Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

3153 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 May 2014 at 6:27 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



128 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-06 03:58:59 PM  
Well duh.

I bet they also target American soldiers, tanks, and fighter jets.
 
2014-05-06 04:48:06 PM  
FTA: Tasnim, another semi-official news agency close to the Guard, reported that "an investigation" has found that the Nimitz-class carriers used by the U.S. could be seriously damaged or destroyed if 24 missiles were fired simultaneously.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-05-06 05:11:14 PM  
Of course, when your entire command, control, and communications infrastructure is destroyed within hours of war breaking out, it makes it much more difficult to coordinate those 24 missiles.

You may get one cheap shot in, but if you sink or seriously damage a carrier I'd expect the combined US military forces to set new records for amount of ordinance dropped in the following days.
 
2014-05-06 05:28:34 PM  

pizen: FTA: Tasnim, another semi-official news agency close to the Guard, reported that "an investigation" has found that the Nimitz-class carriers used by the U.S. could be seriously damaged or destroyed if 24 missiles were fired simultaneously.

[i.imgur.com image 520x346]


Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-05-06 06:29:18 PM  
Isn't the Iranian Navy just two ships now? One of which can't even really sail out very far?
 
2014-05-06 06:30:00 PM  
Well thats not fair!
 
2014-05-06 06:31:01 PM  
Not so bad considering the entire country of Iran is also a target in case of a war.
 
2014-05-06 06:32:39 PM  
Seems to me Adm. Romero would see the obvious outcome of firing on a US ship.
 
2014-05-06 06:33:44 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Isn't the Iranian Navy just two ships now? One of which can't even really sail out very far?


You don't have to sail very far when you can reset time.

www.hdwallpapers.in
 
2014-05-06 06:34:53 PM  
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.
 
2014-05-06 06:36:10 PM  
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.
 
2014-05-06 06:36:17 PM  

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.
 
2014-05-06 06:36:44 PM  
I think they took the video down, but they used to have one on YouTube with a female narrator talking about the modern and advanced Islamic Iranian Navy's submarine force, while the video showed some very nice wooden models of submarines on Lucite stands in a small gallery.

Even when it was up, comments had been disabled for this video by the request of the video's poster.

I pray for the men on our fifteen Nimitz-class carriers that have to operate in fear of these wooden models.
 
2014-05-06 06:36:54 PM  
So.. do these exercises take the escort ships into account? You know, like Aegis cruisers?
 
2014-05-06 06:40:10 PM  

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.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-05-06 06:40:31 PM  

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
 
2014-05-06 06:43:18 PM  
Hey Iran: All your base are belong to us.

Over.
 
2014-05-06 06:43:22 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Of course, when your entire command, control, and communications infrastructure is destroyed within hours of war breaking out, it makes it much more difficult to coordinate those 24 missiles.


I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss
 
2014-05-06 06:45:23 PM  
And  Caffienatedjedininjaed me ;(
 
2014-05-06 06:46:48 PM  

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


So you are saying that attacking a US carrier battle group would be something akin to a twelve year old boy prodding a nest of stinging insects with some sort of stick or branch?  A "hornets' nest" as it were?
 
2014-05-06 06:46:50 PM  

phalamir: I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss


The reason they were able to were largely due to rules of engagement, which have since been tweaked following that and the USS Cole incident
 
2014-05-06 06:47:13 PM  
Someone had better tell the president.
 
2014-05-06 06:47:52 PM  

phalamir: TuteTibiImperes: Of course, when your entire command, control, and communications infrastructure is destroyed within hours of war breaking out, it makes it much more difficult to coordinate those 24 missiles.

I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss

Boobiesie Poot and now Iran, is there no scumbag dictator you right wing "patriots" won't swoon over hoss?
 
2014-05-06 06:48:15 PM  

phalamir: TuteTibiImperes: Of course, when your entire command, control, and communications infrastructure is destroyed within hours of war breaking out, it makes it much more difficult to coordinate those 24 missiles.

I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss


They obviously haven't read Clancy's "Executive Orders" or seen the movie "Deterrence".
 
2014-05-06 06:51:10 PM  

phalamir: TuteTibiImperes: Of course, when your entire command, control, and communications infrastructure is destroyed within hours of war breaking out, it makes it much more difficult to coordinate those 24 missiles.

I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss


And as I recall, Iran has a bunch of speed boats and are working on ground-effect craft to do exactly that. Plus their little diesel subs can operate in the gulf just fine because of the noise of traffic there. They can do some damage too.
 
2014-05-06 06:51:19 PM  

ScaryBottles: phalamir: TuteTibiImperes: Of course, when your entire command, control, and communications infrastructure is destroyed within hours of war breaking out, it makes it much more difficult to coordinate those 24 missiles.

I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss
Boobiesie Poot and now Iran, is there no scumbag dictator you right wing "patriots" won't swoon over hoss?


Well that was a strange filter conversion.
 
2014-05-06 06:52:25 PM  

cgraves67: phalamir: TuteTibiImperes: Of course, when your entire command, control, and communications infrastructure is destroyed within hours of war breaking out, it makes it much more difficult to coordinate those 24 missiles.

I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss

And as I recall, Iran has a bunch of speed boats and are working on ground-effect craft to do exactly that. Plus their little diesel subs can operate in the gulf just fine because of the noise of traffic there. They can do some damage too.


And we now have some very effective littoral subs and surface craft,
 
2014-05-06 06:53:06 PM  

ScaryBottles: ScaryBottles: phalamir: TuteTibiImperes: Of course, when your entire command, control, and communications infrastructure is destroyed within hours of war breaking out, it makes it much more difficult to coordinate those 24 missiles.

I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss
Boobiesie Poot and now Iran, is there no scumbag dictator you right wing "patriots" won't swoon over hoss?

Well that was a strange filter conversion.


No shiat.
 
2014-05-06 06:53:39 PM  

ScaryBottles: Boobiesie Poot


Now that's an amusing filterpwn.

/Postie-Poot?
 
2014-05-06 06:54:00 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.


If you read up on it yourself you would see it required huge logical leaps for the Iranians to win, such as instant resupply.
 
2014-05-06 06:55:15 PM  

The Bestest: So.. do these exercises take the escort ships into account? You know, like Aegis cruisers?


I'm guessing they're looking to simulate the size of a carrier, like a "could we hit the side of a barn" test with a really big barn. Adding 40 support ships, 150 piloted aircraft, and 500 aerial and underwater drones firing at them would be really distracting, and isn't a fair test of whether they can hit a solitary anchored barge that's a third of a kilometer long.
 
2014-05-06 06:57:23 PM  
Iran's first target would be the oil tankers and freighters. Then, when NATO has to run convoys through the Strait of Hormuz, things get a little more hairy. They can lob missiles from mobile batteries from their side or send out small craft full of explosives. It'll be greasy but Iran can't win. Each NATO navy has been training for this ever since their revolution and especially since the fall of communism. They're ready. On another note, this would be an interesting time for Iran to do something with Russia being stupid on the other side of the Black Sea. Sounds like something Tom Clancy would think up.
 
2014-05-06 06:58:02 PM  

The Bestest: phalamir: I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss

The reason they were able to were largely due to rules of engagement, which have since been tweaked following that and the USS Cole incident


No.  He bested them fair and square.  Then they refloated the fleet and had him stick to a script because he didn't stick to the rules of engagement.

BTW the "rules of engagement" are "beat the other guy", not "what's printed ont he inside lid of Candyland".

ScaryBottles: phalamir: TuteTibiImperes: Of course, when your entire command, control, and communications infrastructure is destroyed within hours of war breaking out, it makes it much more difficult to coordinate those 24 missiles.

I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss
Boobiesie Poot and now Iran, is there no scumbag dictator you right wing "patriots" won't swoon over hoss?


I'm a just-short-of-atheist, pro-choice, anti-imperialist college professor.  I'm about as far from right-wing as you can get - I think the Democrats are horribly conservative fascist traitors to the US fer fark's sake.*  I've never though of "don't get cocky; people not born in the US can be clever too" as a right-wing position, but evidently you consider American-exceptionalism-laced nativist bigotry is the lefty creed.

* And I'm getting more radical as I go on.  I have told my wife she will have to use my first Social Security check to bail me out of jail for firebombing the Republican National Convention; she didn't laugh, but nodded resignedly.
 
2014-05-06 06:59:08 PM  

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.
 
2014-05-06 07:02:01 PM  

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.
 
2014-05-06 07:02:17 PM  
Even Yamamoto was smart enough to qualify his support for an attack on American carriers.
 
2014-05-06 07:04:55 PM  

Omnivorous: Even Yamamoto was smart enough to qualify his support for an attack on American carriers.


And that was when they had 1/10 the capabilities they have today.
 
2014-05-06 07:05:33 PM  
phalamir: I'm a just-short-of-atheist, pro-choice, anti-imperialist college professor.  I'm about as far from right-wing as you can get - I think the Democrats are horribly conservative fascist traitors to the US fer fark's sake.*  I've never though of "don't get cocky; people not born in the US can be clever too" as a right-wing position, but evidently you consider American-exceptionalism-laced nativist bigotry is the lefty creed.

Really because you sound just like all the derps around here who have congealed themselves into the Vladimir Putin fan club just swapping out Russia for Iran.
 
2014-05-06 07:06:01 PM  
Sounds like a scrawny 27 year old douchebag saying if a bar fight ever broke out he'd beat up a group of UFC fighters.
 
2014-05-06 07:07:28 PM  

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?
 
2014-05-06 07:08:49 PM  

BMFPitt: Sounds like a scrawny 27 year old douchebag saying if a bar fight ever broke out he'd beat up a group of UFC fighters.


The scrawny 27 year old douchebag might get a hit or two in on the UFU guys but God help him after that.
 
2014-05-06 07:09:57 PM  

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?


Neither we or they have any idea where those subs are.
 
2014-05-06 07:12:14 PM  

sdd2000: I meant to make it clear that it would be the cruise missiles not the destroyers and attack subs that would rain down.


If a much of destroyers and subs started falling from the sky, that would definitely throw them off balance.
 
2014-05-06 07:13:56 PM  

BMFPitt: Sounds like a scrawny 27 year old douchebag saying if a bar fight ever broke out he'd beat up a group of UFC fighters.


The mma fighters are the biggest pussies, target the biggest douchbag who thinks going to play fight in underwear with other guys once a week makes him great at street fighting. Then watch the others run away. The pack mentality is too strong and they don't know what to do.
 
2014-05-06 07:14:59 PM  
Prof. Phalamir, the only way the Iranians would have a decent shot at sinking a carrier would be if they were able to surprise it. Given the fact that, if we were to go to war with Iran, there would probably be some build up of "incidents" before we took action, I think a surprise attack would be a little far fetched. Consider , too, that if we were planning to attack Iran we'd strike their command and control , any and all forces on the ground or in port capable of attacking our ships, and obliterate their air arm in the first days of the "war".
Add to that the fact that we have the acoustic signature of every submarine they have, so we'd be able to find them fairly quickly if they even made it out to sea. They might get lucky; but that's all it would be, luck.
 
2014-05-06 07:16:27 PM  

shanteyman: Prof. Phalamir, the only way the Iranians would have a decent shot at sinking a carrier would be if they were able to surprise it. Given the fact that, if we were to go to war with Iran, there would probably be some build up of "incidents" before we took action, I think a surprise attack would be a little far fetched. Consider , too, that if we were planning to attack Iran we'd strike their command and control , any and all forces on the ground or in port capable of attacking our ships, and obliterate their air arm in the first days of the "war".
Add to that the fact that we have the acoustic signature of every submarine they have, so we'd be able to find them fairly quickly if they even made it out to sea. They might get lucky; but that's all it would be, luck.


Thank you.
 
2014-05-06 07:16:58 PM  
I love the picture of the Iranian "navy" in the article.

If your navy consists of speedboats and machine guns I am pretty sure that the US warships will make it home ok.
 
2014-05-06 07:17:49 PM  

vonster: The scrawny 27 year old douchebag might get a hit or two in on the UFU guys but God help him after that.


And in a real war with Iran, rather than a sucker punch like Pearl Harbor, the action would probably be preceded by yelling, "Come at me, bro!" which would negate most of the probability of landing the first punch.
 
2014-05-06 07:19:21 PM  

AlgaeRancher: I love the picture of the Iranian "navy" in the article.

If your navy consists of speedboats and machine guns I am pretty sure that the US warships will make it home ok.


The Cole incident was the result of complacency. Not likely in a hot war.
 
2014-05-06 07:20:37 PM  

vonster: BMFPitt: Sounds like a scrawny 27 year old douchebag saying if a bar fight ever broke out he'd beat up a group of UFC fighters.

The scrawny 27 year old douchebag might get a hit or two in on the UFU guys but God help him after that.


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
 
2014-05-06 07:22:16 PM  

PackofJokers: vonster: BMFPitt: Sounds like a scrawny 27 year old douchebag saying if a bar fight ever broke out he'd beat up a group of UFC fighters.

The scrawny 27 year old douchebag might get a hit or two in on the UFU guys but God help him after that.

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


No country really believes they could beat America in a fight based on the defense spending numbers alone. Countries would back down and force America to occupy and fight in cities. That is what they learned to do when starting wars against Israel.
 
2014-05-06 07:24:36 PM  
FTFA: "Aircraft carriers are the symbol of America's military might," he said. "The carriers are responsible for supplying America's air power. So, it's natural that we want to sink the carriers."

Well yeah, they are one "symbol of America's military might"
But I wouldn't say they are the "symbol of America's military might"

For Instance:
img.fark.net

or

img.fark.net

And these are just the ones you can see ;)
 
2014-05-06 07:24:48 PM  
"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."
 
2014-05-06 07:24:58 PM  
www.realclear.com

*What the Iranian Navy targeting US ships has never looked like.
 
2014-05-06 07:25:07 PM  

PackofJokers: vonster: BMFPitt: Sounds like a scrawny 27 year old douchebag saying if a bar fight ever broke out he'd beat up a group of UFC fighters.

The scrawny 27 year old douchebag might get a hit or two in on the UFU guys but God help him after that.

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


Who wants to invade???

Sorry to cite a movie but has anyone seen "Deterrence" with Kevin Pollack????
 
2014-05-06 07:25:27 PM  
I like the Hicks strategy...

Nuke them from space... It's the only way to be sure...
 
2014-05-06 07:27:38 PM  
Latest photos of the Iranian Navy:

sfiles.d1g.com
 
2014-05-06 07:28:45 PM  
You're Welcome !
 
2014-05-06 07:29:49 PM  

phalamir: TuteTibiImperes: Of course, when your entire command, control, and communications infrastructure is destroyed within hours of war breaking out, it makes it much more difficult to coordinate those 24 missiles.

I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss


The ability to destroy an aircraft carrier is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

/I find your lack of faith disturbing
 
2014-05-06 07:34:25 PM  

doglover: pizen: FTA: Tasnim, another semi-official news agency close to the Guard, reported that "an investigation" has found that the Nimitz-class carriers used by the U.S. could be seriously damaged or destroyed if 24 missiles were fired simultaneously.

[i.imgur.com image 520x346]

Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]


You know, you can Ctrl+V every now and then, too...
 
2014-05-06 07:35:06 PM  

phalamir: TuteTibiImperes: Of course, when your entire command, control, and communications infrastructure is destroyed within hours of war breaking out, it makes it much more difficult to coordinate those 24 missiles.

I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss


The other thing is there maybe technologies coupled with unusual tactics that no one anticipates at all. As my BBC documentary assured me, that combination quite often results in one-sided slaughter, ala machine gun versus infantry.

For instance, the average depth of the Persian Gulf is 50m. The deepest depth is 90m. Now there's a reason why Mythbusters wasn't allowed to use explosives on an overcast day. Study it out.
 
2014-05-06 07:37:15 PM  

Persnickety: The ability to destroy an aircraft carrier is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

/I find your lack of faith disturbing



ACK! GACK!

Enough of this!  Vader, Release him!
 
2014-05-06 07:39:04 PM  

vonster: Omnivorous: Even Yamamoto was smart enough to qualify his support for an attack on American carriers.

And that was when they had 1/10 the capabilities they have today



1/10th? Methinks you need to consider a decimal shift.
 
2014-05-06 07:39:16 PM  

lacrossestar83: doglover: pizen: FTA: Tasnim, another semi-official news agency close to the Guard, reported that "an investigation" has found that the Nimitz-class carriers used by the U.S. could be seriously damaged or destroyed if 24 missiles were fired simultaneously.

[i.imgur.com image 520x346]

Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]

You know, you can Ctrl+V every now and then, too...


*plugs in X-Box 360 Controller for Windows and presses right trigger two dozen times*
 
2014-05-06 07:41:22 PM  

mjones71822: Babies right? It's totally babies.


www.subotage.com

Babies man, we just babies.
 
2014-05-06 07:42:52 PM  

Poot beer: vonster: Omnivorous: Even Yamamoto was smart enough to qualify his support for an attack on American carriers.

And that was when they had 1/10 the capabilities they have today


1/10th? Methinks you need to consider a decimal shift.


You're probably right.
 
2014-05-06 07:43:53 PM  
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.
 
2014-05-06 07:45:11 PM  

doglover: 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.

[24.media.tumblr.com image 612x612]


This may be a stupid question, but what is that from?
 
2014-05-06 07:45:36 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.


Funny, that was my first thought.
 
2014-05-06 07:46:21 PM  

phalamir: The Bestest: phalamir: I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss

The reason they were able to were largely due to rules of engagement, which have since been tweaked following that and the USS Cole incident

No.  He bested them fair and square.  Then they refloated the fleet and had him stick to a script because he didn't stick to the rules of engagement.

BTW the "rules of engagement" are "beat the other guy", not "what's printed ont he inside lid of Candyland".


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.
 
2014-05-06 07:46:35 PM  

lacrossestar83: doglover: pizen: FTA: Tasnim, another semi-official news agency close to the Guard, reported that "an investigation" has found that the Nimitz-class carriers used by the U.S. could be seriously damaged or destroyed if 24 missiles were fired simultaneously.

[i.imgur.com image 520x346]

Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C Ctrl+C

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]

You know, you can Ctrl+V every now and then, too...


D'oh.
 
2014-05-06 07:48:27 PM  
I'd prefer it if we'd try not to go to war with every country in the Middle East.
 
2014-05-06 07:49:04 PM  

kazrak: phalamir: The Bestest: phalamir: I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss

The reason they were able to were largely due to rules of engagement, which have since been tweaked following that and the USS Cole incident

No.  He bested them fair and square.  Then they refloated the fleet and had him stick to a script because he didn't stick to the rules of engagement.

BTW the "rules of engagement" are "beat the other guy", not "what's printed ont he inside lid of Candyland".

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? ...


I'm just thinking of the effectiveness of just 1 auto 5" gun on 1 destroyer against small craft not to mention CWIS.
 
2014-05-06 07:57:33 PM  

MayoSlather: I'd prefer it if we'd try not to go to war with every country in the Middle East.


I agree with that too.
 
2014-05-06 07:57:46 PM  
pew pew pew

previous.presstv.ir
 
2014-05-06 07:59:49 PM  
Maybe this wasn't a comedy piece but I just couldn't stop laughing all the way through.

Thanks for that.  I needed it.
 
2014-05-06 08:01:22 PM  

vonster: BMFPitt: Sounds like a scrawny 27 year old douchebag saying if a bar fight ever broke out he'd beat up a group of UFC fighters.

The scrawny 27 year old douchebag might get a hit or two in on the UFU guys but God help him after that.


Actually a more realistic comparison is the scrawny guy with a 9mm and ufc guys with bazookas. He'll lose for sure but may still kill or severely injured a guy or two.
 
2014-05-06 08:02:07 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: pew pew pew

[previous.presstv.ir image 650x365]


We underestimated Japan. We're a little smarter now.
 
2014-05-06 08:03:08 PM  
Someone needs to let the Iranians know that the feeling is mutual.
 
2014-05-06 08:04:30 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: vonster: BMFPitt: Sounds like a scrawny 27 year old douchebag saying if a bar fight ever broke out he'd beat up a group of UFC fighters.

The scrawny 27 year old douchebag might get a hit or two in on the UFU guys but God help him after that.

Actually a more realistic comparison is the scrawny guy with a 9mm and ufc guys with bazookas. He'll lose for sure but may still kill or severely injured a guy or two.


That's what I meant
 
2014-05-06 08:05:19 PM  

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.
 
2014-05-06 08:07:18 PM  

vonster: cannotsuggestaname: pew pew pew

[previous.presstv.ir image 650x365]

We underestimated Japan. We're a little smarter now.


That's funny 'cause the image is what is considered "current" for Iran.

/for reals
 
2014-05-06 08:07:51 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: pew pew pew


img.fark.net

I remember that ride at Disneyland. It was right next to the sky buckets in Tomorrowland.
 
2014-05-06 08:08:59 PM  

Poot beer: vonster: cannotsuggestaname: pew pew pew

[previous.presstv.ir image 650x365]

We underestimated Japan. We're a little smarter now.

That's funny 'cause the image is what is considered "current" for Iran.

/for reals


Even so....
 
2014-05-06 08:13:05 PM  

phalamir: TuteTibiImperes: Of course, when your entire command, control, and communications infrastructure is destroyed within hours of war breaking out, it makes it much more difficult to coordinate those 24 missiles.

I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss


You know that officer had a big goofy grin on his face for weeks.
 
2014-05-06 08:13:44 PM  

Danger Avoid Death: cannotsuggestaname: pew pew pew



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


Are you sure those aren't from the Pirates of the Caribbean ride?

/ I loved that ride the two times we went to Disney world in the 80's; I hear that it is currently infested by Capt. Jack Tonto
 
2014-05-06 08:15:19 PM  
"The carriers are responsible for supplying America's air power. So, it's natural that we want to sink the carriers."

I guess he learned that from WW2 documentaries about the S. Pacific. Modern carriers are even harder to sink. You can put a whole bunch of holes in them, destroy the flight deck and the buggers will still float because they're so compartmentalized.

I watched a show where an old WW2 carrier was being sunk as an artificial reef and the demolition crew had to take days opening every hatch, cutting through hull supports and build frames in specific spots to place explosives on to punch big. square holes in the hull.

Even the supervisor said those old ships were designed not to sink. Imagine a modern aircraft carrier, using an assortment of new materials, all buttoned up for action. I believe there was a shot to shiat US carrier at Bikini Atoll when they did that nuke test with all of those captured warships.

It survived the blast. It did sink, but it took several days for it to do so.

Now, I did watch a video of a Russian warship gunning down Somali pirates, using one of those new automated, gatling guns which can shoot missiles out of the air.

They missed.

Several times.

Then the gun jammed and had to be fixed. By the time it got going again, the sailors were lined up along the rail, firing at the pirates with machine guns. They finally finished them off with the gatling gun, which actually did an impressive job.

Besides, after Korea, Vietnam and the 'iffy' Middle Eastern war, if the US has to go to battle again, I suspect we're going to want a clear cut victory, meaning if it gets dragged out too long, nukes might be deployed. It could be time for an object lesson.

After all, it seems every other nation these days just has to rattle sabers at the US, threaten and posture and cry over the military drones, since we don't send in battalions of soldiers, which they can shoot at, to get just a few guys.
 
2014-05-06 08:19:19 PM  
Iran's front-line offensive against America's navy:

thunderbird37.com
 
2014-05-06 08:19:37 PM  

LoneWolf343: phalamir: TuteTibiImperes: Of course, when your entire command, control, and communications infrastructure is destroyed within hours of war breaking out, it makes it much more difficult to coordinate those 24 missiles.

I realize this isn't the Iranian naval command, but about 12 years ago, the US gamed an invasion of Iran.  The US officer in charge of being Iran simply had the Iranians load explosives into Zodiacs and told them to zerg-rush the US naval vessels, but not giving any further directions.  The judges declared he ended up sinking everything in the Gulf, even accounting for the US using reasonable countermeasures.  Don't get cocky about technological superiority quite yet, hoss

You know that officer had a big goofy grin on his face for weeks.


Eh, maybe not so much.
He protested by quitting his role as commander of enemy forces, and warning that the Pentagon might wrongly conclude that its experimental tactics were working.
But you can bet the Marines cherish the hell out of that story.
 
2014-05-06 08:20:33 PM  
dl.dropboxusercontent.com

Not impressed.
 
2014-05-06 08:23:52 PM  

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 craft. Those boats are already there, so your "logistics" are canceled out by the fact that they don't have to transport a putative navy to the location.

Stop thinking like a large, coordinated, regimented military--it has gotten us in trouble before. Think like a small, weak, semi-insurgent force. They don't get a lot of marked armored PT-style boats; they commandeer fishing boats, rowboats with outboards, Boston Whalers, and hand everyone on board a couple AK-47's and fill the thing with Semtex. They don't need high-tech communications systems, they just pass out a bunch of burner cellphones and cheap Chinese wristwatches and give everyone a strike time. You tell your suicide attackers they're getting their 72 virgins when the attack succeeds, and make sure at least one guy on board is fanatical enough to kill the others if they look like chickening out.

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.
 
2014-05-06 08:25:14 PM  

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.


Pearl Harbor was a pre-emptive sucker punch; in the Revolutionary Guard's fantasies, we're the aggressor and they send us home with a bloody nose. Think more along the lines of Bay of Pigs in '61, or Mogadishu in '93.
 
2014-05-06 08:26:33 PM  
If they tried firing one farking missile or rocket at us the Iranian fleet would end up Persian in awful pain and bloodshed.
 
2014-05-06 08:35:51 PM  

shanteyman: Prof. Phalamir, the only way the Iranians would have a decent shot at sinking a carrier would be if they were able to surprise it. Given the fact that, if we were to go to war with Iran, there would probably be some build up of "incidents" before we took action, I think a surprise attack would be a little far fetched. Consider , too, that if we were planning to attack Iran we'd strike their command and control , any and all forces on the ground or in port capable of attacking our ships, and obliterate their air arm in the first days of the "war".
Add to that the fact that we have the acoustic signature of every submarine they have, so we'd be able to find them fairly quickly if they even made it out to sea. They might get lucky; but that's all it would be, luck.


That's what I was thinking.  If they pulled a Pearl Harbor style sneak attack, they might damage or even sink a big ship (I doubt they'd be able to get close enough to a carrier, but who knows).

Otherwise, in a planned invasion, they'd notice they were being invaded as their missile embankments, AA batteries, communications centers, and ports all started blowing up simultaneously courtesy of planes they never saw on radar.
 
2014-05-06 08:37:38 PM  
Iran has a navy? Gtfo I learned something new today.
 
2014-05-06 08:45:17 PM  

Bob Robert: PackofJokers: vonster: BMFPitt: Sounds like a scrawny 27 year old douchebag saying if a bar fight ever broke out he'd beat up a group of UFC fighters.

The scrawny 27 year old douchebag might get a hit or two in on the UFU guys but God help him after that.

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

No country really believes they could beat America in a fight based on the defense spending numbers alone. Countries would back down and force America to occupy and fight in cities. That is what they learned to do when starting wars against Israel.


And hopefully if we ever get involved in a conflict over there again we learn not to play that game.  We won the war in Iraq within the first three months.  The years that followed were just a failed experiment in nation building.  Go in, do the job, and leave.  It will take decades for anything resembling a threat to emerge from the rubble, and we could even embed CIA teams in the area to steer things in the direction we wanted and/or take out anyone gaining power that seems problematic.
 
2014-05-06 08:48:56 PM  
So...did they forget about our submarines?
 
2014-05-06 08:50:44 PM  
 
2014-05-06 08:51:09 PM  
No shiat.   also do you we would move any of our ships in range of those small boats with out planning for how to stop them?

I would think one of the opening moves would be a strike by drones or cruise missiles  to blow the ever loving fark out of what Iran calls a navy.

We could always go old school and mine the harbors and while the Iranians struggle to remove the mines we blow up there boats.
 
2014-05-06 09:15:56 PM  

Rik01: Even the supervisor said those old ships were designed not to sink. Imagine a modern aircraft carrier, using an assortment of new materials, all buttoned up for action. I believe there was a shot to shiat US carrier at Bikini Atoll when they did that nuke test with all of those captured warships.


They should have used an iceberg.
 
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 128 of 128 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report