It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. military reports "significant confrontation" between 5 Iranian vessels...

page: 12
26
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Double Post.

Mods, please delete.

[edit on 8/1/08 by COOL HAND]




posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
I'm well aware of the Phalanx and its capabilities. Which do not include supersonic cruise missiles. They simply come over the horizon too fast. The Sunburns and Yakhonts would be nasty.


Might want to refresh yourself on the facts for the CIWS system. What would be the point of such a high rate of fire if you are not going to use it on an incoming supersonic missile?



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
I'm well aware of the Phalanx and its capabilities. Which do not include supersonic cruise missiles. They simply come over the horizon too fast. The Sunburns and Yakhonts would be nasty.


Might want to refresh yourself on the facts for the CIWS system. What would be the point of such a high rate of fire if you are not going to use it on an incoming supersonic missile?



You might want to check your facts also then. If the Phalanx is so effective against incoming supersonic missiles why are they switching to SeaRams missile for ciws? I know for sure the ageis system with sm2 missiles can deal with the incoming missiles thats of course if you can detect it. I believe the SeaRam would also be effective because of its thrust vectoring. The Phalanx is def not effective though, the Sunburn is too fast, and thus will not give enough reaction time to destroy the incoming missile. Imagine a saturation attack the phalanx will not be able to deal with that at all.

The Phalanx is over years old and was not meant to combat incoming supersonic cruise missiles but to combat missiles of the harpoon and exoset type.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by greysave]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Skimming throgh the post here I must say I'm appalled at the rhetoric!! I hear people saying Iranian this russia that, we should have fired, they're trying to trick us, bla bla bla.. It almost seems like you guys want people to die!! I don't no what wrong with us. Don't you understand what a war with Iran would do. Does anyone care about humanity. Hasn't enough blood been spilled already. I know I'm wasting my time with this post but we are getting closer and closer to end game, and from where I'm sitting its beginning to look like we're all going to lose and every one is happy about it!!

[edit on 1/8/2008 by XcLuciFer]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
As I had said, i don't think it is over yet and I was not wrong.

Please refer th the following post:

www.abovepolitics.com...'

(lets not for get those terrorists get training/money and arms from their Iranian masters)


Sadly, I expect more to come as Wednesday approaches.
It would not surprise me if something bigger was attempted.

I am sure the terrorists will do or at least try to do something(s) to prevent/delay the peace process.

lets all hope they fail to do so.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by greysave
You might want to check your facts also then. If the Phalanx is so effective against incoming supersonic missiles why are they switching to SeaRams missile for ciws?


Check your facts, SEA-RAM is being selected due to its max engagment range. It is always better to kill something as far away as you can.
You might also want to look into the ESSM program as well.


The Phalanx is over years old and was not meant to combat incoming supersonic cruise missiles but to combat missiles of the harpoon and exoset type.

That is why they have updated it along the way. The current version more than capable of handling these kinds of attacks.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Though i'm not trusting of the Iran I am inclined to believe this incident was not unusaul.

Why?

Because navies around the world patrol the very edge of teritoral and international waterways. Especially if 2 countries have unfreindly relations.

I would be a matter of pride for these navy captions to sailas close as possible to the boundry line.

They very reason the USN didn't fire was becuase the Iranens never left there owvn teritorial waters.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

The "stupid" part IMO is that you do not understand that while "not all people of iran are what you call 'extremists'.", many of their leaders are. You know, the ones that push the buttons to start the wars? And it seems the non-extremist iranians haven't done much to remove them from office, now have they?

So, instead of telling another ATS member to "grow up", how about you "educate up" before posting again?


[edit on 1/7/2008 by centurion1211]


Replace everything in your last post from Iran to America and Iranians to Americans, so it reads...

"
The "stupid" part IMO is that you do not understand that while "not all people of America are what you call 'extremists'.", many of their leaders are. You know, the ones that push the buttons to start the wars? And it seems the non-extremist Americans haven't done much to remove them from office, now have they?"

Who needs educating?



[edit on 8-1-2008 by cleggy88]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Having just seen the footage on the bbc,

I would say that these 5 speedboats, were in fact U.S speedboats,

staging an event,to look like provocation.

sorry,but the U.S will do anything to get its own way

and have a track record at this sort of thing.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
(lets not for get those terrorists get training/money and arms from their Iranian masters)


Let's not forget terrorists all over the world get training/money/weapons from their U.S.A. masters. Should we attack the White House?



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by keithm
Having just seen the footage on the bbc,

I would say that these 5 speedboats, were in fact U.S speedboats,

staging an event,to look like provocation.


Wow, really.....Are you a U.S. speedboat expert?

Did you see any U.S. markings?
I didn't think so. Pfft....



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by keithm
 


K,

You DO KNOW, that Iran admitted that the gunboats were theirs.

YOU DO KNOW, that Iran admitted charging at and through the 3 American Naval ships with their gunboats, while the American ships WERE in international waters.

YOU DO KNOW, that Iran admits the boats dropped white box's into the water in front of the US Naval ships, like they were bombs or mines.

So, with Iran doing all that-they admitted it in their own news-
how is it America's fault?

So with Iran admitting all that is it an American False Flag Operation??????

You would think that Iran would not assist America in a false flag operation.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Wow..after 12 pages the thread has become a bloated a) weapons-fantasists show-down b) mudsling-fest c) pro/anti war left/right trench warfare...and I thought this was ATS?

Perhaps a wider dispassionate analysis on the situation at hand should be called-for where we can use this topic to draw together othere events into the wider analysis and take it from there...

...can we please? there's enough conflict going on without ructions 'at home', thanks



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by citizen smith
Perhaps a wider dispassionate analysis on the situation at hand should be called-for where we can use this topic to draw together othere events into the wider analysis and take it from there...

Yeah, lets all conform and think the same.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Wow, really.....Are you a U.S. speedboat expert?

Funny you mention that.

I work for sunseeker intl,in poole,dorset UK.

built speedboats for james bond and other movies.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
apnews.myway.com...

Recordings are now available that show the boats, and they are Iranian. Now, explain how the following is an accident...

Cosgriff said the five Iranian boats, outfitted with outboard motors and carrying three to four people each, rapidly approached three U.S. warships - the Hopper, cruiser USS Port Royal and frigate USS Ingraham.

Two of the Iranian boats went to the ship's left side, three to the right, he said. The two on the left "were more energetic and made a number of runs toward the lead ship, the USS Hopper."

As the two boats did so, Hopper's crew heard a radio call threatening that the U.S. ships would "explode." The two boats dumped boxes into the water.


Does this seem like the act of someone who is jsut checking things out? Also, if this was a US black op, don;t you think they would have actually STARTED a war and not done what they did. This shows resolve on the part of the US Navy. After the USS Cole bombing, anything within 500 yards should be blown to hell.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by keithm
I work for sunseeker intl,in poole,dorset UK.

built speedboats for james bond and other movies.

Yeah, ok because movies equal reality.


Look, it has already been determined the boats were Iranian.
Guess you must be an apprentice.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
www.liveleak.com...

Don't know if this was posted, or some similar footage, but it shows the Iranian boat within 100 yards. What is up with that? Forgotten the lesson of the U.S.S. Cole???



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


in the 6 times around the world that anti ship missiles have been used against CIWS armed vessels the score is 5-1 to missiles - and 5 excuses as to why the system failed.


now thats against sub sonic weapons against super sonic its a totally different ball game and why gun based CIWS fails:


the maximum range of CIWS is 2000 yards and missile traveling at mach 3 or 2280 mph is *roughly* travelling at 1000 yards per second

so from maximum range you have 2 seconds

now the ciws rate of fire at max is 4500 rounds per minute (latest block 1a) which is 75 rounds per second.

so thats 150 rounds fired about a moving target trying to hit from 2/3rds of a mile away.

so the result? missile hits.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 

It just goes to show the tremendous restraint the US Navy Used against the Iranian Navy.

I wonder what would be happening now "IF" the US Navy had just flat-out sunk the speed boats as they approached too close.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join