February 2009

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

-Ronald Reagan

Iranian Mines vs US Minesweepers

Juxtaposition:

Amid concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, analysts are worried it could resort to a wide range of weapons and tactics to disrupt the world's busiest oil shipping lanes if armed conflict erupts with the United States, AFP reported.

Because its shores line the narrow Straits of Hormuz, Iran could quickly hit both military and commercial shipping with missiles launched from land, air or sea as well as cripple maritime traffic with mines or sunken ships, they said.

Despite a technological edge, US and allied navies would have less time to react to such threats in the lanes between the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean than in, say, neighboring Iraq, Washington-based analyst Andrew Koch said.

"Absolutely, they have the ability to do that (block shipping) today," he said.

Now, blogger Robert Farley at Lawyers, Guns and Money, April 13:

Interesting article in the latest Defense News about the Navy's decision to fold its minesweeping assets into the Anti-Submarine Warfare Command. The move obviously doesn't make sense to the minesweeping community, and doesn't make much sense to me, either. The Navy has been quiet about the move, but the article suggests that the decision was made by officers without much interest and experience in mine warfare. The move will also result in the retirement of half the USN minesweeper fleet. Some of the material gap will be covered by the minesweeping module of the new Littoral Combat Ship, but the folding of mine warfare into ASW has some officers concerned that minesweeping will get the short end of the budgetary stick in a Command dominated by ASW.

Why is this a problem? Mine and submarine warfare are both naval equivalents of asymmetric warfare. They are weapons of the weak, designed to offset an enemy surface or air advantage. Of the two, mine warfare is less expensive and potentially more dangerous, especially as the USN's focus has moved toward littoral areas where mines will likely be most effective. Anti-submarine warfare is more expensive, more interesting, and higher tech, which is probably why the Navy seems more interested in it than minesweeping. While this isn't the most serious crisis facing the Republic, it is evocative of a Pentagon culture that continues to focus on expensive, high tech solutions to problems and ignore low tech, asymmetric threats.

Pop quiz: Does Iran have a lot of high-tech submarines, or a lot of smalll, hard-to-find, quick-to-deploy mines?

I commented on the dangers of Iran's low-tech naval tactics a couple of weeks ago in the discussion thread of a story at QandO. Iran's plans for shutting down the Straits of Hormuz in the event of a major conflict are for real. I find this latest USN fleet development very distrubing. I keep re-reading the part about The move will also result in the retirement of half the USN minesweeper fleet.

If you were shocked by the sight of a gaping hole in the side of the USS Cole, consider the fact that Since World War II, 14 U.S. ships have been sunk or damaged by mines, while only two have been sunk by enemy fire. See this NPR story from three years ago for more about mines in the Persian Gulf. And ask yourself what other disturbing developments might come from failing to take Iran seriously in the Straits of Hormuz.

Posted by Wulf on April 13, 2006 at 05:05 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.atlasblogged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/267

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

-Ronald Reagan

Iranian Mines vs US Minesweepers

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment