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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

  • 19-01-2012 10:29am
    #1
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭


    "Underscoring its desire to keep U.S. aircraft carriers from the Persian Gulf, a senior Iranian military commander today announced his possible plan to ambush the American fleet.

    Chalk this one up to more bluster, or part of a mounting back and forth rhetoric headed nowhere good, either way — Tehran plans to rely on its subs.

    Lieutenant Commander of the Iranian Army's Self-Sufficiency Jihad, Rear Admiral Farhad Amiri told FARS that Iran has the finest electric diesel submarines in the world, and that while the U.S. has focused on Tehran's "astonishing surface capabilities," it has forgotten about the underwater threat".

    Could this mean that Israel is getting ready to do a repeat as it has done in the past by shooting at a US ship as a false flag. It seems more likely Israel would fire on an American ship than for Iran to fire on it.


«13

Comments

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


    this was posted in another thread on this topic
    Iran Target Of ‘False Flag’ Strategy?
    Quote:
    Several warnings of an imminent “false flag” attack by the Israeli-influenced US on one of its own warships, which Several warnings of an imminent “false flag” attack by the Israeli-influenced US on one of its own warships, which will be attributed to Iran, have been reported by several reliable sources.

    In recent years “false-flag” terrorism has been utilized multiple times by US and Israeli political actors to provide pretexts for otherwise unjustifiable, anti-Islamic military excursions. The plan is to justify an all-out assault on Iran based upon a new fabricated “Pearl Harbor”.
    Perry asserts: “[an] Iranian attack on an American military vessel will serve as a justification and a pretext for a retaliatory move by the US military against the Iranian regime.” However, Perry identifies “a US aircraft carrier” as the likely target of this imagined Iranian attack.

    We beg to differ. There are major indications that the vessel of choice is to be the USS Vincennes. The fourth USS Vincennes (CG-49) is a US Navy Ticonderoga class Aegis guided missile cruiser. On July 3, 1988, the ship shot down Iran Air Flight 655 over the Persian Gulf, killing all 290 civilian passengers on board, including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children.

    This would be an ideal vessel for the staged provocation as it could be easily sold to the world as having been Iranian retribution for the 1988 downing of Flight 655. That way the evident lack of motive for Iran to provoke the US and Israeli military will be replaced by a perceived “motive.” No one will stop to ask themselves why Iran would thereby engage itself in a major war.

    Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Joshua Blakeney is a graduate student at the University of Lethbridge, member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Staff Writer at Veterans Today.

    http://www.eurasiareview.com/1401201...strategy-oped/
    This would be a perfect opportunity for a false flag as Iran has already told the US navy to fcuk off and not return into the gulf, and Israel and the US are playing good cop, bad cop at the moment with the US calling off the joint military exercise with Israel over Obama being dissed by Israel, whether its actually pulled off or not is yet to be seen.

    the USS vincensies is the logical target for a 'Gulf of Tonkin' style incident


  • #3
    stuar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭stuar


    Just a few articles to add, I'm wondering what type of game is being played out here, Israel saying bombing Iran a long way off, another US carrier in the persian sea, Iran seemingly ready to torpedo them, false flag allegations flying around.

    Israel Says Decision on Iran Attack ‘Far Off’
    http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2012/01/18/israel-says-decision-on-iran-attack-far-off-4/

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/barak-says-israeli-decision-on-iran-strike-remains-far-off/2012/01/18/gIQAcXCv7P_story.html

    ANOTHER US CARRIER ARRIVES IN THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ
    http://www.agi.it/english-version/world/elenco-notizie/201201192221-cro-ren1109-another_us_carrier_arrives_in_the_strait_of_hormuz

    USS Abraham Lincoln sails into waters off Iran
    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/19/world/meast/arabian-sea-us-carrier/index.html
    U.S. Dismisses Iranian Warning Against Navy Carrier in Gulf
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/03/pentagon-officials-dismiss-iranian-warning-against-us-carrier-in-gulf/

    Iranian subs laying in wait for US Aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf
    http://www.examiner.com/city-buzz-in-charlotte/iranian-subs-laying-wait-for-us-aircraft-carriers-the-persian-gulf


    Iranian Submarines' Ambush for US Aircraft Carriers in Persian Gulf

    http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010171671

    US acts to hold Israel back from striking Iran.
    http://www.debka.com/article/21650/

    U.S. pushing world to the brink of world war
    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/09-01-2012/120180-us_pushing_world_to_brink_of_world_war-0/

    Details of Obama’s letter to Iran released
    http://tehrantimes.com/politics/94692-details-of-obamas-letter-to-iran-released

    Lets wait and see how all this plays out.


  • #4
    Danpad
    Registered Users Posts: 273 ✭✭Danpad


    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.


  • #5
    AngryBollix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭AngryBollix


    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.

    It does look almost inevitable at this point.

    If and when it does happen, to what extent will it expand?


  • #6
    Tzar Chasm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,069 ✭✭✭Tzar Chasm


    The russians are starting to make noises about the threats to Iran, so this could turn into a right mess

    Is here any parallel to history onthis one

    Afghanistan == Rhineland
    Iraq == Czekesloavakia
    Iran == Poland??????


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    stuar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭stuar


    AngryBollix wrote: »
    It does look almost inevitable at this point.

    If and when it does happen, to what extent will it expand?

    That's a big question, everything is in place, everyone is ready, it could kick off any minute, but where will it lead?

    I think nuclear weapons will be used, the US already gave the green light for use in conventional warfare a long time ago using mini nukes.

    Russia have a fleet of ships in port in Syria, Israel has its "Samson Option", Iran has told the US to stay out of the Gulf, sumarines can take down the biggest of the US's ships.

    Militarily tha US stronger, but a small number of Iranian men with missiles can take down any US super structure.

    Many nations will be drawn in and it would be WW3 and would affect the world in lots of ways.

    Best get yourself a bicycle and duct tape!


  • #8
    Jaafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    stuar wrote: »
    That's a big question, everything is in place, everyone is ready, it could kick off any minute, but where will it lead?

    I think nuclear weapons will be used, the US already gave the green light for use in conventional warfare a long time ago using mini nukes.

    Russia have a fleet of ships in port in Syria, Israel has its "Samson Option", Iran has told the US to stay out of the Gulf, sumarines can take down the biggest of the US's ships.

    Militarily tha US stronger, but a small number of Iranian men with missiles can take down any US super structure.

    Many nations will be drawn in and it would be WW3 and would affect the world in lots of ways.

    Best get yourself a bicycle and duct tape!

    No they won't. There's no benefit for anyone to use them.


  • #9
    stuar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭stuar


    Jaafa wrote: »
    No they won't. There's no benefit for anyone to use them.

    Mini nukes in conventional warfare have been given the green light by US congress a few years ago, and "if" war breaks out with Iran I don't see why the US would refrain from using them on Irans underground bunkers.
    Here's an example of official US policy
    http://www.countercurrents.org/us-chossudovsky190107.html

    The stated objective is to:

    "ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of [nuclear and conventional] strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation." (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, p. JP 3-12-13)

    Mini nukes have been an option in "conventional" warfare by the US for a number of years now, it's just if they start using them and Russia takes a disliking to it the bigger regular ones will come out to do what they do best.

    Also if 1000's of conventional missiles start landing on Israel it will adopt its "Samson Option" or Israels touting of their "mini nukes".

    “Because stopping a nuclear Iran is so important, all options are open. All the possibilities.” Said the white house spokesman … But what about stopping a nuclear Israel. Why nobody is troubled with addressing that issue … and what are the options “on the table” for Israel in case she decided to hit Iran with those mini nukes Israeli military experts have been raving about …
    http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1-/10690-assassin-as-president-santorum-okay-with-killing-iranian-scientists-a-doctors.html

    The Samson Option
    The Samson Option is a term used to describe Israel’s alleged deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a “last resort” against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence, and possibly against other targets as well.[1] Israel refuses to admit it has nuclear weapons or to describe how it would use them, an official policy of nuclear ambiguity, also known as "nuclear opacity." This has made it difficult for anyone outside the Israeli government to definitively describe its true nuclear policy, while still allowing Israel to influence the perceptions, strategies and actions of other governments.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

    Israel are mad enough to think it will benefit them and whatever benefits the US benefits the US, its a frightening scenario, but very possible and already a policy of war, the deterrence factor is no longer here, simply they have them and what better nation than Iran to use them, especially since they have underground bunkers.

    When Israel comes under attack with 1000's of missiles it won't hesitate to pull out a few mini's to show its military madness.
    When a few USS aircraft carriers are at the bottom of the sea, all options will be on the table.

    Hopefully your right, but the way this will escalate wont be Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya, none of which could really threaten the mighty US war machine like Iran can.


  • #10
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,558 ✭✭✭weisses


    stuar wrote: »
    When a few USS aircraft carriers are at the bottom of the sea, all options will be on the table.


    That i not a likely scenario i think ... at least not executred by those diesel subs Iran has imo ... or am i missing something here


  • #11
    Jaafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    weisses wrote: »
    That i not a likely scenario i think ... at least not executred by those diesel subs Iran has imo ... or am i missing something here

    Disel subs alone no. But if Iran were to attack one aircraft carrier group, with subs, a hundred fishing sized boats armed with anti ship missiles, and launch say a dozen MIRV Ballistic missiles, all on one target it's hard to see anything surviving that. If they are capable of organizing such an attack is another thing.

    Have you heard of the Millennium Challenge war games?
    Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. 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.
    At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed; this was later justified by General Peter Pace as follows: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?"[2] After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,558 ✭✭✭weisses


    I don't think any Carrier strike group over there will be caught off guard ... false flag maybe but not by the Iranians

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group

    That"s a pretty large arsenal and their satellite surveillance .. But who knows ..maybe they will look for an excuse to retaliate

    And no i didn't here of the Millennium Challenge war games ... at least now they know what could be waiting for them :D


  • #13
    Jaafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    weisses wrote: »
    I don't think any Carrier strike group over there will be caught off guard ... false flag maybe but not by the Iranians

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group

    That"s a pretty large arsenal and their satellite surveillance .. But who knows ..maybe they will look for an excuse to retaliate

    And no i didn't here of the Millennium Challenge war games ... at least now they know what could be waiting for them :D

    Thing is the Iranian boats could easily be disguised as fishing boats, and other normal looking boats. In the narrow straight they could get very close before being recognized. Hell even marked Iranian gunships managed to get within a few hundred yards of US boats without being shot at. This is probably the Iranians trying to get the US ships used to them being that close, so when they need they can take advantage of it

    If an attack such as the one described in the above war games were to happen, I'd see no other options for the US but to retreat or engage in total war. 20000 dead in one week? The US hasn't seen anything like that since world war 2.


  • #14
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,558 ✭✭✭weisses


    Jaafa wrote: »
    Thing is the Iranian boats could easily be disguised as fishing boats, and other normal looking boats. In the narrow straight they could get very close before being recognized. Hell even marked Iranian gunships managed to get within a few hundred yards of US boats without being shot at. This is probably the Iranians trying to get the US ships used to them being that close, so when they need they can take advantage of it

    The strait of Hormuz is gonna be a big bottleneck indeed

    I wonder what kind off protection they have in place at this moment when sailing through it


  • #15
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,558 ✭✭✭weisses


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXMhvPMyEho


  • #16
    Jaafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    weisses wrote: »
    The strait of Hormuz is gonna be a big bottleneck indeed

    I wonder what kind off protection they have in place at this moment when sailing through it

    All entrances to the strait pass through Iranian waters. Exists through Omanian waters. The only defense the have is the fact that Iran has allowed boats to pass through, and promises it won't attack them. Most US defense are rendered ineffective, due the very very short response time they'd have caused by being, in such a small space and against such attacks as mentioned above, they just are designed for it.

    The fact is if war breaks out the US cannot fight in the strait, they're losses would be far far too high, they'd have to pull out to a stand off distances.

    A good article on the subject. http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=28516


  • #17
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Jaafa wrote: »
    All entrances to the strait pass through Iranian waters. Exists through Omanian waters. The only defense the have is the fact that Iran has allowed boats to pass through, and promises it won't attack them. Most US defense are rendered ineffective, due the very very short response time they'd have caused by being, in such a small space and against such attacks as mentioned above, they just are designed for it.

    The fact is if war breaks out the US cannot fight in the strait, they're losses would be far far too high, they'd have to pull out to a stand off distances.

    A good article on the subject. http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=28516

    The guy who wrote that article is an absolute loony sociology student from Canada, he went to Libya and was holed up in the Rixos.

    The main asset Iran has are these
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-ship_missiles_of_Iran

    Iran wouldn't have much or any success against aircraft carriers, etc - it would most likely just attack assets, softer targets in the region.

    I'm not too up on it recently though, maybe check on the military forum.


  • #18
    Tzar Chasm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,069 ✭✭✭Tzar Chasm


    how about instead of dismissing the guy as a 'Loony' you explain to us where he's wrong in his argument???


  • #19
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Tzar Chasm wrote: »
    how about instead of dismissing the guy as a 'Loony' you explain to us where he's wrong in his argument???

    What is his argument? Its mainly just a factual piece.

    I am just pointing out he is a loony and a sociology student, not in any way shape or form an authority on the subject. If someone comes in here with an article by Bill O'Reilly not knowing who he is - it would be normal for someone to point out that its Bill O Reilly who has a strong view/agenda to say the least.

    The website.. well I have had many dealings with it in the past, its a popular choice on here due to the selective kind of blogs/opinion pieces and articles it runs.


  • #20
    Jaafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    The guy who wrote that article is an absolute loony sociology student from Canada, he went to Libya and was holed up in the Rixos.

    The main asset Iran has are these
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-ship_missiles_of_Iran

    Iran wouldn't have much or any success against aircraft carriers, etc - it would most likely just attack assets, softer targets in the region.

    I'm not too up on it recently though, maybe check on the military forum.

    If any aircraft carrier remains in the Strait, or the Persian gulf during open warfare, Iran has the capability to sink it. These large carrier are extremely vulnerable in such a small body of water, they are what the battleships were in the 20th century, obsolete in any kind of real conflict.

    As I have mentioned before, if anyone can point out to me what defense an aircraft carrier has against 50 small boats armed with anti-missiles, 12 MIRV cruise missiles, explosive packed drones, and midget submarines armed with the latest torpedoes straight from China and Russia, all attacking in the space of 15 minutes.

    The answer is, their is no counter. The ONLY question is whether Iran is capable of coordinating and keeping secret such an attack.


  • #21
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Jaafa wrote: »
    If any aircraft carrier remains in the Strait, or the Persian gulf during open warfare, Iran has the capability to sink it. These large carrier are extremely vulnerable in such a small body of water, they are what the battleships were in the 20th century, obsolete in any kind of real conflict.

    As I have mentioned before, if anyone can point out to me what defense an aircraft carrier has against 50 small boats armed with anti-missiles, 12 MIRV cruise missiles, explosive packed drones, and midget submarines armed with the latest torpedoes straight from China and Russia, all attacking in the space of 15 minutes.

    The answer is, their is no counter. The ONLY question is whether Iran is capable of coordinating and keeping secret such an attack.

    I'm curious about this myself, I'm going to try a post in the military forum.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    AngryBollix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭AngryBollix


    stuar wrote: »
    That's a big question, everything is in place, everyone is ready, it could kick off any minute, but where will it lead?

    I think nuclear weapons will be used, the US already gave the green light for use in conventional warfare a long time ago using mini nukes.

    Russia have a fleet of ships in port in Syria, Israel has its "Samson Option", Iran has told the US to stay out of the Gulf, sumarines can take down the biggest of the US's ships.

    Militarily tha US stronger, but a small number of Iranian men with missiles can take down any US super structure.

    Many nations will be drawn in and it would be WW3 and would affect the world in lots of ways.

    Best get yourself a bicycle and duct tape!


    Given that Israel is within striking distance things could get ugy very quickly.


  • #23
    CrackisWhack
    Registered Users Posts: 852 ✭✭✭CrackisWhack


    Jaafa wrote: »
    If any aircraft carrier remains in the Strait, or the Persian gulf during open warfare, Iran has the capability to sink it. These large carrier are extremely vulnerable in such a small body of water, they are what the battleships were in the 20th century, obsolete in any kind of real conflict.

    As I have mentioned before, if anyone can point out to me what defense an aircraft carrier has against 50 small boats armed with anti-missiles, 12 MIRV cruise missiles, explosive packed drones, and midget submarines armed with the latest torpedoes straight from China and Russia, all attacking in the space of 15 minutes.

    The answer is, their is no counter. The ONLY question is whether Iran is capable of coordinating and keeping secret such an attack.


    Surely the Carrier isn't there by itself, the U.S. will have other vessels operating in the area directly targeting subs.


  • #24
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,329 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Jaafa wrote: »
    If any aircraft carrier remains in the Strait, or the Persian gulf during open warfare, Iran has the capability to sink it. These large carrier are extremely vulnerable in such a small body of water, they are what the battleships were in the 20th century, obsolete in any kind of real conflict.

    As I have mentioned before, if anyone can point out to me what defense an aircraft carrier has against 50 small boats armed with anti-missiles, 12 MIRV cruise missiles, explosive packed drones, and midget submarines armed with the latest torpedoes straight from China and Russia, all attacking in the space of 15 minutes.

    The answer is, their is no counter. The ONLY question is whether Iran is capable of coordinating and keeping secret such an attack.

    Wow you make it seem like it should be pretty easy to sink a carrier....so how many have been in sunk in say the last 50 years??


  • #25
    Jaafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Wow you make it seem like it should be pretty easy to sink a carrier....so how many have been in sunk in say the last 50 years??

    The difference being this time they may be in a body of water no more than 50KM wide, instead of 200-300 miles of the coast of a country, of course they always do have the option of moving that far out, which would probably be the best solution to the above threats, but it also has it's obvious disadvantages too. I suppose it depends on how confident the US is feeling.


  • #26
    Jaafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    CrackisWhack wrote: »
    Surely the Carrier isn't there by itself, the U.S. will have other vessels operating in the area directly targeting subs.

    Yes thats true, but again, subs aren't the only factor are indeed the main factor.


  • #27
    stuar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭stuar


    weisses wrote: »
    That is not a likely scenario i think ... at least not executred by those diesel subs Iran has imo ... or am i missing something here

    Well the Iranian's would beg to differ, and if they do allow any USS ships back into the Gulf, how do they get out?, they are sitting ducks, although I can't see the US going back in any time soon, but you never know.
    Iranian Submarines Can Hunt Down US Aircraft Carriers Any Moment
    TEHRAN (FNA)- Senior Iranian military officials said the country's subsurface vessels can ambush and destroy enemy vessels specially US aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf.
    http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010171935

    Iran has 26 subs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Iranian_Navy_Vessels#Submarines

    3 Kilo class, which can carry some nasty missiles and torpedo's.
    The boats are mainly intended for anti-shipping and anti-submarine operations in relatively shallow waters. Original Project 877 boats are equipped with Rubikon MGK-400 sonar system (with NATO reporting name Shark Gill), which includes a mine detection and avoidance sonar MG-519 Arfa (with NATO reporting name Mouse Roar). Newer Project 636 boats are equipped with improved MGK-400EM, with MG-519 Afra also upgraded to MG-519EM. The improved sonar systems have reduced the number of operators needed by sharing the same console via automation.
    Anechoic tiles are fitted on casings and fins to absorb the sonar sound waves of active sonar, which results in a reduction and distortion of the return signal.[2] These tiles also help attenuate sounds that are emitted from the submarine, thus reducing the range by which the sub may be detected by passive sonar.

    Air defence: 8 SA-N-8 Gremlin or SA-N-10 Gimlet[30] Surface-to-air missiles (export submarines may not be equipped with air defense weapons)
    Six 533 mm torpedo tubes with 18 53-65 ASuW or TEST 71/76 ASW torpedoes or VA-111 Shkval supercavitating "underwater missiles", or 24 DM-1 mines,
    Club S anti-ship missiles (only on some export versions)

    A few decent hits with missiles and torpedo's would sink any ship and whatever is on them,planes etc, then they have successfully tested land to sea, sea to sea, it certainly won't be a walk in the park for any US ships in the area if it does kick off and nomatter how big and bad they are they are useless lying on the sea bed.


  • #28
    stuar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭stuar


    Jonny7 wrote: »

    I'm not too up on it recently though, maybe check on the military forum.

    Yes that's a good idea, and dont expect too accurate a picture over there either, Afghanistan and Iraq should have been finished long ago according to the experts.


  • #29
    Tzar Chasm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,069 ✭✭✭Tzar Chasm


    Don't the Iranians also have their own shkvall torpedoes that the Russians helped them develop. Those things should take out a carrier fairly easily


  • #30
    stuar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭stuar


    Tzar Chasm wrote: »
    Don't the Iranians also have their own shkvall torpedoes that the Russians helped them develop. Those things should take out a carrier fairly easily


    Yes and they produce their own also,called "Hoot", reverse engineered from VA-111 Shkval.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoot_(missile)

    The club S are bad boys too, Iran I believe have also made their own version also.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odWEaYF1yaU


    The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile
    The Weapon That Could Defeat The US In The Gulf
    http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    stuar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭stuar


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Wow you make it seem like it should be pretty easy to sink a carrier....so how many have been in sunk in say the last 50 years??

    Here's one.

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


    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_could_you_sink_an_aircraft_carrier

    How could you sink an aircraft carrier?


    As one USN torpedo pilot stated, "if you wanna fill the ship with air, you bomb it; if you wanna fill it with water...you torpedo it!"


    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))

    Kind of a trick question wasn't it, 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


  • #32
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,558 ✭✭✭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 )


  • #33
    Tzar Chasm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #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.


  • #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!!!"


  • #36
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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
  • #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


  • #38
    Jaafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #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...


  • #40
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,558 ✭✭✭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


  • #41
    Jaafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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
  • #42
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,558 ✭✭✭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


  • #43
    Jaafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #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.


  • #45
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,329 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,329 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #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?


  • #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/


  • #49
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,329 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #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


  • #51
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,558 ✭✭✭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
Advertisement