Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Possible false flag torpedo attacks on US carriers in the Persian gulf.

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    stuar wrote: »
    CHINA PROGRAM TOUTS ITS ABILITY TO SINK US AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/china-testing-ballistic-missile-carrier-killer/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+(Wired%3A+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))

    And if not countered properly, this and other “asymmetric” systems — ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, torpedoes and sea mines — could potentially threaten U.S. operations in the western Pacific, as well as in the Persian Gulf

    A quote from that piece ...... Thats the whole problem in your theory imo ... The Us is well capable of countering anything Iran throws at them ....
    stuar wrote: »
    well heres a few sunk a little longer than 50 years ago, but you know weapons have come a long way since then.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_aircraft_carriers

    So did the strategy and tactics to protect carriers (they are the command centres )


  • Options
    #33
    Tzar Chasm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,069 ✭✭✭Tzar Chasm


    This would be truly Asymetric Warfare if the Iranians could sink a ten billion dollar Carriers with a ten thousand dollar truck. if the Iranians were to attack a Carrier I have no doubt that they would sink it, if the Americans have this fancy defense system then they might not hit with the first shot or even the hundreth shot, but eventually the americans wll run out ammo.


  • Options
    #34
    stuar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭stuar


    Uproar after Jewish American newspaper publisher suggests Israel assassinate Barack Obama

    NEW YORK - The owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, Andrew Adler, has suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu consider ordering a Mossad hit team to assassinate U.S. President Barack Obama so that his successor will defend Israel against Iran.
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/uproar-after-jewish-american-newspaper-publisher-suggests-israel-assassinate-barack-obama-1.408429

    Just shows some zionists mentality, although if it were carried out the US would probably still support Israel and in 10 years time some new villan would be blamed with evidence supplied by Israel.

    Funny story all the same.


  • Options
    #35
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    stuar wrote: »
    Uproar after Jewish American newspaper publisher suggests Israel assassinate Barack Obama



    Just shows some zionists mentality, although if it were carried out the US would probably still support Israel and in 10 years time some new villan would be blamed with evidence supplied by Israel.

    Funny story all the same.
    doubt he'll get arrested as a terrorist though ... funny that if he had a turban on he'd be dead before you can say "usa f*ck yeah!!!"


  • Options
    #36
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Tzar Chasm wrote: »
    This would be truly Asymetric Warfare if the Iranians could sink a ten billion dollar Carriers with a ten thousand dollar truck. if the Iranians were to attack a Carrier I have no doubt that they would sink it, if the Americans have this fancy defense system then they might not hit with the first shot or even the hundreth shot, but eventually the americans wll run out ammo.

    hmmm

    it appears the most potent weapon the Iranians have for dealing with that situation are the sunburn anti-ship missiles, opinion seems to be divided on their effectiveness, looks like the carrier group as a whole has the countermeasures to deal with them

    I think Iran would most likely focus elsewhere, softer targets


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    stuar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭stuar


    davoxx wrote: »
    doubt he'll get arrested as a terrorist though ... funny that if he had a turban on he'd be dead before you can say "usa f*ck yeah!!!"

    http://www.google.com/m?client=mobile-skyfire&q=man+arrested+for+threatening+barack+obama&spell=1&ei=tW8cT9D0CMzpjgeuwgE&ved=0CAcQvwUoAA


  • Options
    #38
    Jaafa
    Registered Users Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    hmmm

    it appears the most potent weapon the Iranians have for dealing with that situation are the sunburn anti-ship missiles, opinion seems to be divided on their effectiveness, looks like the carrier group as a whole has the countermeasures to deal with them

    I think Iran would most likely focus elsewhere, softer targets

    I honestly believe Iran would target the carrier above all else in the the event of a war. Think about it this way.

    Even if Iran had to throw every single small boat, sub, anti ship missile, drone, and say 50% of it's cruise/ballistic missiles at the carrier, the financial cost of those losses would still outweigh the cost of just that one ship. Then factor in the human cost, over 5000 servicemen are aboard one of these carriers. When is the last time the US lost even close to 5000 men in a single day?

    Even factoring in the loss of all Iranian surface vessels as retaliation (which aren't many tbh), the benefit to Iran would still be significant, in terms of military and propaganda.

    Attacking soft targets would make no sense, your more likely to kill civilians and the damage is easily repaired compared to a Super-carrier and you'd still lose all your surface vessels in retaliation. I think the Iranian mentality would be to go for broke.


  • Options
    #39
    maddragon
    Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭maddragon


    Danpad wrote: »
    I don't even think it's much of a CT now, it's going to happen. If Iraq(1+2), Afghanistan, and all of the Arab 'spontaneous uprisings' (I know, sounds silly when you say it out loud doesn't it!) are anything to go by, the untied nations of USA, UK and Israel are itching to reduce Iran back to the stone age and can't wait to do so.

    As soon as the other chess pieces are on board, coerced and assured slices of the pie the end game will commence.

    By the way, I intially spelled 'united' wrong and then looked at it. I thought it quite apt to leave the word as it is.

    Time to stock up on coal and briquettes I think.

    Which is why I am filling a 3000 litre diesel tank so I can still drive when it happens...


  • Options
    #40
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    Jaafa wrote: »
    Even factoring in the loss of all Iranian surface vessels as retaliation (which aren't many tbh), the benefit to Iran would still be significant, in terms of military and propaganda.

    Do you really think that they only retaliate by attacking some surface vessels ?

    1 Military benefit is none existent (because they would be wiped off the face of the earth by Tomahawks and other missiles)

    2 What propaganda ?? there will be nothing left to broadcast their propaganda ... besides smoke signals


  • Options
    #41
    Jaafa
    Registered Users Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    weisses wrote: »
    Do you really think that they only retaliate by attacking some surface vessels ?

    1 Military benefit is none existent (because they would be wiped off the face of the earth by Tomahawks and other missiles)

    2 What propaganda ?? there will be nothing left to broadcast their propaganda ... besides smoke signals

    Don't be so dramatic, wiped off the face of the earth? Get real.This isn't Iraq or Afghanistan, this is a country 3 times the size of either, with bunkers and tunnels stretching hundreds of kilometers. Anything of value on land would well hidden by the time they'd launch such an attack.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    Jaafa wrote: »
    Don't be so dramatic, wiped off the face of the earth? Get real.This isn't Iraq or Afghanistan, this is a country 3 times the size of either, with bunkers and tunnels stretching hundreds of kilometers. Anything of value on land would well hidden by the time they'd launch such an attack.

    There is Nothing dramatic about that scenario

    Iran is on the radar for a long time now ..US knows where to hit and have the capabilities to do so fine its 3 times larger then other country's so it only takes a few minutes more for the missiles to reach their targets


  • Options
    #43
    Jaafa
    Registered Users Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    weisses wrote: »
    There is Nothing dramatic about that scenario

    Iran is on the radar for a long time now ..US knows where to hit and have the capabilities to do so fine its 3 times larger then other country's so it only takes a few minutes more for the missiles to reach their targets

    I don't depute their ability to hit targets, I just wonder how many targets they could find that are worth anything and which aren't several dozen meters below ground.

    I would also wonder about the US willing to continue a such a war after losing more men in a day than the last 10 years of Afghanistan.


  • Options
    #44
    stuar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭stuar


    Meanwhile:
    The US-based Wired magazine says Washington has stationed a special team of highly trained commandos near Iran's border for possible sabotage operations.
    http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/94738-us-posts-elite-commandos-near-iran

    Iran have known for years that US and Israeli and others crosshairs were all focused on them, they overcame sanctions and now domestically produce a lot of their own weaponry through ingenuity and reverse engineering, the number and variety are unknown.
    They are a proud nation and a lot of their military would happily be martyred, unlike their enemies.
    Iran no matter what is thrown at it will not bow down, the US and Israel are militarily stronger, but guerilla tactics can win battles and wars and that is how I see Iran fighting this one.
    Hezbollah fought Israel's superior IDF in 2006 and who went running with tails between their legs?, it wasn't Hezbollah.
    Irans homemade weaponry would be a 24/7 operation for the past so many years and the number, variety and storage locations would be enormous, so I can't ever see Iran being a walk over like the Iraqi regime, and if the US or Israel plan on putting soldiers in there the amount of returning corpse's would dwarf Iraq and Afghanistan combined.


  • Options
    #45
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,064 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    stuar wrote: »
    Here's one.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TNK0GM3OvU


    That was scuttled and sunk to form an artificial reef. It didn't exactly have any defences or put up a fight. Try again.


  • Options
    #46
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,064 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Jaafa wrote: »
    I honestly believe Iran would target the carrier above all else in the the event of a war. Think about it this way.

    Even if Iran had to throw every single small boat, sub, anti ship missile, drone, and say 50% of it's cruise/ballistic missiles at the carrier, the financial cost of those losses would still outweigh the cost of just that one ship. Then factor in the human cost, over 5000 servicemen are aboard one of these carriers. When is the last time the US lost even close to 5000 men in a single day?

    Even factoring in the loss of all Iranian surface vessels as retaliation (which aren't many tbh), the benefit to Iran would still be significant, in terms of military and propaganda.

    Attacking soft targets would make no sense, your more likely to kill civilians and the damage is easily repaired compared to a Super-carrier and you'd still lose all your surface vessels in retaliation. I think the Iranian mentality would be to go for broke.

    If there was even the remotest possibility that Iran might get close to a US carrier it would be simply moved out into the Indian Ocean well before any war kicked off. It's strike aircraft could hit deep within Iran from the Indian Ocean just as well as they could from the Gulf. People are way overestimating Iran's capability in this regard.


  • Options
    #47
    stuar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭stuar


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    That was scuttled and sunk to form an artificial reef. It didn't exactly have any defences or put up a fight. Try again.

    If war does break out, which is most likely the way things are going and Iran allows the US fleet back to Bahrain, from which there will be no escape, we'll see how many carriers hit the bottom of the Gulf.

    The way you speak of them I imagine you think they are invincible, well so was the Titanic, where's that now?
    The Iranians have sonar evading tiles on some of their subs, along with supersonic missiles that travel a few feet above water, torpedoes, and are made for shallow waters such as the strait and gulf.
    I suppose we'll soon see one way or the other.

    By the way, can you explain the defensive mechanism's these aircraft carriers have and why you think that it's almost impossible to sink one, two or more?


  • Options
    #48
    stuar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭stuar


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    If there was even the remotest possibility that Iran might get close to a US carrier it would be simply moved out into the Indian Ocean well before any war kicked off. It's strike aircraft could hit deep within Iran from the Indian Ocean just as well as they could from the Gulf. People are way overestimating Iran's capability in this regard.

    And Iranian subs can't also move stealthily through the Indian ocean because?
    And if they are in the Gulf how do they get to the Indian ocean?

    Have a read of this:
    http://www.defensereview.com/us-aircraft-carriers-vulnerable-to-attack-the-ticking-time-bomb/


  • Options
    #49
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,064 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    stuar wrote: »
    If war does break out, which is most likely the way things are going and Iran allows the US fleet back to Bahrain, from which there will be no escape, we'll see how many carriers hit the bottom of the Gulf.

    How many carriers do you think are in the Gulf? And you seem to be assuming that they operate in isolation with no support vessels,
    stuar wrote: »
    The way you speak of them I imagine you think they are invincible, well so was the Titanic, where's that now?

    Well done, comparing an early 20th Century passenger steamship to 21st century nuclear powered warships....shur let's compare them to wooden paddle boats while we're at it! :rolleyes:
    stuar wrote: »
    The Iranians have sonar evading tiles on some of their subs, along with supersonic missiles that travel a few feet above water, torpedoes, and are made for shallow waters such as the strait and gulf.
    I suppose we'll soon see one way or the other.

    The most advanced subs the Iranians have are Kilo-class Russian ones. They have 3 of those, which are based on 1970s technology. I'm pretty sure the Americans have the technology to keep tabs on those.
    stuar wrote: »
    By the way, can you explain the defensive mechanism's these aircraft carriers have and why you think that it's almost impossible to sink one, two or more?

    You do realise that carriers don't operate on their own? They are at the centre of a large group of support ships including cruisers , destroyers and subs. They also carry 60+ aircraft which tend to be pretty useful.


  • Options
    #50
    stuar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭stuar


    Sorry namloc I posted a link you obviously didn't see, it was an edit, have a read of it there brother and smell the coffee.

    http://www.boards.ie/out?f=576&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defensereview.com%2Fus-aircraft-carriers-vulnerable-to-attack-the-ticking-time-bomb%2F&h=3420f


  • Options
    #51
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    Typically a carrier strike group might have:

    a carrier - The carrier provides a wide range of options to the U.S. government from simply showing the flag to attacks on airborne, afloat and ashore targets. Because carriers operate in international waters, its aircraft do not need to secure landing rights on foreign soil. These ships also engage in sustained operations in support of other forces.

    two guided missile cruisers - multi-mission surface combatants. Equipped with Tomahawks for long-range strike capability.

    a guided missile destroyer - multi-mission suface combatant, used primarily for anti-air warfare (AAW)

    a destroyer - primarily for anti-submarine warfare (ASW)

    a frigate - primarily for anti-submarine warfare (ASW)

    two attack submarines - in a direct support role seeking out and destroying hostile surface ships and submarines

    a combined ammunition, oiler, and supply ship - provides logistic support enabling the Navy's forward presence: on station, ready to respond


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,064 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    stuar wrote: »
    Sorry namloc I posted a link you obviously didn't see, it was an edit, have a read of it there brother and smell the coffee.

    http://www.boards.ie/out?f=576&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defensereview.com%2Fus-aircraft-carriers-vulnerable-to-attack-the-ticking-time-bomb%2F&h=3420f

    Posting a link to an article that supports your own POV is all well and good but only when carriers start plunging to the bottom of the Gulf will you be right....until then "smell the coffee brother"!


  • Options
    #53
    stuar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭stuar


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Posting a link to an article that supports your own POV is all well and good but only when carriers start plunging to the bottom of the Gulf will you be right....until then "smell the coffee brother"!

    But it's a U.S. site brother, not Iranian, and they are questioning the US's defences against the missiles and torpedo's Iran currently have and manufacture.
    The conclusion on this US defence site is that with these same missiles and torpedo's the US can say goodbye to their multi billion $ super ships.

    Just read it and get up to speed on the subject before you claim Iran can't sink these big, slow super duper aircraft carriers.


  • Options
    #54
    Tzar Chasm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,069 ✭✭✭Tzar Chasm


    Sure the carrier has lots of other ships with it I presume that's why they call the collective a Carrier Group, however they don't form some mystical invincible barrier and it only takes one decent hit to sink the thing. We can presume that the americans will retaliate by bombing Iran but unless they can turn the entire country to glass in the first few minutes and maintain total dominance they will loose more ships.


  • Options
    #55
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,064 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    stuar wrote: »
    But it's a U.S. site brother, not Iranian, and they are questioning the US's defences against the missiles and torpedo's Iran currently have and manufacture.
    The conclusion on this US defence site is that with these same missiles and torpedo's the US can say goodbye to their multi billion $ super ships.

    Just read it and get up to speed on the subject before you claim Iran can't sink these big, slow super duper aircraft carriers.

    I didn't say they couldn't, its just you make it sound like it's a pretty easy task....just roll up and shoot. As I say only when carriers start sinking at the hands of the Iranians, will you be right.


  • Options
    #56
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Post on the military forum regarding this.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056525085


  • Options
    #57
    pacquiao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 465 ✭✭pacquiao


    USS Enterprise, the oldest carrier in the fleet, on her last legs, scheduled to be decommissioned next year is on her way to the Persian gulf.


  • Options
    #58
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    pacquiao wrote: »
    USS Enterprise, the oldest carrier in the fleet, on her last legs, scheduled to be decommissioned next year is on her way to the Persian gulf.

    The pieces are all falling into place.


  • Options
    #59
    stuar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭stuar


    pacquiao wrote: »
    USS Enterprise, the oldest carrier in the fleet, on her last legs, scheduled to be decommissioned next year is on her way to the Persian gulf.
    If anything happens to that ship Spock will lose the head and give Ahmadinejad a Vulcan death grip.
    Jonny7 wrote: »
    The pieces are all falling into place.

    So Jonny you think there's something to this?

    Stolen from another site:
    The oldest ship in the fleet which is scheduled for decommission making a last voyage into the powderkeg of Hormuz in mid March. The month March being derived from Mars the Roman equivalent of the Greek god Ares: the god of War.


  • Options
    #60
    stuar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭stuar


    The USS Abraham Lincoln has sailed through the strait into the Gulf without incident, French and British warships accompanied it.

    latimes.com Accompanied by British and French vessels, the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln sailed through the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday, the first transit since Iran warned American ships this year against using the strategic waterway.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    pacquiao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 465 ✭✭pacquiao


    Iran Said to Seek Yen Oil Payment From India Amid Tighter Global Sanctions

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-22/iran-said-to-seek-yen-oil-payment-from-india-amid-tighter-global-sanctions.html

    The currency wars are heating up


Advertisement