Iran deploys warships off Yemen's coast

[Bosonic]

Source: Reuters

Iran sent two warships to the Gulf of Aden on Wednesday, state media reported, establishing a military presence off the coast of Yemen where Saudi Arabia is leading a bombing campaign to oust the Iran-allied Houthi movement.

The Alborz destroyer and Bushehr support vessel sailed from Bandar Abbas on a mission to protect Iranian shipping from piracy, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said in comments cited by Press TV.

Saudi Arabia and several Arab allies have imposed an air and naval blockade on Yemen as part of a two-week campaign to oust the Houthis, who have taken most of the country and forced President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi to flee to Riyadh.

Iran has condemned the campaign and called for dialogue. Saudi Arabia accuses Iran of providing military support to the Houthis, a charge the Islamic Republic denies.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/08/us-yemen-security-iran-navy-idUSKBN0MZ11C20150408

[Lurks Often]

1. Regarding the Alborz "destroyer" mentioned in the article

whether the reporter got the class of ship wrong, or the Iranian navy is trying to make itself sound more powerful then it is, the Alborz is a 40+ year old frigate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_frigate_Alborz

Let's hope this doesn't escalate.

[Fred Sanders]

2. Meanwhile America has more naval firepower in the area than all the other countries combined...more

war drum beating by always reliable drummer Reuters.

One frigate...and a supply ship? Scary! WARships! So scary!!!

[Adrahil]

4. Your sometimes too quick to dismiss threats, Fred.

But not this time. A stiff breeze could sink that ship. And in any case, the Iranians have a right to sail in international waters. What are they gonna do with that rust bucket? Swear loudly?

[oberliner]

8. It's not Reuters beating the war drum

The people killing one another in Yemen maybe?

[FBaggins]

10. It would be interesting if the US had a Kidd-class destroyer or two off the coast

Sort of a "here's an actual destroyer that could have been yours... but you went and blew it" statement.

But they're Taiwanese now.

[Lurks Often]

11. Even the Kidd Class would be showing their age at this point

and they were far more modern and capable when we sold them to Taiwan then the Iranian so-called "destroyer".

To be fair, it could very well been the reporter not knowing any better. The quality of reporting, regardless of the source and political leaning, has been going down hill for quite some time. Running spellcheck is not a adequate subsititute for proof reading and good editing.

[FBaggins]

12. They would still be well ahead of anything they have now

and they were far more modern and capable when we sold them to Taiwan then the Iranian so-called "destroyer".

Heck... they were significantly more capable than the Spruance-class that they were based on. They were awfully close to being Ticonderoga-class cruisers without AEGIS (but with much better HVAC)

To be fair, it could very well been the reporter not knowing any better.

Absolutely. I remember thinking during my brief service that I should get a job editing the WaPost's reports. Barely a week went by when they weren't mistaking one aircraft/missile/ship/etc for another.

[Lurks Often]

13. The Kidd class and the Spruance class had different roles

The Kidd class (as delivered to the U.S.) was optimized for anti-air warfare, with secondary roles in surface combat and anti-submarine warfare.

The Spruance class was optimized for the anti-submarine role and those Spruance class that had the VLS had a far more substantial surface combat capacity then the Kidd class. The Spruance class anti air was pretty much limited to self defense only

[happyslug]

14. Old does NOT mean ineffective

One of the old comments about wars, is most have been fought with obsolete equipment OR equipment designed for the last war, not the war they were used in.

It is a 40 year old frigate, but it has four 1990 era Chinese produced Anti-Ship missiles. It has a 4.5 inch British Cannon that is still used by Britain. You have to remember this Ship had been ordered by the Shah of Iran, and his one weakness was to get the latest and most up to date equipment for his military forces. for example when the British ordered their Chieftain Tanks of the 1960s, they ordered it WITHOUT the latest (and much more expensive) Ceramic Armor (Chobham armor). The Shah adopted the Chieftain but with the more expensive ceramic armor (When the Shah was overthrown, Iran cancelled the additional upgraded Chieftains, and the British Army purchased them and called them the "Challenger I&quot .

I bring up the Iranian Chieftains to show the the Shah was willing to spend EXTRA for HIGH end equipment. This Frigate is a product of the Shah thus started as one of the best Frigates in the World. Since 1980 it has been upgraded, thus the adopting of the Chinese Anti-Ship missiles, and the retention of the British 4.5 inch gun. It is NOT a Destroyer, or a Cruiser and clearly not a Battleship (and it is better called a "Light" Frigate, for most Frigates are larger then these ships). On the other hand it is equip to operate close to show, and that can be see it is weapons mix including the Anti-Ship Missiles and 4.5 inch gun,

Those other weapons include the following:

1 x twin 35 mm AAA. This is a Swiss AA system, Britain was one of those countries that replaced ALL of its Cannon AA weapons with AA missiles starting in the 1960s, thus had none to offer the Shah when this ship was built. Instead the Shah ordered 35mm cannons from Switzerland. The British ran across these same AA cannons in the Falkland campaign and was the most effective AA weapon the Argentinians had in that conflict (The Argentians were even able to shoot down one of their own planes with that cannon). The British was so impressed that they retain the 35mm AA cannons in their own Army after the Falkland wars, adopting what the Soviet Union had done with AA weapons, provide a mix of Missiles and Cannons that complement each other.

2 x single 20 mm AAA (These replaced British Supplied AA missiles as this ship was originally equipped, but Iran could not obtain replacement parts so they were replaced with 20 mm cannon, which in turn are being replaced in Iranian Service with an Iranian designed and built AA missiles:

http://rt.com/news/iran-production-sayyad-missile-485/

2 × 81 mm mortars. An excellent ship to shore weapon, where you have ridges close to the shore, as is common in the Persian Gulf.

2 × 0.50cal machine guns. Originally designed as an anti-Tank weapon in the 1930s, but during WWII found to be an excellent short range Anti-Aircraft (AA) weapon.

1 x Limbo ASW mortar (This was used by the British to the 1980s, still an effective system in a close to shore situation like the Persian Gulf).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo_(weapon)

2 x triple 12.75 in torpedo tube, good enough to sink any ship you manage to hit with the torpedo.

More on the Chinese Ship to Shore Missile installed on these frigates in the 1990s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-802

More on the 4.5 inch cannons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.5_inch_Mark_8_naval_gun

One of its sister ships were sunk in the 1980s by the US Navy during the Tanker War.

Iran is building Seven new light Frigates, roughly of the same design as this one, for Iran believes it is the perfect size for use in the Persian Gulf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moudge-class_frigate

Yes, the Ship is old, but can do 39 knots (44.8 mph) which is NOT bad for a ship

[Lurks Often]

15. I am aware of the above and remain underwhelmed by the vessel

The Chinese missiles are effective IF the ship's commander has a firm idea of his enemy's location or has access to data/guidance information from an aircraft or satellite. Without the above, he would have to launch his missiles in the general direction of he believes his opponent is and hope the missile's radar is enough to find the ship or wait until his opponent comes within range of his ship's radar.

One of the biggest flaws of the longer range radar guided ship to ship missiles is that the range of the missile is greater then the range of the radar of the ship carrying the missile. This applies to all navy's as the horizon and curvature of the earth limit how far the radar can see.

As to the rest, they might remain effective against aircraft and ships using un-guided weapons, but most of the Gulf nations have modern US and European equipment and are unlikely to close with in ranges of the guns.

The comparable Saudi naval vessel is a modified: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Fayette-class_frigate
While slower, it is stealthy, carries a helicopter which can provide targeting data and carries anti ship missiles itself, has a anti-aircraft and missile system and close in weapons system (CIWS), which is far superior to manually operated guns when trying to stop an anti-ship missile.

[L0oniX]

3. Warning: African Queen moving towards the coast of Yemen.

[pediatricmedic]

5. LOL, protecting shipping, you mean the 180+ tons of weapons recently unloaded by Iran

The death merchants are making a killing

Not to be outdone, the US is shipping ten times as much to the Saudis. Yay for our side.

[Comrade Grumpy]

6. Please provide some evidence this 180 ton arms shipment actually happened.

[oberliner]

7. Iranian ship unloads 185 tons of weapons for Houthis at Saleef port

An Iranian ship unloaded more than 180 tons of weapons and military equipment at a Houthi-controlled port in western Yemen, Al Arabiya News Channel reported on Friday, quoting security sources.

The ship had docked at al-Saleef port northwest of the al-Hodeida province on Thursday, the sources said.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/03/20/Iranian-ship-unloads-185-tons-of-weapons-for-Houthis-at-Saleef-port.html

[JonLP24]

9. Unbelievable

Iran is asking for dialogue which is more reasonable but it in the end it will just turn into another proxy cluster fuck.