USS Iowa: that will teach the Iranians a lesson

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pedro Sanchez
www.foxnews.com...

According to them they do and it sound like it could do some damage to whatever navy we muster up.


It's all bluster.... they're just testing the waters and talking themselves up. If they had stealth, which I seriously doubt, just about every other country in the Middle East would be spitting chips by now. Especially Syria, who despite having a common "enemy" with Iran still doesn't particularly like them at all.




posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Regarding their stealth "flying boat"

www.postchronicle.com...

Regarding their stealth submarine

www.iraqwar.mirror-world.ru...

Regarding their desire to acquire stealth capabilities, aircraft, missiles, subs

www.propagandamatrix.com...

Regarding Stealth missiles

www.military.com...

We've already stated that if we are to go to war with Iran our best attempt would be an airstrike using stealth bombers. Because Iran/Russia have addequate air defense in terms of SAM's and fighter aircraft, they feel the stealth bomber is the only thing that could stand up against them in order to adequately demolish their military installments.

Iraqs Airforce was weak and bombing the hell out of Baghdad was gravy. To envision a sucessful campaign against iran you need to think of the last major war in which our airforce was experiencing constant confrontation. I believe WW2.
Similarly, we are going up for the first time in a while against another country were we aren't too far off in technology, considering Iran gets all its tech from Russia.

Also, I think the purpose for getting the war started sooner than later is not because we're afraid of them getting the nuke....no, we predicted that they wont have finish developing one for another 5 years...

www.washtimes.com...

However, Russia is in the works of developing a stealth aircraft. They predict it to be complete by 2007. If Russia gets this technology, Iran has this technology. Therefore dragging an expensively run bucket of bolts...to the gulf won't do much.
Our window of opprotunity lies before they get their stealth aircraft. Once they have that, it would make an airstrike more difficult and expensive (if our craft keep getting blown out of the sky).

This is why i think we act as though our window of opprotunity is diminishing. Not Nukes.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Ghost, i would have to agree with you in your views on syria and Irans relationships. However, i don't believe syria could even afford whats on the market. India probably could, and Israel. but realistically, iif russia is only now producing stealth technologies, it would take a while before some of the poorer countries who use mostly guerrilla tactics because they lack the funds to appropriate an airforce, would be able to afford this.

www.mosnews.com...

According to this, Russia has begun PRODUCING a stealth bomber more advanced than our B2. Since Russia is not in a war right now, i can assume it is safe to say they are producing these to sell.

Since our nuke standoff with russia, we made an agreement to never go head to head in war. Our compromise was, if they decided to invade a country, we would not fight them but support (sell weapons to) the Occupied country. Since the cold war ended, we've merely reversed roles. Now its us that invades and russia that sells the weapons. We're only trying to do it better than they did.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 02:51 AM
link   
not being a naval bod , i may be wrong -- but it is my understanding that such " under the keel " attacks to break the vessels back are more effective and destructive , the larger and heavier the vessel is .

also you do not have to deep six a vessel to render it almost worthless , take the the attack on tirpitz , IIRC operation paravane - an explosion outside the armour belt so baddly damaged the vessels major machinery mountings and warped a shaft , also more than one turret was rendered inoperative because the turret race was knocked out of alignment

the vessel was still afloat -- and the damage was " invisible " to the point that RN intel believed the german propaganda that the ship was still operational

but none the less -- the tirpitz was no longer capable of meaningfull action .



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Pedro....I doubt Syria could afford them too, but just the fact if Iran had those capabilities, Syria would go ape for sure. They'd also be packing it pretty densely, wondering what Iran's next move was going to be.

Even if they got stealth technology from Russia, I'd like to see just how effective it was. The Russians and others love talking themselves up and putting down the American technology.....it's all a hard sell to potential customers. Granted, some will work well, but if you look at the history of Russian weapons technology it's always lagged behind the West. If it was as superior as some think it is now, especially with their aircraft, you'd wonder why they or others haven't taken advantage of it. Quite frankly, even though their equipment now is much better than it previously was, and does perform very well in many cases, it's still not upto Western standards when it comes to the crunch. Anyway, the "eagles and hawks" in the US, and elsewhere, have always had a habit of talking up the opposition's capabilities and equipment. All the while pointing out the shortcomings of their own. Meanwhile actual combat has proven things otherwise. It's the way to get more money to make better gear that's even more advanced than the stuff you already have. So instead of being 5-10 years ahead or just at parity, you leapfrog a few more decades further in front, just by acting all scared and worried.

If Iran wants, and it decides to start a war, stealth or no stealth, or "fantabulous" new Russian goodies, the US and her allies will have been jamming Iran's electronic warfare capabilities and countermeasures up so tight, they'd think themselves constipated. They wouldn't be able to fire a SAM without losing the launcher or the missiles. Despite the much vaunted Russian S300 or S400, how long would they last with fighters, especially the F35 and maybe the F22, armed with DEW's...... which they are going to be doing very shortly. Let alone other targets. Plus, to make things worse, even the AC130 Spectres are getting the DEW treatment.

Nice having a plane that can loiter for hours above your head with a weapon that'll burn a big hole straight through the armour of your tank in a matter of a few milliseconds.

It'd still be a war....many will get killed on both sides, but it will still be an awfully one sided contest. Iran might last a few months, if it's lucky. The longest part of the action will be the ground war, and that's where they'll try to stretch things out. It could end up like another Iraq.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
Iran claims they invented the sun, for Christ's sake. Mehran posts outlandish claims all the time. The question is, do you believe them?

I don't. Not at all.

DE



I'd partly. I agree with the Bush Administration that Iran usually exaggerates (a lot). Though, they've been working on stealth aircrafts with the Russians; the Russians possess the knowledge and the know-how to produce weapons based on stealth technology.

Don't be surprised if the Russians are still selling technology to Iran.


Originally posted by GhostITM
Even if they got stealth technology from Russia, I'd like to see just how effective it was. The Russians and others love talking themselves up and putting down the American technology.....it's all a hard sell to potential customers.


Remember that the (Pro American) country of South Korea did want Russia to develop a stealth tank not so long ago? The biggest problem Russians have to cope is a lack of investment.

[edit on 24-9-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
It looks like the intent is to prevent the Iranians from closing the straits, and thus shutting down the global oil market for the duration of the war. The ship is, of course, open to attack.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Back to the Iowa's.....

I doubt these will be brought out of service. Refit would take awhile (although they probably still retain most of the stuff when they got refitted in the mid 80's, so most of the refits would be computers. I would imagine getting one ready for combat would be a 6-8 month eveolution minimum

You could recall alot of people out of the inactive ready reserve that had prior service on them to serve or train new crews but your still looking at probably 6 months or more for crews to get ready.

Cost of returning these ships and then operational costs are likely to prohibitive of this, unless we are really looking at a major regional or global war.

Now, on the plus side in the tight confines of the Persian Gulf, straits of Hormuz, where Iran has probably hundreds (perhaps thousands) of antiship missiles on ships, aircraft, and land based launchers.........having the armored bulk of a battleship could be very advantageous as its armor could absorb multiple hits from these missiles. While its not impossible to sink them, it would be difficult. Rest assured if they try to close the gulf there will be a shooting war over this, and the US/Allied navies WILL lose some, perhaps many tin cans in that environment.

And then of course the 16 in shells are alot cheaper then some of our smart munitions and there are plenty I beleive still around. They could wreak havoc on shore instillations (actually anything inland up to about 25 or more miles) and leave the aircraft and cruise missiles for the stuff 100's of miles back from the shores. The psychological impacts have also been discussed above.

I don't think this will be done, but if it is, it's definately a sign that the US is seriously preparing for a war.

Oh and someone mentioned the Ohio earlier carrying 150 TLAMs. The Ohio's are SSBNs, BALLISTIC missile subs, ICBMs, not cruise missile shooters......unless some have been converted for that mission. I haven't heard that, but it's a doable concept I am sure.

OHHHH just googled it and found it on wiki. 4 of the 18 ohio's were converted to carry 154 TLAMs or other Tomahawk varient missiles. Cool.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 24-9-2006 by Sr Wing Commander]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
To clear up the Iranian stealth issues:


1. Re the "Stealth flying boat". This turned out to be a small wings in ground effect (WIG) design typical of many similar WIGs around the world. It had an exposed piston engine driving a pusher propeller. It is not inherently stealthy except that it flies quite low. And it did not appear to have a weapon and is too small to carry anything that could be of any real use against a battleship or even corevette.

2. Re stealth missiles. No evidence.

3. Re stealth submarines. All submarines are "stealth" - lol. Iranian submarines are a serious threat and they have some novel designs including a submersible torpeado boat but none are really any more stealthy than anyone else's.

4. Re stealth planes. None. There is a new light fighter in development which has some signiture reduction features but this is not in service and is not going to be stealthy to the F-22/F-117 extent. A nice and credible plane, but not in service for several years yet.

5. Re Stealth boats - THIS IS WHERE IRAN DOES HAVE OPERATIONAL STEALTH ASSETS. A number (10+) stealthy torpedo boats probably with conventional 21" torpedos but possibly with Skhvall (sp?) in the future. These are where it's at - it sureprises me that these are not discussed more often, the evidence is pretty clear cut.

[edit on 24-9-2006 by planeman]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
It's obvious that some people are really, really excited about machines of war.

The underlying question here is whether the potential loss of life is justified by a program of nuclear power development.

We don't have any evidence that Iran is doing anything more than developing nuclear power. We should be looking at much more dangerous situations like Pakistan, which is one revolution away from putting real nuclear weapons into the hands of radical Islamists.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
One can find the technology and tactics fascinating without necessarly supporting the conflict.

I think a military confrontation with Iran is a foolish idea, completely unnecessary and will prove a failure in it's stated aims - if anything it might set their nuclear research programs back a year or two, but will convince them (and many others) that they absolutely need nuclear weapons in order to not come under attack again.

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

That doesn't mean I'm not interested in speculating on the technology and tactics that would be used in such a confrontation.

[edit on 9/24/06 by xmotex]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
That USS Iowa would look good at the bottom of the Persian Gulf.
Maybe you American's can kindly donate the ship to the Iranians, so they can sink it and create an artificial coral reef which in turn would help protect the gulf's marine environment, coral reefs and aquatic species.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_Peel
It's obvious that some people are really, really excited about machines of war.


Maybe the United States should ressurect John Holmes, clone him, wrap him in the flag and have him do a naked happy dance in front of the Iranians, seems to me it's all just a "my pecker is bigger than your pecker" kind of thing.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Earlier in this thread it was stated that we have such accurate precision guidance bombs that we can use smaller bombs and thus carry more bombs and hit more targets efficiently. This is true, however, i feel that if it was easy to just, fly through Iraq and take out relatively quick all major military installments, than it should be the same for attacking Iran, if they truly lack the technology to put up a decent fight.

But we cant do that, which is why the Nuclear Option is still "on the table". Several Joint Chiefs of Staff have already threatened resignation if we have to use a nook.
.

This tells me that we won't have the unconfrontational airspace we had over Iraq. We can't use precision small smart bombs, if we're being bombarded by an Iranian Airforce. I still hold to they'll put up a good fight on both Air on Sea, but in the end it will be mostly land as all wars are. (you can't start pumpin out the resources until an invasion is sucessful).



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pedro Sanchez

But we cant do that, which is why the Nuclear Option is still "on the table". Several Joint Chiefs of Staff have already threatened resignation if we have to use a nook.
.



I very much doubt the US would use a nuclear weapon first. The US Government would collapse as I think the US population would be somewhat revolted.

I find it worrying that there is glee in the though of such an act.

Regards



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostITM


The Canadians forces have historically and amply demonstrated thier backbone and I salute them. More like your politicians of which I am speaking.


It's the old addage, Orange'.....the pollies are the ones who start the wars. It's us poor dumb twats who have to do all the fighting. Never see a politician roll their sleaves up and grab a gun. Except to take potshots at their political opposition every now and then.

It's the same everywhere.

Tell you how long wars would last if we made the pollies go and fight them...... 2 seconds. How could people who are too self centered and power hungry be made to want to risk their own scrawny necks for anyone. Heck, sometimes they don't even like putting out for themselves!!!!.


[edit on 24-9-2006 by GhostITM]


Yup..I agree...

I tend twords the idea of the days of the early Roman Republic. Those who voted for war had to lead the attack. I think that is very intelligent politics. It would make us very serious about the buisness. Of course later when the professional politicians took over it began to look like current day America. Perhapsed I should reverse that and say Current day America looks like later day Rome. Confusion!!

Those who vote for war need to lead the attack.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
"Perhapsed I should reverse that and say Current day America looks like later day Rome. Confusion!! "

I couldn't agree more....History always repeats itself but more importantly what goes up must come down.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Paraphi, sorry the smiley wasnt for glee in the thought of using a nuke, it was at the way i spelled it.

We are going to war with Iran, we have already started planning for our first strike, of which the Nuke Option is on the table which is why Joint Chiefs of Staff are threatening resignation. Bush and Co. are the ones wanting to use a nuke, wanting to torture because "they do it". The heads of the military however are extremely split. In the end the president says what bombs fly. We would definately need to be "hit" again to gain enough public support to use a nuke otherwise revolt is innevitable. But lately, a lot of people ive been talking to at college seem to want to torture or nuke. Its like the world is getting dumber.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Pedro Sanchez said:

But lately, a lot of people ive been talking to at college seem to want to torture or nuke. Its like the world is getting dumber.


You think that's dumb? One of our politicians wanted to start talks with the Taliban. Rick Mercer, famous for his special "Talking to Americans", had the following to say:


I think you might be able to smoke there and I'm guessing the Taliban would appreciate that. All the Taliban really require to have a good time is an ashtray and a few de-peopled women making sure there's a steady supply of unsafe drinking water.

Agenda for Historic Peace talks between Jack Layton and Taliban leader - room 202 Casino Du Lac Leamy, Quebec

8:00 am – Jack Layton opening comments and welcome to assembled media and Taliban representative.

8:05 am – Taliban representative walks to podium, poses for photographs with Mr. Layton.

8:06 am – Taliban representative cleaves Mr. Layton in the forehead with giant axe.

8:08 am – Peace talks end.

8:10 am – Olivia Chow says she is "encouraged by talks” – announces plan to run for leadership of NDP.
from rickmercer.blogspot.com...

A humorous, semi-realistic pastiche. Your colleges drift further right, ours drift further left, day by day.

Back to the subject matter at hand, as for Iran bristling with defence...I figure as the fleet get closer to the straight, they'll shell anything that looks even remotely threatening flat from forty-odd nautical miles, plus have a fighter screen so thick you couldn't throw a a rock through it. There would definitely be some of those AEGIS ships there, but that's not the concern.

How in the hell are they going to keep a massive force like that supplied? Reload empty Volkswagon-sized brass? I mean, propellant doesn't grow on trees.

DE



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I say send over a few more battleships!!! I honestly belive that if we go to war with iran it will end up being just like iraq. A quick Victory! The only thing we should do different is not stay and try to put a puppet govt in there. We should bomb every radar tower then hit them with some good ole american "shock and awe". After that we can send a few abrams in to clean up the mess. Even better, lets just save the gas and let 8 good marines do it instead. Man, I thought we send the message out with Iraq...guess they didnt get the memo





top topics
 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join