Iran declares it can sink US carrier with 'ease' in Persian gulf.
370 replies, posted
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34285392]I dont care what he said, I'm pointing out even if they did evacuate alot of people you still loose billions of dollars while Iran only looses ~50 Million in Missiles and subs.
[editline]18th January 2012[/editline]
Phalanx isn't very effective against swarm tactics ( asymmetric warfare ).[/QUOTE]
Swarms of what? A computerized gun that spits out bullets faster and more accurately than any other would more than likely not have a problem perforating jets and boats. Plus the subs and destroyers the USN has would hamper sub activity.
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;34285463]Swarms of what? A computerized gun that spits out bullets faster and more accurately than any other would more than likely not have a problem perforating jets and boats. Plus the subs and destroyers the USN has would hamper sub activity.[/QUOTE]
A phalanx isn't going to be effective against subs anyway.
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;34285463]Swarms of what? A computerized gun that spits out bullets faster and more accurately than any other would more than likely not have a problem perforating jets and boats. Plus the subs and destroyers the USN has would hamper sub activity.[/QUOTE]
~50Mn worth of anti ship missiles, some are going to get through.
Maybe some ninja subs could fuck shit up too.
[editline]18th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;34285484]A phalanx isn't going to be effective against subs anyway.[/QUOTE]
No shit, the Phalax would attack the anti ship missiles from the coast.
1. There probably will not be any war
2. If there is one, it will hurt the world economy because oil prices will surge
3. The war will be long and will have a large amount of casualties
4. The United States will unquestionably win, the only question is how much damage Iran can do to us
Iran claims to have smart rocket torpedoes
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;34285484]A phalanx isn't going to be effective against subs anyway.[/QUOTE]
This I know.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;34276352]Jesus, Iran. Even if you could, that's not how you win a war. Blowing a US carrier out of the water will just cause everyone to attack them in retaliation and they can't fight our combined strength. Hell, even if the US has to fight them solo, their navy alone could bitchslap Iran's, every day, all day.[/QUOTE]
Actually sinking a US Carrier would basically nullify a US offensive for a few months.
Iran declares it can sink US carrier with ease.
US responds that it can sink Iran with moderate effort.
Can't Iran just lay tons of T-1's in the straight, they would be highly effective in the Gulfs shallow water.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;34285541]Actually sinking a US Carrier would basically nullify a US offensive for a few months.[/QUOTE]
not really, I made the point of a US offensive using Afghanistan as a base of operations as opposed to a carrier.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34285519]Iran claims to have smart rocket torpedoes[/QUOTE]
bullshit even the Russians don't have those.
There are rocket torpedoes but steering a supercavitating torpedo is damn tricky (I remember reading an article on that when I was like 12)
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;34285592]not really, I made the point of a US offensive using Afghanistan as a base of operations as opposed to a carrier.
[editline]18th January 2012[/editline]
bullshit even the Russians don't have those.[/QUOTE]
According to Iran's navy they tested them in the recent naval wargames.
You're being dumb.
"Extremely underfunded Russian army does not have them so it must be fake!!!"
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34285502]~50Mn worth of anti ship missiles, some are going to get through.
[/QUOTE]
isn't the AEGIS system designed to defend against that sort of AShM spam threat? After all, we've been developing those systems for the entire duration of the Cold War since any US/Soviet naval engagement would involve massive amounts of AShMs.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;34285592]not really, I made the point of a US offensive using Afghanistan as a base of operations as opposed to a carrier.
bullshit even the Russians don't have those.
There are rocket torpedoes but steering a supercavitating torpedo is damn tricky (I remember reading an article on that when I was like 12)[/QUOTE]
Unless you're like 13 now, a lot can change in a few years. Technology has come a long way, and advancements are pretty much globally shared information.
And yes, Iran has T-1's so US is fucked if they close the straight. There would be so many mines in the straight it would take months to clear.
[editline]18th January 2012[/editline]
Even fucking moored mines pose a serious risk.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34285617]According to Iran's navy they tested them in the recent naval wargames.
You're being dumb.
"Extremely underfunded Russian army does not have them so it must be fake!!!"[/QUOTE]
[quote=Wikipedia]
Most military and industry analysts have concluded that the [b]Hoot is reverse engineered from the Russian VA-111 Shkval supercavitation torpedo[/b] which travels at the same speed
[/quote]
[editline]18th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;34285632]Unless you're like 13 now, a lot can change in a few years. Technology has come a long way, and advancements are pretty much [b]globally shared information.[/b][/QUOTE]
lolwhat. Defense advancements are usually kept secret. Either way, Iran doesn't have a "smart" torpedo according to analysts, read post.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;34285654][/QUOTE]
Yeah, but I'm not talking about Hoot's. They developed a new torpedo and tested it during the recent wargames.
Its 2012 this stuff is basic engineering.
[editline]18th January 2012[/editline]
Its not like it takes super secret tech to make this stuff, its basic mechanical and computer engineering.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34285667]Yeah, but I'm not talking about Hoot's. They developed a new torpedo and tested it during the recent wargames.
Its 2012 this stuff is basic engineering.
[editline]18th January 2012[/editline]
Its not like it takes super secret tech to make this stuff, its basic mechanical and computer engineering.[/QUOTE]
And mass amounts can easily defeat a ship the size of a city, but Iran would have to have their collective balls dragging on the floor to attempt such a thing. They're just bullshitting as usual to give the illusion of insane strength.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34285667]Yeah, but I'm not talking about Hoot's. They developed a new torpedo and tested it during the recent wargames.
Its 2012 this stuff is basic engineering.[/QUOTE]
source?
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34285667]
Its not like it takes super secret tech to make this stuff, its basic mechanical and computer engineering.[/QUOTE]
if it's so easy people would have made them already. Facts are fluid dynamics are extremely tricky to optimize and control in real life, especially in an unpredictable environment like the ocean.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;34285541]Actually sinking a US Carrier would basically nullify a US offensive for a few months.[/QUOTE]
Actually the gates of hell would open.
A formal declaration of war would pass almost immediately. Strategic bombers would be there in hours. They would be met with escorts launched from Iraq which would see them to their targets. Likely B-2's that would be met by F-22's.
From there they start going down the list of targets.
Starting with airports and AA defenses.
With the air defense network neutralized, The B-1B's and the B-52's would enter into the airspace escorted by F-15's and F-16's sortied from Iraq. Israel would declare war at this point. Assuming they didn't immediately nuke Iran, they would launch targeted strikes against every nuclear installation they had their eye on. Iraq may reluctantly declare war as well, though they would likely focus on defending themselves.
Then the bombers would move on to power plants, hospitals, military installations, water treatment facilities, food distribution centers, armored vehicle depots, etc etc. Israel would likely strike out at places of worship or suspected terrorist training facilities.
The death toll would be astonishing. By the end of the first couple of weeks, Iran would likely almost entirely be without power or running water. Their military would be crippled. Then the USN shows up with more carrier battle groups. Depending on how things proceed, the marines may launch from the battle groups and begin taking coastal cities. This would not be under the guise of liberation. They would be an occupying force and many civilians would die in the crossfire. The US army would likely be unable to deploy armored vehicles to the region in serious numbers for a few weeks after that. Though airborne troops might make an appearance.
A ground assault would be unlikely however. They generate bad PR and we don't really want Iran in the first place. In all likelihood, the carriers would sit outside of missile range and sortie fighter after fighter. Adding to the overall destruction.
Sinking a carrier would fuck Iran so hardcore that it isn't even funny.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;34285700]source?
if it's so easy people would have made them already. Facts are fluid dynamics are extremely tricky to optimize and control in real life, especially in an unpredictable environment like the ocean.[/QUOTE]
They have made them already.
Otherwise they would not have used them during the war games.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;34285592]
bullshit even the Russians don't have those.
There are rocket torpedoes but steering a supercavitating torpedo is damn tricky (I remember reading an article on that when I was like 12)[/QUOTE]
[quote]There are no evident countermeasures to such a weapon, its employment could put adversary naval forces as a considerable disadvantage. One such scenario is a rapid attack situation wherein a sudden detection of a threat submarine is made, perhaps at relatively short range, requiring an immediate response to achieve weapon on target and to ensure survival. Apparently guidance is a problem, and the initial version of the Shkval was unguided However, the Russians have been advertising a homing version, which runs out at very high speed, then slows to search.
A prototype of the modernised "Shkval", which was exhibited at the 1995 international armaments show in Abu Dhabi, was discarded. An improved model was designed with a conventional (non-nuclear) warhead and a [b]guided targeting system,[/b] which substantially enhances its combat effectiveness. The first tests of the modernised Shkval torpedo were held by the Russian Pacific Fleet in the spring of 1998.
The 'Region' Scientific Production Association has developed developed an export modification of the missile, 'Shkval-E'. Russia began marketing this conventionally armed version of the Shkval high-speed underwater rocket at the IDEX 99 exhibition in Abu Dhabi in early 1999. The concept of operations for this missile requires the crew of a submarine, ship or the coast guard define the target's parameters -- speed, distance and vector -- and feeds the data to the missile's automatic pilot. The missile is fired, achieves its optimum depth and switches on its engines. The missile does not have a homing warhead and follows a computer-generated program.[/quote]
[url=http://www.tonyrogers.com/weapons/shkval_torpedo.htm]Source[/url]
The Iranians claim it to be a development of the Russian weapon, so it is not entirely impossible that they possess a guided weapon.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34285714]Actually the gates of hell would open.
A formal declaration of war would pass almost immediately. Strategic bombers would be there in hours. They would be met with escorts launched from Iraq which would see them to their targets. Likely B-2's that would be met by F-22's.
From there they start going down the list of targets.
Starting with airports and AA defenses.
With the air defense network neutralized, The B-1B's and the B-52's would enter into the airspace escorted by F-15's and F-16's sortied from Iraq. Israel would declare war at this point. Assuming they didn't immediately nuke Iran, they would launch targeted strikes against every nuclear installation they had their eye on. Iraq may reluctantly declare war as well, though they would likely focus on defending themselves.
Then the bombers would move on to power plants, hospitals, military installations, water treatment facilities, food distribution centers, armored vehicle depots, etc etc. Israel would likely strike out at places of worship or suspected terrorist training facilities.
The death toll would be astonishing. By the end of the first couple of weeks, Iran would likely almost entirely be without power or running water. Their military would be crippled. Then the USN shows up with more carrier battle groups. Depending on how things proceed, the marines may launch from the battle groups and begin taking coastal cities. This would not be under the guise of liberation. They would be an occupying force and many civilians would die in the crossfire. The US army would likely be unable to deploy armored vehicles to the region in serious numbers for a few weeks after that. Though airborne troops might make an appearance.
A ground assault would be unlikely however. They generate bad PR and we don't really want Iran in the first place. In all likelihood, the carriers would sit outside of missile range and sortie fighter after fighter. Adding to the overall destruction.
Sinking a carrier would fuck Iran so hardcore that it isn't even funny.[/QUOTE]
Straight of Hormuz would likely be a limited battle. It would not escalate to full blown warfare.
[editline]18th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Medevilae;34285749]The straight is a European interest that American companies have holds in through European markets. Iran will not sell natural gas to the US.
Closing the straight is a political gambit Iran has been tossing around that they'd never go through with. Their economy is already threatened by sanctions, inflation is sky high... It'd be suicide to close the straight.[/QUOTE]
If they're pushed far enough I believe they may try to block it.
Holy shit gunfox
Anyways, Iran has no chance, even if they do kill that carrier.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34285755]Straight of Hormuz would likely be a limited battle. It would not escalate to full blown warfare.[/QUOTE]
Sinking a carrier would result in a declaration of war. Given that the carrier and likely several of its escorts would be lost, the loss of life on the American side as well as the financial damage would be heavy enough that, even ignoring the fact that we would demand blood on a scale not seen for over half a century, the nation would need to respond in order to maintain face.
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;34285728][url=http://www.tonyrogers.com/weapons/shkval_torpedo.htm]Source[/url]
The Iranians claim it to be a development of the Russian weapon, so it is not entirely impossible that they possess a guided weapon.[/QUOTE]
that's the Russian one (which is still a prototype last time I checked), however I don't see a news article about a new Iranian one.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34285714]A ground assault would be unlikely however. They generate bad PR and we don't really want Iran in the first place. In all likelihood, the carriers would sit outside of missile range and sortie fighter after fighter. Adding to the overall destruction. [/QUOTE]
I'd imagine that we'd just launch conventional explosives and bomb the everlasting hell out of them, you know, like we did Japan before we the Manhattan Project was finished
But I am no military strategist so there could be issues or complications with that that I'm unaware of
[editline]18th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Marbalo;34285831]I somehow doubt Iranian analysts aren't fully aware of the magnitude of the US forces. Probably more so than you or me or anyone on Facepunch.
The thing Im trying to understand is if they're aware of the force, [I]why[/I] would they wave their dicks about in your faces. That's like asking for a bear to maul your face, unless you have something up your sleeve that would fuck up said bear, which is what I am assuming Iran possesses.[/QUOTE]
Like what?
Assuming that we're thinking in conventional terms they'd really need some sort of major technological achievement to match the US military in any way
[QUOTE=Marbalo;34285831]The thing Im trying to understand is if they're aware of the force, [I]why[/I] would they wave their dicks about in your faces. That's like asking for a bear to maul your face, unless you have something up your sleeve that would fuck up said bear, which is what I am assuming Iran possesses.[/QUOTE]
politics, they know they won't do it. They're just saying they can for the hell of it, perhaps to get us a little scared, to make them seem more hawkish than they might actually be.
going with the bear analogies going on, it's like how bears stand up on their hind legs to make themselves look bigger.
Gaddafi was doing the same thing in the 1980s. He didn't get his ass ganked, he just got bombed a little bit.
Yet he was threatening an essential campaign of terror on the US.
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;34285836]I'd imagine that we'd just launch conventional explosives and bomb the everlasting hell out of them, you know, like we did Japan before we the Manhattan Project was finished
But I am no military strategist so there could be issues or complications with that that I'm unaware of[/QUOTE]
Offtopic, but an interesting thing in that regard.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were each avoided entirely by conventional bombers. Despite being large population centers and prime targets.
The reason for this was that the Manhattan project scientists asked the military to not bomb them in order to get a better idea of how much damage the nukes would actually do.
Nasty bit of science there.
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;34285836]
Like what?
Assuming that we're thinking in conventional terms they'd really need some sort of major technological achievement to match the US military in any way[/QUOTE]
dirty bombs?
more a weapon of terror than war, but they would have a rather effective psychological effect.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34285862]Offtopic, but an interesting thing in that regard.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were each avoided entirely by conventional bombers. Despite being large population centers and prime targets.
The reason for this was that the Manhattan project scientists asked the military to not bomb them in order to get a better idea of how much damage the nukes would actually do.
Nasty bit of science there.[/QUOTE]
I remember reading about that, at least we honestly can say that the use of those bombs clearly demonstrated to the world that nuclear weapons are not something to take lightly
[editline]18th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;34285872]dirty bombs?
more a weapon of terror than war, but they would have a rather effective psychological effect.[/QUOTE]
Dirty bombs could work if you wanted to make sure no one lived in the ruins of the cities for thousands of years, though I wonder if those can legally be used in conventional warfare
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.