Shore Batteries in Kuwait High on Navy Target List : Military: With little opposition expected from air and sea, planners zero in on Iraq’s coastal guns and missiles.

Facing little opposition from sea or air, U.S. Navy planners preparing for a possible strike against Iraq remain highly concerned about the threat posed by Iraqi shore-based gun and missile batteries, according to senior Navy officials.

The planners have concluded that the first priority in any such attack must be to wipe out these potent Iraqi defenses, which could otherwise inflict serious harm on Navy ships and aircraft, the officials said.

The shore-based installations, which have received little public attention, are believed by the Navy to include Silkworm anti-ship missiles deployed along the Kuwaiti coast as well as an array of surface-to-air missiles and powerful anti-aircraft guns.

In interviews aboard several ships this week, officials said coastal bombardment by the battleship Wisconsin could be limited until the long-range Silkworm batteries are knocked out. At the same time, they said, deep strikes against Iraq by Navy attack planes might have to be preceded by a concerted effort against the extensive anti-aircraft defenses.

“The deadliest threats are the surface-to-air missiles and the guns,” Navy Capt. J. B. Yakeley, strike warfare commander for the Independence, said in an interview Friday aboard the aircraft carrier. “There’s no way to dodge a bullet.”

“What we have to worry about,” Navy Capt. David Bill, commander of the Wisconsin, said in a separate interview aboard the battleship, “is partly in the air, but mostly on the beach.”

The two commanders declined to discuss how the United States might seek to attack the installations in case of war. But other combat officers said pilots had been briefed about an extensive list of missile batteries to be made priority targets at the outset of any U.S. attack.

And Yakeley, whose job puts him in command of aerial warfare operations for the naval battle group closest to Iraq, noted pointedly that it would be to the advantage of the United States “to know where he (Iraqi President Saddam Hussein) has all that equipment.”

“We value that information,” the Navy captain said.

Any U.S. Navy involvement in combat here is almost certain to combine carrier-based planes attacking targets within Iraq while naval guns lob shells at coastal targets in support of a possible amphibious landing.

A visit Friday to the massive Independence, stationed just outside the Persian Gulf, found Navy aviators well-advanced in preparation for possible war against Iraq. With the carrier on station since Aug. 7, some fighter pilots said they had been studying Iraqi tactics for more than two months, while pilots of attack aircraft said they had been rehearsing possible low-altitude strike raids over the Arabian desert.

At the same time, the task force commander, Rear Adm. Jerry L. Unruh, said a two-day trial run of operations last week by the Independence in the Persian Gulf--the first by a U.S. carrier in 16 years--had left no doubt about the capacity to move the air-strike platform closer to Iraq.

“It is a viable option,” said Unruh, noting that such a shift would “get our aircraft closer to the scene of operations.” But the admiral declined to say whether such a move might now occur.

The increasing U.S. attention to Iraq’s shore-based batteries comes as other Iraqi threats to naval forces appear to have diminished. With 59 ships now deployed in the region, U.S. naval commanders believe their vessels have little to fear from enemy ships or aircraft. At the same time, the buildup of U.S. aircraft in the gulf has made air commanders increasingly confident that American fighter pilots could quickly overcome any opposition in the air.

Navy officials expressed optimism that the land-based challenge also could be overcome. But they said their concern about the threat it would pose to any U.S. attack had been compounded in recent weeks by indications that the missile and anti-aircraft batteries had been deliberately scattered in a large number of locations.

In an indication of the change in focus, some F/A-18 Hornet fighter pilots said in interviews aboard the Independence that the focus of their training had shifted in recent weeks from preparation for combat against Iraqi pilots to missions aimed at targets on the ground.

“Our judgment after looking at their capabilities and tactics was that we should have the upper hand,” one fighter pilot said. “The surface-to-air (missile and gun capability) is the biggest threat.”

The Iraqi anti-aircraft arsenal includes a large assortment of advanced surface-to-air missiles, including what the International Institute of Strategic Studies estimates at about 300 Soviet-made SAM-14s, SAM-9s and other radar-seeking rockets.

Its anti-ship defenses, more important now that Iraq is seeking to defend Kuwait, include a large number of the Chinese-made Silkworm missiles.

Knowledgeable officials have said that the United States has sought to accelerate its effort to defend against the surface-to-air missiles by appealing to the Soviet Union for help in developing electronic countermeasures to be used against them. But a senior Pentagon official said Friday that the Soviets so far had provided “nothing of value” to assist the United States in combating Iraqi forces.

And apart from the missile threat, Navy pilots and commanders aboard the Independence made clear that they were perhaps even more concerned by Iraq’s extensive arsenal of conventional radar-guided anti-aircraft artillery, which would pose a particular threat to low-flying U.S. strike aircraft like the F/A-18.

“You can defeat a missile--it’s just you against the missile,” said Lt. Steve Foley, a Charlestown, Mass., native who flies F/A-18s from the Independence. “Oftentimes what you can’t defeat is being blind-sided by the guy on the ground who just throws up metal and happens to get lucky.

“If you get within range of some of these systems,” Foley said, “it’s like a death ray of steel coming at you.”

Even if it moves inside the gulf, the Independence will be able to operate sufficiently far from the coastline to be out of range of any shore batteries.

But Navy officials said Marine amphibious landing ships and their naval support vessels could be threatened by Iraq’s Silkworms, whose range of more than 15 miles could jeopardize even a vessel bombarding the coast from long range.

In the interview aboard his vessel Tuesday, Capt. Bill indicated that the battleship Wisconsin and its massive 16-inch guns would probably have to stay well away from the coast until the Iraqi Silkworm batteries were destroyed.

“I’m not going to go in there until I can go in with impunity,” Bill said. He added that it was “not my goal in life to get hit by a Silkworm missile.”

But other officials disclosed that the Navy had already laid plans to target the Silkworm batteries, possibly through use of Tomahawk cruise missiles fired by the Wisconsin itself.

And Bill, while declining to discuss such contingencies, noted that the Navy task force “has the ability to take out those positions.” He added: “I’m very comfortable that we’ll be able to do what we have to do.”