If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClear)   Adm. Romero of the Iranian Navy: US ships are a target in case of war   (realclear.com) divider line 128
    More: Obvious, Iranian Navy, ADM, Iranians, Iran, admirals, case of war, air defense systems, USS Nimitz  
•       •       •

3147 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 May 2014 at 6:27 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



128 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-06 09:19:35 PM  

Gyrfalcon: They could never win in the long run, of course; but that would be small comfort to the tens of thousands of sailors dead on board the carriers in the first round of attacks. Now, Darth Cheney and his ilk would gladly sacrifice a couple carriers full of sailors to kick-start a war with Iran; I hope other administrations are not so cold-blooded.


The thing bout that is they gota get the boats to the carrier 1st. our carrier wouldn't be with in the range of most of the type of boats you list.  by the time the carriers even though bout moving in that close we have anything that floots that is not USA destroyed.
 
2014-05-06 09:26:44 PM  

Click Click D'oh: The US Navy and Iran already did the shooting war thing once.


Thank you. Informative.

/today I learned something
 
2014-05-06 09:35:21 PM  

jumac: USA destroyed.


The Navy has a new toy that is cheap to operate  called the railgun..
Same principal as the magnetic motored "California Screamer" roller coaster at CA. Adventure at Disneyland.
Flux capacitor to the power of X.
 
2014-05-06 09:36:38 PM  

vonster: Maul555: Someone needs to let the Iranians know that the feeling is mutual.

They know. They're just like that little puke in NK. Spoiled child.


I dunno man, America waving their dick around since WWII seems like the spoiled little child who gets to use all of the toys daddy gave him.
 
2014-05-06 09:37:57 PM  

Gyrfalcon: kazrak: I'm not going to say ignore the whole thing, as I haven't read the original paper on it. Three things to consider, though, which I suspect may not have been taken into account:

1. Many rule systems don't handle large numbers of small attackers well, giving them too high an effectiveness. If any attack has a 1% chance of succeeding, then 1000 attackers gives you 10 successes on average; in practice, this may be far too high. I'd be extremely surprised if their system didn't fall into this trap somewhere, given that it probably wasn't designed to deal with thousands of suicide-bomber Zodiacs.

2. Speaking of suicide bombers - they're a lot harder to find than you'd think. Assuming 2000 ships with 2 people each, that's more suicide bombers than Japan had successful kamikaze pilots in WWII. Was that taken into account? It's easy for the leadership to say, "Our valiant warriors will throw themselves into battle with no hope of survival!" but not so easy when you're the guy sitting on top of the explosives.

3. Finally, were the logistics of the situation dealt with? "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics." Getting hundreds or thousands of small ships armed and fueled and sent out together, keeping them coordinated, and guiding them to their targets - all easy things to do in a war game but much harder to do in the real world.

Again, not saying the whole thing should be ignored, but I suspect it's not as significant a threat as you're claiming.

So, in order:

1. The whole purpose of the Millennium Challenge was to see if the US fleet could handle large numbers of small attackers. It was found that they could not.

2. That region abounds with suicide bombers, as you may recall from recent events. They don't need hundreds...but they've got them.

3. They don't need hundreds or thousands. They just need enough. Take a look at the size of the Persian Gulf, the maneuvering room needed by a Nimitz-class carrier vs. the room needed by small surface cra ...


If only the aircraft carriers had some sort of airborne defenses that could fly over and strafe/bomb such targets...
 
2014-05-06 09:46:56 PM  

Click Click D'oh: The US Navy and Iran already did the shooting war thing once.


I remember that.  The portion where the Iranian speedboats were attacking- they were moving so close in that the normal guns on the boats couldn't depress or track fast enough to get good shots so the marines went out on deck with rifles and M-60s and sank them.  I say we just turn Israel loose on them.  It saves us the hassle, and the Israelis get some payback in the process.
 
2014-05-06 09:48:43 PM  
It is of note with the Millenium Challenge, Opfor did a pre-emptive strike after recieving a US ultimatum.

The Opfor Navy were also using Radar masking techniques to hide their numbers and placement from the US Navy before their strike time, whereupon their numbers alongisde shore fired missiles overwhelmed the CIWS and sank the ships. It was basically the entirety of their navy and shore launched anti ship missiles in one strike, and they took absurdly high casualties to accomplish it. Bascially a one off shot, which makes it perfect for the excercise but not an actual war. Still, in reality dead men are dead. They can't be refloated.
 
2014-05-06 09:52:13 PM  

Caffienatedjedi: Probably best not to underestimate them. I mean, they'd never win against the US Navy but they could still kill a lot of men. Read up on the Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC202) to get the idea of what Iran could do if they had someone half competent in charge of their Armed Services.


No. Just... no.
 
2014-05-06 09:55:04 PM  
Gyrfalcon:
So, in order:

1. The whole purpose of the Millennium Challenge was to see if the US fleet could handle large numbers of small attackers. It was found that they could not.

2. That region abounds with suicide bombers, as you may recall from recent events. They don't need hundreds...but they've got them.

3. They don't need hundreds or thousands. They just need enough. Take a look at the size of the Persian Gulf, the maneuvering room needed by a Nimitz-class carrier vs. the room needed by small surface cra ...



1. No, actually. It was to look into the US fleet's command-and-control system and how it would work with some networking enhancements they were investigating. The general on the 'red' side decided to play with the game in a way that wasn't expected, and, in fact, did not test what they were trying to test. Wikipedia, so usual caveats apply: "Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected; again it should be noted, the JSAF simulation did not at that time have the suicide behaviors modeled nor the damage models of interactions of a small boat impacting a ship." In addition, the scenario as given didn't have any advance work on clearing out hostile forces before sending the fleet into the Gulf; the fleet was in the Gulf as an ultimatum was delivered.

2. Yes, I'm aware what area we're talking about. Guess how many suicide bombings there have been in the last 30 years? About 3500. 291 worldwide in 2013. There are not an infinite supply of suicide bombers, no matter how much people seem to wish there were.

3. Again - yes, you need hundreds. You throw 20 boats up against a carrier battle group, and you don't have a swarm, you have target practice. I'd guess that you need a minimum of 200 to have any chance, and that's assuming they don't know you're coming. I'm talking logistics for fueling, arming, getting boats into the water, feeding the folks on them. 200 boats in a time-on-target attack don't just happen. Randomly throwing a bunch of folks - especially ones fanatical enough to become suicide bombers - into whatever crappy boats are handy will lead to them straggling in one by one and getting picked off. You're trying to pull this off on a moving target capable of 30+knots, so you can't just hand them cellphones that won't work that far from land and watches.

Just because you're thinking like an insurgent force doesn't mean your insurgent force is going to win. And using the results of a wargame that explicitly wasn't designed to test that sort of attack to justify it doesn't help.

Now, I will say, if the Navy hasn't seriously planned for this scenario, they're a bunch of idiots, because dollars to donuts the Iranians have read the same stuff and are thinking, "Hey, maybe..."  But I bet they've got a decent idea of the actual difficulties of doing this.
 
2014-05-06 10:52:39 PM  
"... reminder of the competing viewpoints that exist at the highest levels within the Islamic Republic."


And are expected to believe they all agree Iran's nuclear capabilities are for peaceful purposes only.

Bullshiat.jpg
 
2014-05-06 10:53:03 PM  
Straight of Hormuz would be very much like Turkey/Bosporus and the British Navy in 1915. Land based canon + Tanks could really fark up civilian tanker traffic; and require lots of Marines on the beach to prevent it... Ask the Diggers about Galipoli.
 
2014-05-06 11:03:44 PM  
What about the Shkval super cavitating torpedos? Putin sold a variant to Iran. How do we defend against a 230 mph torpedo?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shkval
 
2014-05-06 11:28:29 PM  

jbrooks544: What about the Shkval super cavitating torpedos? Putin sold a variant to Iran. How do we defend against a 230 mph torpedo?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shkval


It's a potentially devastating weapon.  The key word here is potentially, as demonstrated in this, close to ten-year-old article.  In short, the Shkvals were deployed to the Soviet fleet back in the 70s and never really used in a naval warfare since.  The Russians sold a variant (meaning it probably wasn't top of the line torpedo capable of those awesome sounding 230 mph) to Iran several years back and the Iranians reverse engineered their own native made variant, called the Hoot, which they claimed was up to 230 mph performance.  Once again, that remains to be seen.  The only time the Hoot was ever fired was in a test against a dummy sub.  I would imagine if the Iranian fleet did shoot its wad with its inventory of Shkval, the Iranians would find themselves minus a fleet.
 
2014-05-06 11:37:37 PM  

Swampmaster: Straight of Hormuz would be very much like Turkey/Bosporus and the British Navy in 1915. Land based canon + Tanks could really fark up civilian tanker traffic; and require lots of Marines on the beach to prevent it... Ask the Diggers about Galipoli.


Iran doesn't have infinite tanks or artillery, nor the means to produce them quickly under severe economic sanctions should they try to flex their muscles.  They didn't have aircraft with smart bombs in 1915.
 
2014-05-06 11:42:44 PM  

kazrak: Now, I will say, if the Navy hasn't seriously planned for this scenario, they're a bunch of idiots, because dollars to donuts the Iranians have read the same stuff and are thinking, "Hey, maybe..." But I bet they've got a decent idea of the actual difficulties of doing this.


You would think that.

But I keep thinking about how both the American and British navies had convinced themselves, pre-WWII that aircraft could not, never, no way, not in a million years!, take down a battleship. And the US Navy blackballed Billy Mitchell because he insisted that yes, yes they could. Pearl Harbor and Singapore happened not too long after.

And a few years later, the American and French (and Soviet)  military convinced themselves that no way, never, nope, not in a million years! could a rag-tag insurgency ever ever ever fight an advanced Western military force armed with the highest of high-tech and bombiest of bomb tech. And it happened not once but four different times. And somewhere in there, the British thought that no way, never, nope, not in a million years! could a smaller nation--Argentina, in this case--give them more than a second's trouble over some half-frozen islands in the middle of the Antarctic Ocean.

So I am not too confident that the Navy has, in fact, thought about the likelihood of an attacked in the Persian Gulf being wildly successful, at least in the initial moments.
 
2014-05-06 11:44:24 PM  

Prey4reign: jbrooks544: What about the Shkval super cavitating torpedos? Putin sold a variant to Iran. How do we defend against a 230 mph torpedo?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shkval

It's a potentially devastating weapon.  The key word here is potentially, as demonstrated in this, close to ten-year-old article.  In short, the Shkvals were deployed to the Soviet fleet back in the 70s and never really used in a naval warfare since.  The Russians sold a variant (meaning it probably wasn't top of the line torpedo capable of those awesome sounding 230 mph) to Iran several years back and the Iranians reverse engineered their own native made variant, called the Hoot, which they claimed was up to 230 mph performance.  Once again, that remains to be seen.  The only time the Hoot was ever fired was in a test against a dummy sub.  I would imagine if the Iranian fleet did shoot its wad with its inventory of Shkval, the Iranians would find themselves minus a fleet.


All good points. I was just asking the question, since I was surprised no one had mentioned these torps. Nothing is ever a sure thing in war. It is possible that the Iranians have some effective capabilities. The naval theater in the straights area is difficult.
 
2014-05-07 12:03:43 AM  

clambam: "Iran is building a simple replica of the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz in a shipyard in the southern port of Bandar Abbas in order to be used in future Photoshop exercises, an Iranian newspaper confirmed last month."


That's adorable - like a Cargo Cult!
 
2014-05-07 12:05:34 AM  

Danger Avoid Death: cannotsuggestaname: pew pew pew

[img.fark.net image 650x365]

I remember that ride at Disneyland. It was right next to the sky buckets in Tomorrowland.


There used to be (still are?) 4 of those things you could ride in at the West Edmonton Mall.  They had plastic fish to look at underwater and pirate treasure to look at under water.
 
2014-05-07 12:09:11 AM  

Brian_of_Nazareth: Danger Avoid Death: cannotsuggestaname: pew pew pew

[img.fark.net image 650x365]

I remember that ride at Disneyland. It was right next to the sky buckets in Tomorrowland.

There used to be (still are?) 4 of those things you could ride in at the West Edmonton Mall.  They had plastic fish to look at underwater and pirate treasure to look at under water.


The Disneyland one had mermaids with starfish covering their breasts. Ouch.
 
2014-05-07 02:58:30 AM  

iheartscotch: sdd2000: sdd2000: iheartscotch: mjones71822: iheartscotch: Good luck getting close enough to a Nimitz-class carrier to fire those 24 rockets.

/ Me thinks they forgot about the usual escort of carriers; ie destroyers. Also, what the carrier actually has in her.

Babies right? It's totally babies.

No, it's F-18 super hornets. With a top speed of 1,100ish mph; the carrier could hang 200 miles out to sea and the hornets could get to Iran in 15ish minutes.

/ no, I am far too lazy to do the actual math; that would involve effort

And how many destroyers and attack subs with sea launch cruise missiles would suddenly rain down on them? The likelihood that Iran or really too many other countries could reliably find let alone attack a modern Va. class submarine is small.

I meant to make it clear that it would be the cruise missiles not the destroyers and attack subs that would rain down.

I'm sorry; I'm busy imagining a bunch of those heavy lifting an attack sub and releasing it into the waters of the gulf. Or, maybe, fit some of those big turbine things from Capt. America on them

/ I can has helosubs?


Could you imagine getting in to a shooting war with something like that? That would hilarious, until the enemy blew your helo-sub up, at least.

/I will fly my tank to victory!
//Better not be obscure
///Not on my fark, at least...
 
2014-05-07 09:21:39 AM  

Old enough to know better: PackofJokers:

The Iranians are hoping that one lucky punch will be enough to break the will of the American people. Once we start seeing our own destroyers getting towed back home on the news, suddenly we start to question if invading Iran is really worth it.
/strategy only valid if we decide it's not worth it
//results may vary

Because that strategy totally worked for Japan in '41.


And that obviously stopped them from trying, right?
 
2014-05-07 10:11:08 AM  
The Russians have invaded Colorado!!! Yet the MSM says nothing!
img.fark.net
 
2014-05-07 10:30:57 AM  
Gyrfalcon : I don't know which war you were watching in 1983, but the Falklands War was not a case of the British underestimating the Argentines, it was the other way around. The Argentine military junta did not expect the UK to expend the money and resources required to re-take the Falkland Islands. They were wrong and it cost them dearly in men, material ,and national pride. While the British lost a 4 major vessels, the Argentine Navy lost the cruiser Belgrano and a submarine caught on the surface. The British were able to maintain their naval presence in the area long enough to effect the re-capture of the islands.
 
2014-05-07 11:54:16 AM  

kazrak: Gyrfalcon:
So, in order:

1. The whole purpose of the Millennium Challenge was to see if the US fleet could handle large numbers of small attackers. It was found that they could not.

2. That region abounds with suicide bombers, as you may recall from recent events. They don't need hundreds...but they've got them.

3. They don't need hundreds or thousands. They just need enough. Take a look at the size of the Persian Gulf, the maneuvering room needed by a Nimitz-class carrier vs. the room needed by small surface cra ...


1. No, actually. It was to look into the US fleet's command-and-control system and how it would work with some networking enhancements they were investigating. The general on the 'red' side decided to play with the game in a way that wasn't expected, and, in fact, did not test what they were trying to test. Wikipedia, so usual caveats apply: "Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected; again it should be noted, the JSAF simulation did not at that time have the suicide behaviors modeled nor the damage models of interactions of a small boat impacting a ship." In addition, the scenario as given didn't have any advance work on clearing out hostile forces before sending the fleet into the Gulf; the fleet was in the Gulf as an ultimatum was delivered.

2. Yes, I'm aware what area we're talking about. Guess how many suicide bombings there have been in the last 30 years? About 3500. 291 worldwide in 2013. There are not an infinite supply of suicide bombers, no matter how much people seem to wish there were.

3. Again - yes, you need hundreds. You throw 20 boats up against a carrier battle group, and you don't have a swarm, you have target practice. I'd guess that you need a minimum of 200 to have any chance, and that's assuming they don't know you ...


Let me give you the naval analyst perspective: these exercises are there to help teach officers to think, and especially to realize our doctrine is OUR doctrine. Everyone else is likely to fight differently. And when an officer has a good, unusual idea for the red side, controllers tend to let 'em do it to throw that curve-ball. Then controllers do things to punish sloppy behavior, sloppy thinking, or sloppy adherence to procedure.

Example: I witnessed a control cell declare a DDG's helo downed because the DDG didn't deconflict the airspace before launching the VLA. So, that's right, a MK-46 torpedo downed an MH-60. You don't see idiots running around the internet talking about how our helos are vulnerable to obsolete farking torpedoes.

And people shouldn't be running around saying our fleet can be sunk by a fleet of holiday excursionists, either.
 
2014-05-07 11:58:48 AM  

Gyrfalcon: kazrak: Now, I will say, if the Navy hasn't seriously planned for this scenario, they're a bunch of idiots, because dollars to donuts the Iranians have read the same stuff and are thinking, "Hey, maybe..." But I bet they've got a decent idea of the actual difficulties of doing this.

You would think that.

But I keep thinking about how both the American and British navies had convinced themselves, pre-WWII that aircraft could not, never, no way, not in a million years!, take down a battleship. And the US Navy blackballed Billy Mitchell because he insisted that yes, yes they could. Pearl Harbor and Singapore happened not too long after.

And a few years later, the American and French (and Soviet)  military convinced themselves that no way, never, nope, not in a million years! could a rag-tag insurgency ever ever ever fight an advanced Western military force armed with the highest of high-tech and bombiest of bomb tech. And it happened not once but four different times. And somewhere in there, the British thought that no way, never, nope, not in a million years! could a smaller nation--Argentina, in this case--give them more than a second's trouble over some half-frozen islands in the middle of the Antarctic Ocean.

So I am not too confident that the Navy has, in fact, thought about the likelihood of an attacked in the Persian Gulf being wildly successful, at least in the initial moments.


That story is distorted and now only the legend is known. The Navy never thought aviation would be useless.

And the British had no illusions about their difficulties of fighting at the very edge of their logistical capabilities.
 
2014-05-07 12:00:32 PM  

jbrooks544: Prey4reign: jbrooks544: What about the Shkval super cavitating torpedos? Putin sold a variant to Iran. How do we defend against a 230 mph torpedo?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shkval

It's a potentially devastating weapon.  The key word here is potentially, as demonstrated in this, close to ten-year-old article.  In short, the Shkvals were deployed to the Soviet fleet back in the 70s and never really used in a naval warfare since.  The Russians sold a variant (meaning it probably wasn't top of the line torpedo capable of those awesome sounding 230 mph) to Iran several years back and the Iranians reverse engineered their own native made variant, called the Hoot, which they claimed was up to 230 mph performance.  Once again, that remains to be seen.  The only time the Hoot was ever fired was in a test against a dummy sub.  I would imagine if the Iranian fleet did shoot its wad with its inventory of Shkval, the Iranians would find themselves minus a fleet.

All good points. I was just asking the question, since I was surprised no one had mentioned these torps. Nothing is ever a sure thing in war. It is possible that the Iranians have some effective capabilities. The naval theater in the straights area is difficult.


If a submarine is in range with a shkval, the precise type of torpedo they use is not really the problem.
 
2014-05-07 07:34:12 PM  

vygramul: jbrooks544: Prey4reign: jbrooks544: What about the Shkval super cavitating torpedos? Putin sold a variant to Iran. How do we defend against a 230 mph torpedo?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shkval

It's a potentially devastating weapon.  The key word here is potentially, as demonstrated in this, close to ten-year-old article.  In short, the Shkvals were deployed to the Soviet fleet back in the 70s and never really used in a naval warfare since.  The Russians sold a variant (meaning it probably wasn't top of the line torpedo capable of those awesome sounding 230 mph) to Iran several years back and the Iranians reverse engineered their own native made variant, called the Hoot, which they claimed was up to 230 mph performance.  Once again, that remains to be seen.  The only time the Hoot was ever fired was in a test against a dummy sub.  I would imagine if the Iranian fleet did shoot its wad with its inventory of Shkval, the Iranians would find themselves minus a fleet.

All good points. I was just asking the question, since I was surprised no one had mentioned these torps. Nothing is ever a sure thing in war. It is possible that the Iranians have some effective capabilities. The naval theater in the straights area is difficult.

If a submarine is in range with a shkval, the precise type of torpedo they use is not really the problem.


You're assuming we'd wait for them to come to us. It's called unrestricted warfare. We'll be actively going after THEM.

Unless Bammy plays an FDR and waits for us to be attacked.
 
2014-05-08 12:49:20 AM  

vonster: You're assuming we'd wait for them to come to us. It's called unrestricted warfare. We'll be actively going after THEM.


That would be my point: if a submarine is in range with a shkval, the precise type of torpedo they use is not really the problem.
 
Displayed 28 of 128 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report