Iranian Missiles And Torpedos

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..
"George" wrote:

I can assure you that even Iranian territorial waters are eyed with a
fine tooth comb when U.S. ships travel those waters. Anything
considered remotedly dangerous to U.S. ships under these circumstances
would be a dead duck in the water before it knew what hit it.

The Germans thought the same when the Scharnhorst entered the Oslo
Fjord...

Choke points, during times of armed conflict, have a way of disolving
themselves when confronted with any U.S. armada that, when under
combat operations, and all by itself, is one of the most powerful
military forces on ther planet.

Still they can't check every single fishing vessel (most of which will
belong to neutral countries), every little bush on the shore (which
might or might not hide a missile launcher), every little creek or bay,
and every single suspicious sonar echo (which might be a submerged sub
hiding on the bottom). Repeat after me: If the US attack Iran, there
WILL be US losses.

If and when Iran will cease to exist If GWB is President. After they took
hostage our diplomats most American's could care less about bombing them.
Fred

SNIPPED . .

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..
"George" wrote:

There are maps on Google of the Arabian sea in relation to Iran, if
you are interested.

Care to check them and chart a course for tankers to leave the gulf
without going through the straits? Keeping the sea lanes open IS the job
of the USN.

Says who? I find it very interesting the certain people demand that we do
such a thing and then tell us to "go home YANKIE". Yeah, we might do that,
if we are in the mood. Perhaps we should charge for the service, eh? Say,
a couple of billion per day ought to cover it. What do yu thnk?

The issue is whether or not this cavitation weapon of Iran's has a
chance in hell of being successful. The chances are very low.

So we actually agree - you'd have to be a lunatic to try and use that
torpedo against US warships, but it might actually work... and lunatics
aren't a rare commodity in that region.

It isn't a matter of someonebeing crazy enough to use it. I thik Iran is
crazy enough to try. It's a matter of whether it would even work.

Torpedos are not a problem. We have plenty of countermeasures for
those.

Care to name a single countermeasure currently in service that will work
against an unguided supercavitating torpedo with a time-fused nuclear
warhead?

Care to name the middle eastern country that has one of those? But yes,
there is a countermeasure. I'd telll you, but then, I'd have to kill you.

And any vessel that launches one against us will not launch a
second. See above for countermeasures for your fishing boats.

Launching seconds probably isn't intended... even survival of the crew
might be optional.

If we get into a war with Iran, I suspect that they would use everything
they have to defeat us. I see no reason why they would stop unless we
destroyed their capability, which we are sure to do.

If the straits are closed, they won't stay closed. Yes, troops are in
Iraq, and we have the forces there to protect them, and more that can
arrive there on a moment's notice.

The problem isn't the troops - it's the supplies. You can fly in people,
and some of the lighter gear, but naval transport is the only realistic
option if you want to transport a few dozen new tanks.

How long do you think Iran would be able to disrupt our supply lines, if at
all?

You must know that our forces are very flexible. The most flexible,
in fact, anywhere,

Not really... Sweden for example has very flexible forces and defense
plans

Great. We'll send them in first.

particularly our Naval forces and Naval air forces.

No doubt about it.

Do you know of another nation that could round up the forces necessary
to take Baghdad in a mere few weeks?

After destroying every defense system for ten years from a safe
distance and crying for the Security Council every time Iraq dared to
even ATTEMPT to shoot back? The Belgian Army wouldn't have had any
problems winning that war...

Right. That's why they sent so many Belgians into combat during OIF,
right?

Iran couldn't do it after ten years of trying and a million
dead.

Thanks also to US weapons being sold to Iraq...

Right. As opposed to the 640,000 tons of Russian weapons that were sold to
Iraq, right?

George

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..
"George" wrote:

Clue: They don't have to be in the Gulf to get the job done, should it
come to that.

Depends on what the job IS, don't you agree? In case of a conflict, the
USN would have to send ships into the straits to keep the sea lanes
open - not necessarily carriers, of course, but frigates, destroyers
and cruisers.

Juergen Nieveler

Why?

George

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..
"George" wrote:

Depends on what the job IS, don't you agree? In case of a conflict, the
USN would have to send ships into the straits to keep the sea lanes
open - not necessarily carriers, of course, but frigates, destroyers
and cruisers.

Why?

Because your good friends the Kuwaitis wouldn't be able to sell oil if
the Straits are closed?

Like I said before, even if the Iranians succeeded in closing the straits,
they wouldn't be close for long. They tried it before and were
unsuccessful, if you recall.

George

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..
"George" wrote:

Care to check them and chart a course for tankers to leave the gulf
without going through the straits? Keeping the sea lanes open IS the
job of the USN.

Says who?

The CinC? Remember, the USN escorted tankers through the straits on the
first gulf war, and even re-flagged tankers to US flag so that any
attack against a Panamaian tanker would be an act of war against the
USA.

Remember when the Iranians tried to close the straits during the Iran-Iraq
war? Weren't too successful, were they?

I find it very interesting the certain people demand that
we do such a thing and then tell us to "go home YANKIE". Yeah, we
might do that, if we are in the mood. Perhaps we should charge for
the service, eh? Say, a couple of billion per day ought to cover it.
What do yu thnk?

I'd think that certain people in the oil industry would send lobbyists
over to the Congress very fast... sad, but all too realistic.

They can send all the lobbysts they want, but I doubt we'd comply with
their wishes unless we could be certain of the safety of our fleet. And
that takes more than just boats in the water. It will take a hell of a lot
of air power, of which we are in abundant supply.

It isn't a matter of someonebeing crazy enough to use it. I think Iran
is crazy enough to try. It's a matter of whether it would even work.

Quite probably, actually, at least the first time. Get a boat and
slowly drive towards the US fleet until in range of the torpedo (and
10km ISN'T that close...) - at first the USN ship will warn you.

This scenario breaks down rather rapidly because during combat operations,
the Navy would blow any boat out of the water that got anywhere near close
enough to launch a torpedo with a 10 km range. And just because the weapon
has a 10 km ranger doesn't mean that it can hit the broad side of a barn.
And even if Iran was successful in gettin through our defenses and striking
one of our ships, it wouold be the worst mistake they could ever make,
because all the stops would be pulled out, and you'd find Iran in ruin from
one end to the other.

Then they'll send a helo to check you out. When the helo reaches you,
fire
the torpedo - and a supercavitating torpedo is fast enough to cover
10km before the target has the opportunity to turn away and get the
Nixie between itself and the inbound fish.

You don't know much about Naval tactics, do you?

Care to name a single countermeasure currently in service that will
work against an unguided supercavitating torpedo with a time-fused
nuclear warhead?

Care to name the middle eastern country that has one of those? But
yes, there is a countermeasure. I'd telll you, but then, I'd have to
kill you.

Iran has supercavitating torpedoes. As for the warheads, maybe they
bought some from Russia, maybe not - care to bet your life on that?

Yes, actually, I would. For Russia to have sold nuclear warheads that fit
on the end of one of these torpedos would be about the dumbest thing they
could possiibly do, and would be the worst violation of the NNPT
imaginable. Russia is not going to risk WWIII on account of the Iranians.
They just aren't that in love with them.

And no, the USN does NOT have any torpedo countermeasures besides
Nixie. The anti-mine-system and its LIDAR targeting system are still
under development, and would be hard-pressed to destroy a normal
torpedo, let alone a supercavitating one.

You're missing the point. In order to hit one of our ships or subs with a
torpedo, Iran has to find them first, and they will never get close enough
to one to find them, much less target them.

If we get into a war with Iran, I suspect that they would use
everything they have to defeat us. I see no reason why they would
stop unless we destroyed their capability, which we are sure to do.

As long as you understand that that war will only be over when you've
killed the last citizen of Iran... look at how the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan aren't over yet.

Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.

How long do you think Iran would be able to disrupt our supply lines,
if at all?

Weeks? Months? All it takes is a couple of big minefields, and sinking
a few ULCCs at choke points to block the channels.

Been there, done that. Recall the Iran-Iraq war, for examples. And what
makes you so sure that Iran has the capability to put together an effective
minefield?

Right. That's why they sent so many Belgians into combat during OIF,
right?

They were sane enough not to do it. Iraq was better off under Saddam
than it is now...

That's like saying that Germany would have been better off with Hitler.

Thanks also to US weapons being sold to Iraq...

Right. As opposed to the 640,000 tons of Russian weapons that were
sold to Iraq, right?

Russia mainly sold to Iran, as a matter of fact - Iraq shopped in the
West during the first Gulf War, they started buying Russian after the
war with Iran was over.

As a matter of fact, the bulk of Saddam Hussein's hardware was Russian.
During Gulf war I, our A-10s killed over 900 Iraqi tanks, all Russian-made.
And those were only a part of Iraq's tank forces. All told, the warthogs
destroyed over 1,200 Russian tanks and artillery pieces. Their airforce
was composed primarily of Russian MIGS and French Mirage. Their surface to
air defenses were composed primarily of Russian SAMs and anti-aircraft
artillery from both Russia and China. The standard issue rifles and
machine guns were all Russian-made, and still are. Iraq had scud missiles,
certainly NOT an American weapon. But don't take my word for it. Take a
close look at this graph:

http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html

Russia, China, and France, were by far the largest weapons supplier to
Iraq. And don't forget, Chirac sold Saddam Hussein a ****ing Nuclear
reactor!

George

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..
"George" wrote:

Like I said before, even if the Iranians succeeded in closing the
straits, they wouldn't be close for long. They tried it before and
were unsuccessful, if you recall.

Even two to three weeks would be a major problem for world economy,
though.

Juergen Nieveler
--
Shin: device for finding furniture in the dark.

They'll never be able to do it.

George

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
.. .
"George" wrote:

This scenario breaks down rather rapidly because during combat
operations, the Navy would blow any boat out of the water that got
anywhere near close enough to launch a torpedo with a 10 km range.
And just because the weapon has a 10 km ranger doesn't mean that it
can hit the broad side of a barn. And even if Iran was successful in
gettin through our defenses and striking one of our ships, it wouold
be the worst mistake they could ever make, because all the stops would
be pulled out, and you'd find Iran in ruin from one end to the other.

Iran is a large, mountainous country - destroying it completely would
take a few hundred warheads AT LEAST. As for ground invasion - think
Afghanistan multiplied by 10...

You don't have to turn Iran into a rubble field to get them to cease and
desist. I think you overestimate the problem here. The problem is not
conquering Iran. Who said that was a goal? The problem is getting Iran to
stop their nazi tendencies and move back into the world community. Once
they have no economy left because their infrastructure is no more, they
will have no incentive to follow the Ayatollahs who got them in that
position in ther first place. When money talks, people walk. It's a fact.

Then they'll send a helo to check you out. When the helo reaches you,
fire
the torpedo - and a supercavitating torpedo is fast enough to cover
10km before the target has the opportunity to turn away and get the
Nixie between itself and the inbound fish.

You don't know much about Naval tactics, do you?

Actually I do - look at a map of the straits, and consider that there
are lots of civilian boats out there, too. If you simply threaten to
kill anybody on the water, you'll loose support of your allies on the
sout bank of the straits very fast.

Have you ever considered the impact on Iran of closing the straits? If
Iran tried to close the straits, their own revenue would dry up literally
overnight. And far from losing allies, if Iran closed the straits, the
entire world would demand action against Iran.

You're missing the point. In order to hit one of our ships or subs
with a torpedo, Iran has to find them first, and they will never get
close enough to one to find them, much less target them.

In the Straits, a couple of people with binoculars standing on the
beach would be enough to find targets - ESPECIALLY if no civilian
traffic would be allowed.

Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design binoculars that
can peer over the horizon, let us all know.


Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.

You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.

Who said anything about conquering Iran?

Mahan, the greatest naval theoritician, said "the seat of purpose is on
land" and that still holds true for the Navy and the air force today.

Been there, done that. Recall the Iran-Iraq war, for examples. And
what makes you so sure that Iran has the capability to put together an
effective minefield?

What makes you so sure that they can't do that? Never fight the last
war...

Because,
1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to comply
with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which they are a
signatory.

2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would have an
immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S. economy. The
world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.

As a matter of fact, the bulk of Saddam Hussein's hardware was
Russian.

In 1991, during Gulf War II.

Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq up to
the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment, equipment
which is only five years old.

During Gulf war I, our A-10s killed over 900 Iraqi tanks, all
Russian-made. And those were only a part of Iraq's tank forces.

Yes, but that was Gulf War II. In Gulf War I, they used AMX-tanks and
Hughes-helos against Iran.

Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War I was
a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The History channel showed an
exposed on the A-10 just two days ago. The A-10 destroyed over 900 Iraqi
Russian-made tanks, and 1,200 tanks and artillery pieces in total:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-55#Iraq
a.. T-55 Enigma - T-55, Type-59, and Type-69 tanks used by Iraqi Brigade
commanders had appliqué armour on turrets and hulls composed of several
layers of spaced armour plates enclosed in steel boxes. Intended to, and in
many cases successful at defeating shaped charge warheads (one example is
reported to have survived several hits from Milan missiles before being
dispatched by a helicopter).
b.. T-55QM - had NATO-standard 105 mm L7 or M68 gun installed replacing
the old 100 mm gun, along with a French laser range-finder, upgrades done
in mid to late 1980s.
c.. T-55QM2 - T-55 upgraded by Soviet technicians with a Soviet 125
mm/L80 smoothbore gun and French laser range-finder, 1986-1991.
d.. Type 69-QM - Type 69 upgraded with NATO standard 105 mm gun and laser
range-finder, 1984-1988.
e.. Type 69-QM2 - Type 69 upgraded with Warsaw Pact standard 125 mm/L80
smoothbore gun and laser rangefinder, 1986-1991.
The helicopters the U.S. sold to Iraq were for civilian purposes. Whether
or not they converted them for military use is irrelevant. They were not
sold to them with weapons packages.

Russia, China, and France, were by far the largest weapons supplier to
Iraq. And don't forget, Chirac sold Saddam Hussein a ****ing Nuclear
reactor!

And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons. Your
point being?

Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and many
other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a
petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all other
petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what Saddam
Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can control what I
would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to think that Iraq's
chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or nerve gas? Any college
chemistry student could make this stuff.

George

In article ,
Juergen Nieveler wrote:
"George" wrote:

This scenario breaks down rather rapidly because during combat
operations, the Navy would blow any boat out of the water that got
anywhere near close enough to launch a torpedo with a 10 km range.
And just because the weapon has a 10 km ranger doesn't mean that it
can hit the broad side of a barn. And even if Iran was successful in
gettin through our defenses and striking one of our ships, it wouold
be the worst mistake they could ever make, because all the stops would
be pulled out, and you'd find Iran in ruin from one end to the other.

Iran is a large, mountainous country - destroying it completely would
take a few hundred warheads AT LEAST. As for ground invasion - think
Afghanistan multiplied by 10...


Worse. Iran is twice the size and population of Iraq.

The iranians are *very* proud of Persion culture and patriotic to
Iran, as a country. Airpower, by itself, has never made a civilian
population turn against it's leaders.

The Iranian air defense hasn't been a victim of 10 years of embargo
and attack as the Iraq ADF was.

Iran has had a front row seat to watch how American airpower has
attacked Iraq and probably knows lots about the capability of our
bunker busters, as used in Iraq.

The Iranians have been shown to be very agressive in the Iran-iraq
war.

Iran has been very docile about what we are doing in Afghanistan.
That could change and Iran could make lots of trouble for us.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..
"George" wrote:

The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move
back into the world community. Once they have no economy left
because their
infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow the
Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place. When
money talks, people walk. It's a fact.

Explain Afghanistan, then...

Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a larger
percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential election in the
last 100 years. NEXT.


Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design binoculars
that can peer over the horizon, let us all know.

Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at a
map THIS TIME, will you?


Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide.

Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.

You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.

Who said anything about conquering Iran?

You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given. Look
at Iraq or Afghanistan...

Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining and
useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes, there is
nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed.

Because,
1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to
comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which
they are a signatory.

Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no law
against nations having nuclear weapons.

I suggest you read the NNPT.

2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would
have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S.
economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.

But they wouldn't agree with a war either.

If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that heads will
change, and heads will roll.

Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq
up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment,
equipment which is only five years old.

No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in the
80s.

I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which was
composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the 1990s, and was
still composed primarily of these same weapons up to the present.

Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War
I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is called
Gulf War I.

Not my fault Urpeans are stupid.

And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
Your point being?

Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and many
other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a
petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all
other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what
Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can
control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to
think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or
nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff.

I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological
weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and I
could order said cultures).

Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq received
biological cultures from U.S. private corporate laboratories, as well as
British, French German and laboratories. Not only that, but U.S. labs sell
the same cultures to many countries, including Britain and France. The
cultures were sold for medical research. Like sulphuric acid, we don't
control the end product of the raw material. There was a guy a few years
ago here in the states who was arrested for illegally culturing anthrax.
The anthrax came from a british lab.

And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to
Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to make
the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons.

You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But then,
Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear reactor, and actually
sold and had it built it for him.

George

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Juergen Nieveler wrote:
"George" wrote:

This scenario breaks down rather rapidly because during combat
operations, the Navy would blow any boat out of the water that got
anywhere near close enough to launch a torpedo with a 10 km range.
And just because the weapon has a 10 km ranger doesn't mean that it
can hit the broad side of a barn. And even if Iran was successful in
gettin through our defenses and striking one of our ships, it wouold
be the worst mistake they could ever make, because all the stops would
be pulled out, and you'd find Iran in ruin from one end to the other.

Iran is a large, mountainous country - destroying it completely would
take a few hundred warheads AT LEAST. As for ground invasion - think
Afghanistan multiplied by 10...


Worse. Iran is twice the size and population of Iraq.

The iranians are *very* proud of Persion culture and patriotic to
Iran, as a country. Airpower, by itself, has never made a civilian
population turn against it's leaders.

The Iranian air defense hasn't been a victim of 10 years of embargo
and attack as the Iraq ADF was.

Iraq's auir defense wasn't under embargo until right before the first Gulf
war. ANd if you will note, only a handful of American planes were shot
down during that war.

Iran has had a front row seat to watch how American airpower has
attacked Iraq and probably knows lots about the capability of our
bunker busters, as used in Iraq.

The Iranians have been shown to be very agressive in the Iran-iraq
war.

But then, the Shiites and Sunnis hate each other more than they hate us.

Iran has been very docile about what we are doing in Afghanistan.
That could change and Iran could make lots of trouble for us.

Iran is already making a lot of trouble for us - in Iraq.

George