in this matter, but rocket boats and mining will cope with this matter, at least, not worse. If the enemy manages to ensure the passage of tankers through minefields, then Iran, in response to this, can begin a real hunt for tankers within the Persian Gulf. Will a potential enemy of Iran be able to protect all oil tankers coming from such a dangerous region?
Author:
36 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Kazak_30
    Kazak_30 17 February 2012 08: 40
    0
    "Missile boats are cheap, fast, maneuverable and have sufficient combat potential. Larger ships are easier to spot and easier for the US Navy to destroy."
    That's right! Well done! In case of aggression, large ships will be knocked out immediately! And for the little things have to run!
    1. grizzlir
      grizzlir 17 February 2012 09: 24
      +8
      The effectiveness of small ships was shown by the last Russian-Georgian conflict. Ours did not even use surface-to-surface missiles according to information. Georgian boats were fired by air defense systems. You can’t even hide from modern radars at a great distance.
      1. basal
        basal 17 February 2012 13: 36
        +7
        Did the Georgians really try to fight at sea? In my opinion, most of the Georgian Navy was seized at the piers and drowned in the Poti area. If I forgot something, correct it.
        I think the Iranians, the guys will be more serious than the Georgians.
        1. Yazov
          Yazov 17 February 2012 14: 16
          +6
          In the Russia-Georgia conflict, there was 1 naval battle. 3 or 4 rockets were fired, one was anti-aircraft.
        2. savelij
          savelij 18 February 2012 00: 10
          -4
          Georgians have never been warriors! they don’t have a darling! the conflict in Ossetia showed this
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 18 February 2012 16: 13
            +5
            Bagration was a Georgian, I will not call him a coward, I’m probably not worth talking about everyone
      2. TRex
        TRex 17 February 2012 19: 23
        +3
        Don't trust "information". MRK "Mirage" released two anti-ship missiles and drowned the "flagship" - RC "Tbilisi" (transferred from Ukraine, by the way). Then the SAM missile damaged another one, the other three boats washed away quickly.
        Then in Poti our soldiers found the rest of the "fleet" at the walls and blew it up to hell.
        http://rutube.ru/tracks/1120984.html
        By the way, pay attention to how the Sevastopol residents meet the Mirage. SEE ALL.
        1. ikrut
          ikrut 18 February 2012 00: 00
          +3
          There was a separate funny story with a Ukrainian boat, which was supposed to keep the Mirage out. He went out, but suddenly broke and stood up. When the "Mirage" only slightly pushed its guns in his direction, panic began on this boat. Then a tug came out to take this boat away. There was an interesting video with eyewitness accounts of this event. He laughed heartily.
          1. Uralm
            Uralm 19 February 2012 21: 15
            0
            It would be a mistake to build large ships in the place of Iran. Which will be destroyed at the very beginning of a hypothetical war. For America, it will not be difficult. It is difficult to imagine that frigates, corvettes can solve any problems. Expensive and useless.
            And small boats can create certain difficulties. The same mining to produce.
  2. grizzlir
    grizzlir 17 February 2012 08: 44
    +4
    Can a potential adversary of Iran protect all oil tankers coming from such a dangerous region?
    Yes, in the event of the beginning of aggressive operations on the part of Iran, its fleet will simply be destroyed. And they can even provoke some sort of attack and fall upon Iran. On land there is still a chance to offer some sort of resistance, there are practically no chances at sea. Talking about suicide bombers in the military Iran’s circles are not from a good life.
    1. dmitri076
      dmitri076 17 February 2012 15: 10
      +3
      "Yes, in the event of the start of aggressive actions by Iran, its fleet will be simply destroyed" - that's for sure! it is strange that none of the participants in the discussion pays attention to one question: what does the Strait of Hormuz have to do with Iran? will you not buy Sports Lotto tickets, will we turn off the gas? or how? some countries extract and send their own oil to others! what does Iran have to do with it? or does Iran want to put the whole world on its ears? what if Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey block all routes to Armenia? is it okay?
      1. Petrix
        Petrix 17 February 2012 17: 18
        +2
        Not Iran is the initiator, but the Anglo-Saxon coalition. The threat of blocking the strait is removed simply - to withdraw the US fleet from the Persian Gulf and lift sanctions against Iran. This is Iran’s asymmetric response to pressure from outside. And he did not start it.
      2. Ascetic
        Ascetic 17 February 2012 17: 55
        +6
        Quote: dmitri076
        But what does the Strait of Hormuz have to do with Iran?


        Because the entire northern part of the strait belongs territorially to Iran. South UAE and Oman. Shipping is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Convention establishes 4 types of straits used for international shipping [2]: 1) straits between one part of the open sea or economic zone and the other part of the high sea or economic zone in which warships, any non-military vessels enjoy the right of unhindered transit passage. The width of these straits does not exceed the double width of the 12-mile limit of the territorial sea of ​​the coastal or coastal states (Gibraltar, Malacca, Hormuz, etc.); 2) the straits formed by the island of the state bordering this strait and its continental part, to which the transit passage does not apply, but a peaceful passage is applied if there is an equally open route to the sea from the island in terms of navigational and hydrographic conditions sea ​​or in an economic zone. Their width exceeds the double width of the territorial sea; 3) the straits between one area of ​​the open sea and the territorial sea of ​​a foreign state, to which a peaceful passage also applies (Messinsky, Tirana, etc.); 4) straits, the regime of which is regulated by special conventions (Black Sea, Baltic, etc.). Http://studyport.ru/yurisprudentsiya/mezhdunarodno-pravovoy-rezhim-mezhduna


        rodnyih-prolivov
        If Iran blocks SHIPPING and not the strait, it will violate the UN Convention and the Amers will have a reason to legally formalize the destruction of the Iranian fleet. So Iran is unlikely to do this before the start of the war, and there will no longer be any straits
  3. domokl
    domokl 17 February 2012 09: 16
    +2
    I do not agree with the classification of surface ships ... What is called frigates in the article corresponds to the western classification of a corvette according to the technical specifications of Korea ... boats are small for frigates ... But in general, what we see in the Iranian Navy is typical for a country with shallow water along the coast ... Even surface ships mistakenly called frigates have a draft of just over 3 meters ... Americans simply cannot go where they go ...
  4. Desert Fox
    Desert Fox 17 February 2012 10: 03
    +7
    The title of the article is a rhetorical question, the answer to which is given in it.

    Quote: domokl
    a huge amount of sea mines has accumulated in Iranian warehouses.


    It is clear that the surface and underwater fleet is good, but no one has canceled mine weapons.

    Quote: Kazak_30
    "Missile boats are cheap, fast, maneuverable and have sufficient combat potential. Larger ships are easier to spot and easier for the US Navy to destroy."


    Don’t say that, but a mine is much cheaper than any military boat. And how secretive are they ?! wink He scattered them along the strait and not a single bastard will slip through, this has already been proved. There was an episode in this very place, only a couple of decades earlier. yes

    The world media have been discussing for several weeks the question of whether Iran is able to block the Persian Gulf and cause a global oil crisis. The command of the American fleet assures the public that it will not allow such a development. Military observers of all countries calculate the quantitative and qualitative ratio of ships and aircraft of potential enemies. At the same time, almost nothing is said about the mine weapon, and in fact it can become the Persian trump card.



    little thing, and the rustle can do .... fellow

    Well, what is the prospect of the use of mine weapons in the Persian Gulf? Let's start with what this bay is. Its length is 926 km (according to other information 1000 km), width 180 — 320 km, average depth is less than 50 m, maximum - 102 m. The entire northeastern coast of the bay, that is, about 1180 km - Persian. It is mountainous, steep, which facilitates the defense and placement of rocket and artillery batteries. The most vulnerable spot is the Strait of Hormuz. The length of the strait 195 km. The spill is relatively shallow - the maximum depth of 229 is m, and on the fairway the depth is up to 27,5.

    Currently, ships in the Strait of Hormuz are moving along two transport corridors 2,5 km in width each. Tankers going to the bay go along the corridor closer to the Iranian coast, and the tankers, from the bay, go along another corridor. Between the corridors is a buffer zone 5 km wide. This zone is designed to prevent collision of oncoming ships. As you can see, the Persian Gulf in general and the Strait of Hormuz in particular are an ideal proving ground for the use of all types of sea mines.



    During the Iran-Iraq war of 1980 – 1988, both sides, starting from 1984, attacked neutral tankers en route to the Persian Gulf. In total, during the "tanker war" 340 ships were attacked. Most of them were attacked by boats and aircraft, and in some cases were fired at coastal missile or artillery installations. Mine productions were extremely limited. Minami damaged two ships in the 1984 year, eight - in the 1987-m and two - in the 1988-m. I note that the restriction on the use of mines was not due to technical, but to political reasons, since both sides claimed that only ships entering the ports of the enemy were attacking. It is clear that mines to carry out such a selection is not yet able.

    16 May 1987 on the way to Kuwait, the Soviet tanker Marshal Chuykov was blown up. The tanker got a hole in the submarine area of ​​about 40 square. Due to the good condition of the watertight bulkheads, the vessel did not die.

    14 April 1988 of the year in 65 miles east of Bahrain on an old anchor mine of the 1908 model of the year, the American frigate "Samuel Roberts" with a displacement of 4100 tons was blown up. During the five-hour struggle for survivability, the crew managed to leave the ship afloat. Frigate repair cost US taxpayers 135 million.

    Now there is little doubt that in the event of a large-scale attack on Iran, its naval forces will begin an unlimited mine war in the entire Persian Gulf, including, of course, the Strait of Hormuz.



    ANSWER to the question asked by the title of the article, of course they WILL !!!
  5. Eugene
    Eugene 17 February 2012 11: 07
    -3
    Serious fleet, however! Maybe they can give them my aluminum "Romantic-2" with an electric motor as a help, otherwise it's worthless, you see, and the ATGM will be screwed on laughing
  6. vostok
    vostok 17 February 2012 12: 07
    +5
    Iran will lose the war, but it will shake the nerves of the Americans.
    Pay tribute to Iran is almost the only country that openly opposes US aggression in the Middle East.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 18 February 2012 16: 46
      +2
      With a long-term war with Iran, the victory of the United States is such an uncertain thing. And the duration of the war depends on political cohesion in Iran.
  7. beech
    beech 17 February 2012 12: 43
    0
    if the usa begins to compete with Iran, then this will be the beginning of the end of the usa !!!
  8. 755962
    755962 17 February 2012 12: 52
    +2
    Another plus of the Navy is the Chinese-made HY-2 Silkworm and YJ-2 coastal missiles. Copied from the Soviet P-15 missile and the American Harpoon missile. Their range of action allows you to effectively protect the coast from landing.
  9. Bandera
    Bandera 17 February 2012 13: 03
    +7
    A fleet of small vessels may well compete with a large, well-armed, professional fleet. This was shown by the battle of Salamis in 480 BC, where the Greeks defeated the Persian fleet.
    Small Greek triremes with armored rams on the nose easily pierced the sides of the Persian triremes. Despite the fact that the Persian fleet was controlled by the Phoenicians - the best sailors of that time. Fatal for the Persians was the fact that they took battle in the limited space of the strait, where the power of large ships simply leveled.

    We observe a similar situation today. The powerful American fleet and the "mosquito" fleet of Iran, plus the limited space of the Strait of Hormuz. It is clear that the Iranian Navy will act as a battering ram.

    You can only wish good luck to the Iranians in the fight against a strong and serious opponent.
    1. Eugene
      Eugene 17 February 2012 13: 38
      +3
      You can wish it, only now I’m afraid they have a little chance.

      Regarding triremes and triremes, the differences were not so enormous, and the numbers were large, plus powerful offensive weapons (ram), there is nothing like that on the side of Iran.

      By the way, you know that nobody still knows what ships with 3 rows of oars looked like, one above the other, and were they at all?)
      1. FREGATENKAPITAN
        FREGATENKAPITAN 17 February 2012 14: 31
        +2
        ... By the way, you know that no one still knows what ships with 3 rows of oars looked like, one above the other and whether they were at all.... a little bit wrong. how it is generally known for frescoes, drawings ... it is not known how the rowers were located with 3-row oar weapons ...
  10. pilot mk
    pilot mk 17 February 2012 13: 18
    0
    Mines have not been canceled yet, but boats, look at what Somali pirates go on?
    1. Eugene
      Eugene 17 February 2012 13: 35
      +2
      Minesweepers are kind of too.

      Somali pirates attack USG Navy SUG?

      Tankers in the strait will probably be escorted in case of something, such caravans of the 21st century.
      1. Hans grohman
        Hans grohman 17 February 2012 18: 04
        -1
        Quote: Eugene
        Minesweepers are kind of too.

        As well as covering minefields with coastal artillery, and DBK.
  11. Steering wheel
    Steering wheel 17 February 2012 13: 19
    0
    Let’s recall the 2006 Levan-Israel War, when Israel didn’t iron the Lebanese positions by Aviation and artillery, and couldn’t stop rocket attacks, and now look at the duration and landscape of the coast, and there’s a lot of tankers to cover them (considering their cost and cargo) will not take risks. The Americans are ready for a blitzkrieg (like moishe) to destroy the country's infrastructure with missile strikes, but Iran is ready for a long conflict (there are a lot of missiles in store) and the economy will not be profitable for the West. read how the war of 2006 cost Israel, but it lasted only a month, and it can last much longer, due to missile strikes the country's economy will be paralyzed.
  12. basal
    basal 17 February 2012 13: 50
    +2
    I think the Iranians are not stupid at all. Having been hostile for many years, when the Cold War gives way to armed conflicts of various intensities, a strategy has certainly been developed to combat any enemy. It makes no sense to consider Iranian frigates and corvettes as applied to confrontation with the USA, they are not intended for this enemy. It is clear that increasingly smaller ships will be sunk in a short time by carrier-based aircraft. Large ships - to confront the regional enemy - the Arab countries of the Gulf. The Iranians are not so naive as to count on defeating the United States in a naval battle. Therefore, asymmetric answers are prepared, which, in fact, are not hidden.
    And here the choice is wide: blocking the Strait of Hormuz by mines, shelling tankers with missiles, activating Shiite groups throughout the region ...
  13. Cynic
    Cynic 17 February 2012 15: 16
    +2
    The humor of the situation is that if Iran declares that the strait is being mined and fields are put on a combat platoon, not a single captain of the ship will follow it without a security guarantee.
    And who will give these guarantees?
    PS Barriers are optional. wink
  14. Murai
    Murai 17 February 2012 16: 03
    -2
    If the war in Iran starts, I think Syria and Hezbollah will not wait for their turn like sheep to cut one by one. The Shiites are also active in the Taliban in Iraq and Afghanistan; large deliveries of modern weapons will go to them. weapons from Iran.
    So the amers and the whole of NATO would be too tough for such large-scale military operations in several countries of the region at the same time. This will be the end of the United States, and if all goes well so as not to lose, they can take radical measures i.e. apply nuclear weapons.
    1. Steering wheel
      Steering wheel 17 February 2012 16: 23
      0
      Moishes in America and Israel understand that they will not stand a long-term conflict with the Shiites, and therefore most likely they have a plan "b" - another one on September 11, with the use of weapons of moss destruction and numerous casualties, will give cut blanche to a nuclear strike on Iran and to his allies. Consequences - Iran and its allies in the Stone Age, the goyim die from radiation and consequently the population decreases, the cessation of oil supplies to Europe, China, India (America is more dependent on the supply of energy resources from South America + Alaska was removed from conservation - oil production has begun, shale gas and oil) entails the collapse of their economies, and therefore all world capital will again begin to flow to America. Here's a waking gesheft
      1. Petrix
        Petrix 17 February 2012 17: 31
        +1
        Plan B will come only when the US adversaries come to the shores of America. Any use of nuclear weapons is suicide and the end of civilization. And this is the lot of the doomed.
  15. Steering wheel
    Steering wheel 17 February 2012 19: 05
    +1
    Plan B will come only when the US adversaries come to the shores of America. Any use of nuclear weapons is suicide and the end of civilization. And this is the lot of the doomed. - rejection of the dollar as a means of payment, termination of purchases of US debt obligations in the 21st century are similar to the enemy's approach to the shores of the United States. After the use of nuclear weapons in Japan, the end of civilization did not come.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 17 February 2012 20: 34
      +1
      Quote: Steering
      After the use of nuclear weapons in Japan, the end of civilization did not come.

      I myself realized that I wrote.
      Then there was that nuclear weapon! And only one country !!!
      And now ?!
      Now nuclear weapons are like ...
      1. Steering wheel
        Steering wheel 17 February 2012 21: 42
        0
        Cynic - You assume that after a nuclear strike against Iran (and nuclear weapons are of different capacities) Russia and China strike in response, I would also like to believe it, but the wrong people control Russia and China (this is not the USSR and not China from the time of Mao) they built a paradise for themselves and they will not break it and live in bunkers because of Iran. The elite of Russia and China will face the fact that they will not be able to keep their collective farms afloat. and the west will highlight the warm spots in the golden billion - understand the west is always trying to act on the principle - we will make you an offer that you cannot refuse.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 17 February 2012 22: 01
          +1
          Quote: Steering
          You proceed from the fact that after a nuclear strike against Iran (and nuclear weapons eat different capacities), Russia and China will hit in response,

          Yes, not my God! Not in one eye! Dry as a leaf!
          Then I’m afraid of the chain reaction of the use of nuclear weapons, by anyone who gets into it.
          Based on: And why was it possible for them, but for us?
          For example, Pakistan is mating with India and let's go!
          drinks
          1. black_eagle
            black_eagle 17 February 2012 22: 20
            0
            Nevertheless, the probability of using nuclear weapons in this conflict tends to zero, with the same probability we can assume that Iran still has an atomic bomb, and it is he who will deliver the first nuclear strike? Essno on Israel (there are no serious carriers), well, after that, the Allies, under all pretexts and UN resolutions, will try to make a nuclear testing ground from Iran))))))))
            1. Steering wheel
              Steering wheel 18 February 2012 00: 30
              +2
              Israel was originally created with the role of the sacrificial goat, and for the Zionist Elite its destruction is not a deterrent, analyze the Arab revolution, the change of pro-Israeli regimes to Muslim brothers, the same thing happened in Europe in 1933 when the same families in America and England financed the arrival and then Hitler’s war machine itself, and they wanted to spit on their fellow tribesmen, because it was necessary to save the US economy from big recession and now history is repeating itself. And Pakistan will not hit India because they will destroy each other, and do not forget that the Pakistan Poison. The program was created by the United States as a counterweight to Soviet India.
              1. Cynic
                Cynic 18 February 2012 15: 59
                +1
                Quote: Steering
                Israel was originally created with the role of the sacrificial goat

                Here I also think on what occasion Joseph Vissarionovich gave the green light to the creation of this state entity. As expected to use it.
                bully
  16. sergeant
    sergeant 17 February 2012 19: 45
    0
    The point is that it is risky and stupid to introduce AUG into the Persian Gulf. Shallow depth, difficult to maneuver. Already "Los Angeles" there is definitely nothing to do.
    Most likely, the AUG will remain in the Gulf of Oman or even further east ... And there the "mosquito" fleet will be ineffective, seaworthiness is not the same.
    1. black_eagle
      black_eagle 17 February 2012 22: 10
      -1
      And my opinion is that the "mosquito" fleet will still be as effective, massive strikes by anti-ship missiles (albeit unsuccessful), oh, how they will distract the aircraft carrier fleet from the immediate task, which in turn will allow the Army and Air Force to maneuver already on land, competently covering strategic objects
      1. FROST
        FROST 18 February 2012 13: 51
        0
        distract the carrier fleet from the immediate mission


        A few air raids and the entire mosquito fleet without an air defense system will go directly to the bottom.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 18 February 2012 16: 41
          -1
          Quote: FROST
          not having an air defense system,

          Uh-huh.
          RCC on board means we have, and MANPADS means no.
          A bold assumption.
          wink
          1. Jaguar
            Jaguar 18 February 2012 17: 05
            +1
            at the missile systems of project 1234, the Osa-M air defense system did not save from anti-ship missiles, and the MANPADS would not save
  17. Hyppopotut
    Hyppopotut 17 February 2012 23: 20
    0
    Petrix,
    And tell the sir to mercy:
    - How many Iranian military vessels are in close proximity to the United States?
    And how to defend a country that is militarily ten times weaker than the United States?