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 19
    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 (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-05-06 05:11:14 PM  
5 votes:
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 07:48:27 PM  
2 votes:
I'd prefer it if we'd try not to go to war with every country in the Middle East.
2014-05-06 07:14:59 PM  
2 votes:
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 07:02:17 PM  
2 votes:
Even Yamamoto was smart enough to qualify his support for an attack on American carriers.
2014-05-06 06:46:50 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:58:59 PM  
2 votes:
Well duh.

I bet they also target American soldiers, tanks, and fighter jets.
2014-05-07 10:11:08 AM  
1 votes:
The Russians have invaded Colorado!!! Yet the MSM says nothing!
img.fark.net
2014-05-06 11:28:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:55:04 PM  
1 votes:
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 09:26:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:24:36 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:16:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:12:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:06:01 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:57:23 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:43:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:43:18 PM  
1 votes:
Hey Iran: All your base are belong to us.

Over.
2014-05-06 06:36:54 PM  
1 votes:
So.. do these exercises take the escort ships into account? You know, like Aegis cruisers?
2014-05-06 06:31:01 PM  
1 votes:
Not so bad considering the entire country of Iran is also a target in case of a war.
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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