| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| US Warship Spots 2 Iranian Subs in Persian Gulf |
| 2007-12-04 |
| Officials aboard the cruiser Vicksburg spotted and photographed two surfaced Iranian Kilo-class submarines in the Persian Gulf a few weeks ago, the ship’s skipper told U.S. Navy Secretary Donald Winter during a visit to the ship on Nov. 24. The Russian-designed diesel-electric attack subs were tracked and photographed by sailors onboard the Mayport, Fla.-based ship, said Capt. Chip Swicker. Crew members showed Winter the photographs of the surfaced subs. The Vicksburg did not communicate with either of the subs, Swicker said. “They watched us and we watched them.” Crew members aboard the cruiser didn’t consider the encounters hostile, although it wasn’t clear if the Iranian boats surfaced within view of the cruiser or if the U.S. warship happened to see the Iranian subs while they were already running on the surface. Iran has a fleet of three Kilo-class SSKs, according to Jane’s Fighting Ships. Swicker indicated the Vicksburg was close enough to Iranian waters at the times of the encounters that crew members didn’t consider it out of the ordinary to see Iranian navy vessels. Winter, accompanied by a Navy Times reporter, was aboard the ship as part of a nine-day trip through Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf. The Vicksburg crew told Winter about their encounters less than a week before Iran’s top navy commander claimed it was expanding its undersea fleet.The incidents recalled an encounter in October 2006 when a Chinese Song-class attack submarine surfaced near the carrier Kitty Hawk in the Western Pacific. Some analysts at the time called the act provocative, and pointed out the vulnerability of surface ships while they are shadowed by foreign submarines. It wasn’t clear whether Iranian sailors were attempting to send such a message to the Vicksburg. The Vicksburg is wrapping up a six-month deployment to the Persian Gulf, where since August it has conducted maritime security operations. The ship is due back in Mayport in January. |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #10 ION, CHIN MIL FORUM > CHINA UPSET OVER CARRIER'S TRANSIT IN TAIWAN STRAITS. [USS Kitty Hawk]. IOW, Kitty Hawk = USA is has challenged China's claims of local [maritime]sovereignty over the Straits and Taiwan proper. ALso reflected by vari Posters at WMF. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-12-04 22:56 |
| #9 Also, Navy ASW S-3's are tankin' these days; pretty much used fer nuthin' else... |
| Posted by: Leonard Plynth Garnell 2007-12-04 21:18 |
| #8 Pappy, Ima not aware of the P-3 to EP-3 conversion, please elaborate (and I live next door to NAS WI, WA) and Boeing has the contract fotr the P-3s replacement, based on the 737 airframe. First deliveries begin in 2012 I believe. 12 P-3s were converted to the EP-3 configuration. As of June 2007 there were reportedly 164 P3s in inventory. They are aging. There is a sustainment, modification and installation program (SMIP) in place since at least 2005, but I don't have information on how many aircraft are going through it. I do know the P-3s are being used for such as drug interdiction patrols, maritime recon, and over-land recon flights in Iraq and Afghanistan; just about everything but ASW. There will supposedly be 108 P-8A (737 airframe) Multi Mission Aircraft to replace the P-3. But the first one isn't scheduled to roll out until 2009, and full production in 2013. That's two administrations from now. A lot can happen in the interim. And yes- the SH-60B/F conversion to a utility role is not a good trend. It will end up an airborne version of the LCS: mediocre at its missions, not easily retrofitted, and not available when needed. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-12-04 21:12 |
| #7 Pappy, Ima not aware of the P-3 to EP-3 conversion, please elaborate (and I live next door to NAS WI, WA) and Boeing has the contract fotr the P-3s replacement, based on the 737 airframe. First deliveries begin in 2012 I believe. Bigger threat I believe is the mass conversion of the SH-60-B/F fleet to the all purpose Version; some ASW capabilities are being sacrificed for other missions (SPECOPS, VERTREP) to cover for H-46 shortages. I consider this the 'Hornetization' of the rotary wing navy. |
| Posted by: USN,Ret. 2007-12-04 12:26 |
| #6 They should have sunk those 2 Iranian subs, just to give a lesson to Iran. |
| Posted by: Leroidavid 2007-12-04 12:08 |
| #5 It's nice that US warships can spot surfaced submarines these days. How about spotting them when they're underwater? USN surface-based ASW is at an all time low due to several factors: Failure to keep up with submarine technology - Subs have gotten quieter. Surface warfare hasn't done much to find new methods and techniques. Lack of targets to practice on - The Russians haven't been sending subs out. The Chinese don't send theirs far from home. The USN sub mafia doesn't play well with others and has been angling for really cool missions. As for the Euros... Naval-community rivalry - again, competition between the sub, air, and surface community. Air has the upper hand at this point, sorta. Land-based ASW air assets have either been mothballed or converted to other uses (P-3s to EP-3s for example). Sea-based ASW air assets are being used as land-based assets assisting the USAF in surveillance. There really is no dedicated carrier-based long-range/high endurance ASW aircraft; helos have stepped into the gap, sorta. But the increased use means more wear and tear on the airframes. Scattered missions - Too many weird and expensive shipbuilding programs. The Littoral Combat Ship supposedly can do many things. ASW ain't one of them. And the very expensive DDG-1000 program is a 7-ship run with land-attack as its primary mission. ASW isn't anywhere in its capabilities. Reliance on NATO - The USN has relied on NATO assets for surface ASW (much like they have for mine countermeasures). Given the state of Euro navies, the Royal Navy in particular, that's like relying on your grandmother for roof maintenance. Lawfare - 'Environmentalists' have managed to tie up the Navy in court over the use of active sonar. Sometimes the Navy's been lucky; it's still expensive and time-consuming to fight. So the snark is understandable. It just isn't gonna be easy to fix. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-12-04 12:03 |
| #4 The incidents recalled an encounter in October 2006 when a Chinese Song-class attack submarine surfaced near the carrier Kitty Hawk in the Western Pacific. In so far as both involved submarines. And ships. And the USS Rantburg would put the fear of God in the Persians. Good idea. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-12-04 08:40 |
| #3 Those sub commanders are damn lucky that the cruiser was named the Vicksburg and not the Rantburg. Just sayin'. |
| Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-12-04 06:47 |
| #2 It's nice that US warships can spot surfaced submarines these days. How about spotting them when they're underwater? |
| Posted by: gromky 2007-12-04 01:53 |
| #1 Probably only a matter of time until they fire on us and the donks ask "how did this happen?" |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-12-04 00:49 |