Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iran vs CV

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Squirrel
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    Maybe they built the mock up to be highly compartmentalized just like a real USN warship?

    I agree with you. It's hard to sink a ship using missiles. Sinking a ship requires putting holes in the ship below the waterline. Missiles don't normally do that. A secondary explosion as a result of a missile hit might, but that's more about luck than design.
    The C-802 is designed to impact right at the waterline. IRIN and IRGCN vessels employ this missile. However, ASBM'S are mostly designed to inflict mission kill on a carrier, by rendering the flight deck useless.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Iran can sink an American carrier, the straits or Hormuz is too narrow to let a ship defend itself effectively. They can also pound the piss out of our naval base in Bahrain, block tanker traffic and make mighty mischief in the area. The problem is that is all they can do. Sinking one carrier and destroying one base won't work. The only way they'd dare is if they felt war was a forgone conclusion and they might as well get their licks in while they can. Even then they may not since the only places they can sink the carrier would leave them swimming in radioactive pollution regardless of what the US did in response.

    The US response would be terrible. Terrible on a level to make elderly Germans and Japanese have flash backs of endless bombs falling from the sky.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Here's how Kissinger put it at a recent armed services committee hearing

    Nuclear talks with Iran began as an international effort, buttressed by six UN resolutions, to deny Iran the capability to develop a military nuclear option. They are now an essentially bilateral negotiation over the scope of that capability through an agreement that sets a hypothetical limit of one year on an assumed breakout. The impact of this approach will be to move from preventing proliferation to managing it.

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    Regardless of the materials it is constructed from, I think its sheer size allows it to soak up quite a bit of firepower and remain afloat. This is probably compounded by the fact that any missile designed to hit a carrier will require some ability to penetrate armor, which naturally takes up volume that could have been used to do damage after passing through said armor.

    A molten jet of copper followed by any remaining turbojet fuel is certainly going to be nasty to whatever happens to be in it's path, but it's swath of destruction will be much smaller than a purely HE warhead that somehow found its way inside a ship.

    Quickly sinking something carrier sized probably requires large torpedoes or mines that are less constrained by weight, and are better positioned to put big holes where the water can get in. I think antiship missiles are more likely to disable a carrier than sink it outright.
    Maybe they built the mock up to be highly compartmentalized just like a real USN warship?

    I agree with you. It's hard to sink a ship using missiles. Sinking a ship requires putting holes in the ship below the waterline. Missiles don't normally do that. A secondary explosion as a result of a missile hit might, but that's more about luck than design.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by Squirrel View Post
    I don't understand how a Fox News clip tying the exercise and the negotiations together is grounds for serious consideration that they are actually linked. It's nothing new for Iran to agitate the US through exercises and demonstrations like this one. We knew they built the mock up carrier, what did we think it was going to be used for?

    Saying that they are "preparing for war" is like saying the same about any other country that conducts military training. That's what militaries do.
    Agree

    Originally posted by Squirrel View Post
    Does anyone honestly think that firing some missiles at a mock carrier means that they actually intend to provoke all out war with the US?
    nope and its the last thing they want to do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Squirrel
    replied
    Originally posted by DonBelt View Post
    I just posted it because I thought it was funny that the Iranians made such an effort attacking it and it was still afloat and largely intact. I really didn't care about the content of the story politic wise. Being made of barges and scrap metal and lightweight materials it put up quite the struggle. Others began the speculations on its significance and I just speculated on their speculations. Although I did seriously wonder if it had been built as a test target for something that would be able to locate and distinguish a carrier. But apparently not, just propaganda or an extravagant target.
    I get it. Believe me I do.

    A couple things to keep in mind are range and targeting mechanisms.

    In the Arabian Sea/SOH/AG, it's incredibly close quarters. Targeting a carrier there is a lot easier than say in the west Pacific outside the second island chain. But, as I mentioned, that course of action is the path of no return. Yes they claimed to have used the FATEH 110, but, I didn't see anything that looked like it on the videos, or the Khalij Fars, for that matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteveDaPirate
    replied
    Originally posted by DonBelt View Post
    I just posted it because I thought it was funny that the Iranians made such an effort attacking it and it was still afloat and largely intact. I really didn't care about the content of the story politic wise. Being made of barges and scrap metal and lightweight materials it put up quite the struggle. Others began the speculations on its significance and I just speculated on their speculations. Although I did seriously wonder if it had been built as a test target for something that would be able to locate and distinguish a carrier. But apparently not, just propaganda or an extravagant target.
    Regardless of the materials it is constructed from, I think its sheer size allows it to soak up quite a bit of firepower and remain afloat. This is probably compounded by the fact that any missile designed to hit a carrier will require some ability to penetrate armor, which naturally takes up volume that could have been used to do damage after passing through said armor.

    A molten jet of copper followed by any remaining turbojet fuel is certainly going to be nasty to whatever happens to be in it's path, but it's swath of destruction will be much smaller than a purely HE warhead that somehow found its way inside a ship.

    Quickly sinking something carrier sized probably requires large torpedoes or mines that are less constrained by weight, and are better positioned to put big holes where the water can get in. I think antiship missiles are more likely to disable a carrier than sink it outright.

    Leave a comment:


  • peregrine
    replied
    Let Iran try to block the Strait of Hormuz, and bring the Entire Western World to the brink of war with their actions.

    Leave a comment:


  • DonBelt
    replied
    I just posted it because I thought it was funny that the Iranians made such an effort attacking it and it was still afloat and largely intact. I really didn't care about the content of the story politic wise. Being made of barges and scrap metal and lightweight materials it put up quite the struggle. Others began the speculations on its significance and I just speculated on their speculations. Although I did seriously wonder if it had been built as a test target for something that would be able to locate and distinguish a carrier. But apparently not, just propaganda or an extravagant target.

    Leave a comment:


  • Squirrel
    replied
    I don't understand how a Fox News clip tying the exercise and the negotiations together is grounds for serious consideration that they are actually linked. It's nothing new for Iran to agitate the US through exercises and demonstrations like this one. We knew they built the mock up carrier, what did we think it was going to be used for?

    Saying that they are "preparing for war" is like saying the same about any other country that conducts military training. That's what militaries do. Does anyone honestly think that firing some missiles at a mock carrier means that they actually intend to provoke all out war with the US?

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    It certainly wasn't going to scare or fool us.I doubt they learned anything from it that they couldn't have learned by just maneuvering around a barge or target hulk. They certainly couldn't learn anything about the structure of a carrier or the effect of their weapons on it, unless it was to test something that could specifically find and target a carrier. So who are they fooling? Solely for domestic consumption maybe? Awful expensive propaganda film- maybe they'll do a whole series and use up all of their stock of missiles. That's why I was asking about the long range weapons used in the exercise, maybe they had or thought they had something like the DF-21 that could be guided to hit a moving target. Just a thought.
    Alternative view is they are preparing for war.

    In case there is no deal

    Try to get back some of the limelight & voice they lost when the people voted in Rouhani.

    Create the perception that Iran is under no pressure or isn't forced to accept this deal.

    That can play both ways. Can accept a deal or not.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Mar 15,, 00:11.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    As neat a demonstration that 'rational' as in 'rational player' has an entirely different meaning in international diplomacy than it does in general discourse.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by DonBelt View Post
    My feeling is the US will cave and allow them to do whatever they want as long as there is some way the current administration can spin it as a spring shower and not piss down our back.
    Wow just wow. cave in and allow them to do whatever they want. In this nuclear context nothing could be further from the truth.

    The US did not have time to get involved until the last couple of years due to engagements abroad. Iran wants the right to enrich. They are allowed to do so under the NPT. The problem is nobody trusts them. So they have to prove and allow stringent verification that their intentions are peaceful. The only cave in if you want to put it that way is Iran being able to enrich 'for peaceful purposes' is being considered seriously. This is why talks are ongoing and have not broken down. Is this practical or even feasible, that remains to be seen when the terms are made public. They've had long enough to think about it. Its make or break time. If Iran refuses, nothing would be easier than to tighten sanctions further.

    An article i read in the NYT a week back spoke about inspections whose duration would continue into the double digits for years. breakout time would be kept as long as possible. With an inspection regime such as this any interruptions means things get frozen back easily and failing which enough time is available should stronger measures be required. This would be clear and make the case by itself.

    Iran is not going to be able to build a bomb. In exchange for such verification, Iran slowly gets the ropes loosened. Should they comply for as long as is necessary then they slowly get let back into the system. Obama will not go down as the president who allowed Iran to have a nuke.

    Originally posted by DonBelt View Post
    But the connection between nuclear power and CV's that I was making is based on the assumption that Iran's program has nothing to do with energy but is solely meant for the production of nuclear weapons, and that there are factions in Iran against it and for it. My speculation is that parties for it point to the presence of US carriers and imply that nuclear weapons are needed to counter the carriers. In a restricted area like the gulf you just need to get close enough with a vessel carrying a nuclear device or a submerged device possibly for it to be effective. You wouldn't need to solve the problem of mounting it on a rocket or missile. The opposing faction stages the demonstration with the mock carrier to convince the pro faction that nuclear weapons aren't needed to handle a carrier. Like I said it doesn't make sense though, the exercise was conducted by the IRGCN which I highly doubt are anti-nuke. Then what was it for?
    IRGC are hardliners. maybe its a way to show them that making a deal with the US does not necessarily imply Iran is weak. That Iran is not 'caving in'.

    Originally posted by DonBelt View Post
    It certainly wasn't going to scare or fool us.I doubt they learned anything from it that they couldn't have learned by just maneuvering around a barge or target hulk. They certainly couldn't learn anything about the structure of a carrier or the effect of their weapons on it, unless it was to test something that could specifically find and target a carrier. So who are they fooling? Solely for domestic consumption maybe? Awful expensive propaganda film- maybe they'll do a whole series and use up all of their stock of missiles. That's why I was asking about the long range weapons used in the exercise, maybe they had or thought they had something like the DF-21 that could be guided to hit a moving target. Just a thought.
    My bet is internal consumption. A PR exercise.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 01 Mar 15,, 11:27.

    Leave a comment:


  • desertswo
    replied
    Originally posted by DonBelt View Post
    My feeling is the US will cave and allow them to do whatever they want as long as there is some way the current administration can spin it as a spring shower and not piss down our back. But the connection between nuclear power and CV's that I was making is based on the assumption that Iran's program has nothing to do with energy but is solely meant for the production of nuclear weapons, and that there are factions in Iran against it and for it. My speculation is that parties for it point to the presence of US carriers and imply that nuclear weapons are needed to counter the carriers. In a restricted area like the gulf you just need to get close enough with a vessel carrying a nuclear device or a submerged device possibly for it to be effective. You wouldn't need to solve the problem of mounting it on a rocket or missile. The opposing faction stages the demonstration with the mock carrier to convince the pro faction that nuclear weapons aren't needed to handle a carrier. Like I said it doesn't make sense though, the exercise was conducted by the IRGCN which I highly doubt are anti-nuke. Then what was it for? It certainly wasn't going to scare or fool us. I doubt they learned anything from it that they couldn't have learned by just maneuvering around a barge or target hulk. They certainly couldn't learn anything about the structure of a carrier or the effect of their weapons on it, unless it was to test something that could specifically find and target a carrier. So who are they fooling? Solely for domestic consumption maybe? Awful expensive propaganda film- maybe they'll do a whole series and use up all of their stock of missiles. That's why I was asking about the long range weapons used in the exercise, maybe they had or thought they had something like the DF-21 that could be guided to hit a moving target. Just a thought.
    Don, you make a lot of good points. However, I would just offer up this observation regarding the bold and underlined portion of your statement, and that is that your argument is based on the false premise that a CV Strike Group MUST operate somewhere north of the Straight of Hormuz to be effective. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most people do not realize that CVSGs did not even venture into the Persian (Arabian) Gulf before Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and the reason for not doing so had nothing to do with Iran's capabilities and everything to do with those of the Soviet Union.

    Back during the Iranian Hostage Crisis days and in the follow-on "tanker war," the CVSGs (or "CVBGs" as they were known back then) didn't enter the Gulf out of concern that they could get bottled up in there by a Soviet task force coming south out of the Black Sea, force the Suez Canal, and then arrive to put the cork in the bottle neck otherwise known as Hormuz, while we were up "showing the flag" at the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab. Bad juju indeed. By the time we did Praying Mantis and ultimately Desert Shield/Desert Storm, the Soviet armed forces were imploding; and re-deploying from the puppet states created by Stalin at the conclusion of WWII as a buffer zone so that they wouldn't be invaded from the West ever again; and you know how nature abhors a vacuum. So into the Gulf, and elsewhere, we didn't so much march, but were essentially sucked.

    So now we have people (not necessarily you Don) believing that we need to operate IN the Gulf in order to control the Gulf. In fact, most target sets worth the effort are within the combat radius of the F-18E/F and for sure the F-35B/C models operating from CVNs, and even LHA/LHDs operating in the Northern Arabian Sea. Believe me when I tell you that assuming that most important of America's "centers of gravity" (in Clausewitzian terms), the political will of the people, holds firm, we can turn every one of those target sets into a bunch of smoking ruins within 30 minutes to an hour of the balloon going up . . . and all without resorting to this . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • Squirrel
    replied
    Originally posted by DonBelt View Post
    That's why I was asking about the long range weapons used in the exercise, maybe they had or thought they had something like the DF-21 that could be guided to hit a moving target. Just a thought.
    Persian Gulf (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X