If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 . . |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian Missiles And Torpedos
"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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian Missiles And Torpedos
"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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian Missiles And Torpedos
"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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian Missiles And Torpedos
"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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian Missiles And Torpedos
"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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian Missiles And Torpedos
"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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian Missiles And Torpedos
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian Missiles And Torpedos
"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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian Missiles And Torpedos
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|