I'd think (hope) that we'd be keeping a real close track on this thing and that it would be one of the first casualties should any sort of hostilities break out. I would NOT want to be on that thing.
I'd be curious about it's armament. Would it be a threat to US Navy ships? Only if they were very lucky and/or had an extremely incompetant US crew... They'd have all the Arab states to contend with if they got indisciminate with its use...
I see it more as a Iranian feelgood item... It takes a long time.... a lot of operational time at sea to make a submarine force truly viable... Iran has a long way to go.
On the other hand don't get too relaxed. The British and Italians put midget submarines to good use in the Second World War you will recall.
Small submarines like the Nahang would be excellent for reconnaissance, the infiltration of agents into enemies territory (like Chinese did into Taiwan during the Cold War), again returning to the British and Italian use of small submarines in the Second World War, these vessels carried mines or explosive charges which were detachable from the hull of the submarine and then deployed by being placed in proximity to the target vessel or else being directly attached to it. People may scorn the idea but, other than the use of explosive laden speed boats in confined waters or harbour areas, greatest asymmetric threat to American naval operations is the anti-ship mine. In the period following on from the Korean War, air attacks, missiles, or torpedoes have damaged three U.S. Navy ships; by way of contrast 14 have been sunk or damaged by sea mines. During Operation Desert Storm War more than $120 million in damage was caused on the advanced Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruiser USS Princeton and the amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli. Mining the Straits of Hormuz. Iran currently supports the free flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, but reserves the option of closing off the shipping route if it is threatened. The reason for the importance of this shipping lane is that forty percent of the world’s oil passes through it on a daily basis. Lending vast importance to the general area as a theatre for future American-Iran hostilities. Indeed to neutralise this threat any American or coalition force would be forced to establish a beachhead across the strait in Iran, so that the danger of blowing up oil tankers and blocking passage is removed. Needless to say, a couple of submarines would enable the Iranians to carry on causing mischief even when the Americans manage to reopen the straits.
In the longer run the Iranians need to continue commissioning projects such as this in order to build up their technical know how and manufacturing base, which were after all pretty much knocked for six by the Iranian Revolution, the Iran-Iraq War and American sanctions. Iran, especially under its current President, is very much alone in the world and needs to continue to make these baby steps towards producing a homegrown navy. It is both national pride and necessity that impels them upon this course.
The report specifically mentioned that it was designed for conditions in the Persian Gulf and is accordingly consistent with Iranian intentions regarding becoming a regional power.
I can see the issue from various sides but certainly think it's something that can't be ignored. On the one hand, I'm sure it's not particularly stealthy by Western standards, especially as it's a first effort. Subs are inherently destabilizing factors, and the various uses it could be put to probably make it something of extreme interest on the part of US forces -- to the extent that I would think they'd do their best to keep a track on every move it makes.
BUT, that takes resources and isn't fool-proof. It's the nature of sub service that they try to slip their shadows.
So, I agree with you that it can't be written off. It takes resources for us, adds a strategic and tactical factor that needs to be accounted for, will be a learning experience for the Iranians and could end up being a real little pain in the ass if we're not careful.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Does it make me a bad person if I harbor the secret hope that it collides with one of our surface vessels and sinks to the bottom?
I'd think (hope) that we'd be keeping a real close track on this thing and that it would be one of the first casualties should any sort of hostilities break out. I would NOT want to be on that thing.
I'd be curious about it's armament. Would it be a threat to US Navy ships? Only if they were very lucky and/or had an extremely incompetant US crew... They'd have all the Arab states to contend with if they got indisciminate with its use...
I see it more as a Iranian feelgood item... It takes a long time.... a lot of operational time at sea to make a submarine force truly viable... Iran has a long way to go.
Thanks Oceanguy.
Don't be too impressed with Iran, simply because they claim to own a submarine. The American Confederacy owned a submarine, remember?
(Hmm. Looks about the same size, too.)
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
On the other hand don't get too relaxed. The British and Italians put midget submarines to good use in the Second World War you will recall.
Small submarines like the Nahang would be excellent for reconnaissance, the infiltration of agents into enemies territory (like Chinese did into Taiwan during the Cold War), again returning to the British and Italian use of small submarines in the Second World War, these vessels carried mines or explosive charges which were detachable from the hull of the submarine and then deployed by being placed in proximity to the target vessel or else being directly attached to it. People may scorn the idea but, other than the use of explosive laden speed boats in confined waters or harbour areas, greatest asymmetric threat to American naval operations is the anti-ship mine. In the period following on from the Korean War, air attacks, missiles, or torpedoes have damaged three U.S. Navy ships; by way of contrast 14 have been sunk or damaged by sea mines. During Operation Desert Storm War more than $120 million in damage was caused on the advanced Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruiser USS Princeton and the amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli. Mining the Straits of Hormuz. Iran currently supports the free flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, but reserves the option of closing off the shipping route if it is threatened. The reason for the importance of this shipping lane is that forty percent of the world’s oil passes through it on a daily basis. Lending vast importance to the general area as a theatre for future American-Iran hostilities. Indeed to neutralise this threat any American or coalition force would be forced to establish a beachhead across the strait in Iran, so that the danger of blowing up oil tankers and blocking passage is removed. Needless to say, a couple of submarines would enable the Iranians to carry on causing mischief even when the Americans manage to reopen the straits.
In the longer run the Iranians need to continue commissioning projects such as this in order to build up their technical know how and manufacturing base, which were after all pretty much knocked for six by the Iranian Revolution, the Iran-Iraq War and American sanctions. Iran, especially under its current President, is very much alone in the world and needs to continue to make these baby steps towards producing a homegrown navy. It is both national pride and necessity that impels them upon this course.
The report specifically mentioned that it was designed for conditions in the Persian Gulf and is accordingly consistent with Iranian intentions regarding becoming a regional power.
Thanks Ardashir,
As I mentioned in email, I appreciate the input.
I can see the issue from various sides but certainly think it's something that can't be ignored. On the one hand, I'm sure it's not particularly stealthy by Western standards, especially as it's a first effort. Subs are inherently destabilizing factors, and the various uses it could be put to probably make it something of extreme interest on the part of US forces -- to the extent that I would think they'd do their best to keep a track on every move it makes.
BUT, that takes resources and isn't fool-proof. It's the nature of sub service that they try to slip their shadows.
So, I agree with you that it can't be written off. It takes resources for us, adds a strategic and tactical factor that needs to be accounted for, will be a learning experience for the Iranians and could end up being a real little pain in the ass if we're not careful.