• Iran declares it can sink US carrier with 'ease' in Persian gulf.
    370 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GunFox;34292531]All of this came from one side. If memory serves I believe the shit he was complaining about was generally stuff that was done to mimic the actions of other US hardware. Like revealing the locations of red units was a result of UAV's and shutting down air defense systems was because they were advancing the scenario to one where they had destroy the air defense system. It was all a very odd wargame. So much was actual movement, and large swaths existed solely on paper/computer screens. The idea ultimately though was that letting him do whatever he wanted didn't prove to accurately reflect reality. So instead they decided to test a bunch of different scenarios. It is sorta like running an experiment in that you need to run a bunch of individual tests to test each variable rather than a few that test a bunch of variables at once. If you test a bunch of variables at once, then you have no means of determining which variable was the important one in that selection.[/QUOTE] I get the "we have to at least force a progression here or we're not learning anything" shit they were complaining about, I'm more wondering who said his tactics were unrealistic. Like, who actually said "heyo, this motherfucker decided to spam more more missiles than we own".
[QUOTE=Zacca;34276552]I'm gonna laugh if Iran has a secret weapon and destroys the U.S armed forces. Somehow.[/QUOTE] that wouldn't be funny the world would be a fucked up place without america
[QUOTE=TheChantzGuy;34296102]that wouldn't be funny the world would be a fucked up place without america[/QUOTE] inb4 "America sucks and the world would be much better if it never existed"
[QUOTE=TheChantzGuy;34296102]that wouldn't be funny the world would be a fucked up place without america[/QUOTE] It's a fucked up place with it, too. Let's not forget. But I would prefer it not to be destroyed because [IMG]http://flagdog.facepunchstudios.com/?ipe=3055ff472147a3ddc5afa9bf88520b70[/IMG].
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;34286983]It wouldn't be entirely conventional, though, and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002"]we wouldn't win.[/URL] The truth of it is we currently have no idea how well our military can actually do jack shit in a larger scale conflict.[/QUOTE] There is no Win or Lose. They sink our Carrier, we destroy as much of their military infrastructure from the Sea and Air as a Go Fuck Yourself, and that's that. Iran then shuts the fuck up for 20 years
[QUOTE=TheTalon;34297981]There is no Win or Lose. They sink our Carrier, we destroy as much of their military infrastructure from the Sea and Air as a Go Fuck Yourself, and that's that. Iran then shuts the fuck up for 20 years[/QUOTE] Are you advocating invading over a small skirmish? If they sunk your carrier and you sunk a ton of their stuff I'd consider it a proper naval battle. No need to escalate tensions into a full blown invasion.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34298107]Are you advocating invading over a small skirmish? If they sunk your carrier and you sunk a ton of their stuff I'd consider it a proper naval battle. No need to escalate tensions into a full blown invasion.[/QUOTE]Sinking a carrier would be a full on declaration of war.
I think Iran is pulling a North Korea, and just trying to get attention.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];34298190']I think Iran is pulling a North Korea, and just trying to get attention.[/QUOTE] Yep. They're doing the ol' "Guys,I [i]promise[/i] that I've got a huge dick. What's that? Show you? Haha nah I don't need to"
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34298107]Are you advocating invading over a small skirmish? If they sunk your carrier and you sunk a ton of their stuff I'd consider it a proper naval battle. No need to escalate tensions into a full blown invasion.[/QUOTE] If they managed to destroy a carrier hundreds (if not thousands) of sailors would die, and let's not kid ourselves by saying the billions of dollars spent on the equipment wouldn't be missed either
I think its funny how they think they're hot shit with their [B]DIESEL ELECTRIC[/B] submarines. Wonder how well they are gonna perform against our nice nuclear ones? [editline]19th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=doonbugie2;34298107]Are you advocating invading over a small skirmish? If they sunk your carrier and you sunk a ton of their stuff I'd consider it a proper naval battle. No need to escalate tensions into a full blown invasion.[/QUOTE] You extremely underestimate the value of an aircraft carrier. Those things are literally floating towns/airstrips. Im pretty sure killing thousands of sailors and members from the other branches would immediately start a war. [editline]19th January 2012[/editline] Oh, and there are a shitload of other ships with the carrier, so yeah sinking them all, Iran would be fucked.
Then dont fucking engage enemy ships with it and you won't loose it? US is fucked up.
Aircraft carriers even have stores on them. No not ammo stores. Shopping Stores. Iran, especially lately, has been kind of a dick, and if they went so far as to shut off an international shipping lane and or tried/did sink an american aircraft carrier, you better believe that Iran is going to lose a lot of assets. Lots of them, in retaliation. There would be no ground invasion or need for one, really. The regime would change in a matter of months in some way or fashion and probably for the better You know how Japan said We're awakening a sleeping giant before the pearl harbor attacks? The commander of the Sub that shoots at our Aircraft Carrier is going to say the same
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34291632]They can be detected with radar. S-400 could probably kill it and so could fighter jets.[/QUOTE] The B-2 has a radar profile so close to zero even our own radar systems can't pick it up. It's a complete ghost. The stealth coating is extremely effective. I honestly doubt they'll be used in a first strike though as our air force is extremely paranoid about using them. They didn't even want to use them in the bosnian crisis since they were so worried something would screw up and cost them 2 billion + potentially losing the wreckage.
Isn't rain acidic to their stealth coating so they cannot fly in the rain.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34300160]Isn't rain acidic to their stealth coating so they cannot fly in the rain.[/QUOTE] I vaguely remember hearing that somewhere but I think it was more of a long term problem, causing more expensive maintenance. I don't think it would really be a huge factor for a single flight. Plus its service ceiling of 50,000 feet means it can just fly over the rain anyway.
[QUOTE=ice445;34300214]I vaguely remember hearing that somewhere but I think it was more of a long term problem, causing more expensive maintenance. I don't think it would really be a huge factor for a single flight. Plus its service ceiling of 50,000 feet means it can just fly over the rain anyway.[/QUOTE] I love the idea of it getting rid of weather problems entirely by leaving the part of the atmosphere where it would experience any weather.
[video=youtube;aoMj1TjNTFw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoMj1TjNTFw[/video] Sweden need to sell some subs. Perhaps Iran wants to purchase?
It's more likely that Israel will start a war before Iran does.
Actually, its unlikely Israel will start a war because their international image would take a massive hit. So all they have to do is simply sit back and prod at Iran without doing anything obvious and they will be fine. Then, if Iran does attack, they have the justification they want and their image will be secured.
How is Israel going to attack Iran, they don't have any troop moving ability.
They have nuke moving ability.
I've been inside a Gotland class submarine, hehehe.
sonar resistant moderator?
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34300160]Isn't rain acidic to their stealth coating so they cannot fly in the rain.[/QUOTE]Not really damaging, but the moisture on the surface of the craft reflects radar.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;34300860]I've been inside a Gotland class submarine, hehehe.[/QUOTE] I've been inside a 688.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34300939]Not really damaging, but the moisture on the surface of the craft reflects radar.[/QUOTE] an easily solved problem with a shamwow towel
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;34300470][video=youtube;aoMj1TjNTFw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoMj1TjNTFw[/video] Sweden need to sell some subs. Perhaps Iran wants to purchase?[/QUOTE] They get to tease and prod the most powerful navy in the world, and toy with their submarines by playing cat and mouse?! If I were a crewmember I would be giggling like a schoolboy at how the Americans couldn't find us :v:
[QUOTE=TheTalon;34297981]There is no Win or Lose. They sink our Carrier, we destroy as much of their military infrastructure from the Sea and Air as a Go Fuck Yourself, and that's that. Iran then shuts the fuck up for 20 years[/QUOTE] You're forgetting that they themselves have air and sea military units. They aren't some ground army with a one shot anti-American carrier gun they have lying around. The US has spent the last 65 years invading third world countries and failing a lot of them, you and the rest of the world have NO idea how well the US will do in a large scale conflict with a large highly industrialised country. So lets keep the dick waving to a minimum and try and avoid a useless war.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34294923]They claim to have reverse engineered S-300's from Belarus.[/QUOTE] iran also claims to have flying saucers powered by allah
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.