Hmmm...Iranian Attack Subs

[fastpat]

Interesting, Iran is building their own subs now.
http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S1#

This is in addition to the other ones Iran has purchased to defend their country.

[aap1966]

Los Angeles class vs Ayatollah class.

Hmmmmmm.........


Can I put $20 on the Los Angeles class?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by aap1966
Los Angeles class vs Ayatollah class.

Hmmmmmm.........


Can I put $20 on the Los Angeles class?

Head to head in blue water isn't where the Iranians operate. Small near shore subs are for defensive use against aggressive invasion forces, a good use for them. LA class is a huge blue water sub.

[svandamme]

and if they run electric/diesel , they could be more silent then any nuclear sub that always has something running to cool the reactor...

they don't need much range, crew, or weapons storage, or depth (the Gulf bottoms out below 600 feet max)
that could make a small, agile and very specialized and expendable sub in potentially large numbers. and at least make life a bit more difficult in the straight of Hormuz and the Gulf itself...

[fastpat]

Originally posted by svandamme
and if they run electric/diesel , they could be more silent then any nuclear sub that always has something running to cool the reactor...

they don't need much range, crew, or weapons storage, or depth (the Gulf bottoms out below 600 feet max)
that could make a small, agile and very specialized and expendable sub in potentially large numbers. and at least make life a bit more difficult in the straight of Hormuz and the Gulf itself...

They could take 5 or 6 hundred tramp steamers to the Hormuz narrows and sink them which would raise holy hell with shipping for 6-12 months; not to mention restrict large subs from entering the Persian Gulf except through a designated kill zone. The US government is furnishing the Iranians with a target rich environment in the Gulf, there's over 40 US warships there now, including at least one large carrier, sometimes two. I'd expect the Iranians capable enough to sink at least one carrier and half of the rest.

[svandamme]

mwah , i would think the carriers are hard to get to, plenty of escorts , plenty of ASW, it would have to be an all out multiple layer attack (sea, sub , air ) and very suicidal... maybe if they are cornered, but that would put em in a position unsuitable to go for the carrier with a bigscale attack...

[Rick V]

Where do they put the camels?

[svandamme]

Originally posted by Rick V
Where do they put the camels?

i suspect they plan to use them camel fluid blathers for boyancy control, and propulsion..



It's doubtful sonar would even pick it up.


And if it did,it would sound like whales humping

or a seismic anomaly.
Anything but a submarine.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Rick V
Where do they put the camels?

Iranians are Persians, not arabs. See Saudi Arabia, the Bush'ists friends, and 19 out of 20 perpetrators of the attacks on 9/11/2001, if you're looking for arabs.

[bell]

"camel? .........winston you schmuck"

[aap1966]

Originally posted by fastpat
I'd expect the Iranians capable enough to sink at least one carrier and half of the rest.

Seriously? Sinking a carrier would mean taking out some of the escort vessels as well. (Assuming the Iranians have a conventional weapon capable of actually sinking a carrier.) A carrier has a crew of, what, 5000+ ? So you're looking at 7000 or more American casualties in one afternoon. About 3x that of Pearl Harbour. I would imagine that would escalate any military action into a "war of annihilation." Can anyone imagine any administration of any political colour walking away from that? I will grant you the Iranians seem keen on "martyrdom actions", but surely that would martyr the whole country.

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by aap1966
Los Angeles class vs Ayatollah class.

Hmmmmmm.........


Can I put $20 on the Los Angeles class?

Irrelevant.

Most anti-submarine operations are carried out by aircraft dropping sono-buoys or by using magnetic anomoly detectors (MAD). And nobody comes close to matching the US Navy in sub detection technology. A closed environment like the Persian Gulf only makes the task easier.

Locate the target...drop a homing torpedo on it. Done.

However the easiest way to destroy a submarine is to sink it in port. Unless the Iranians have very reinforced armored sub pens with advanced anti-aircraft defense like the Kriegsmarine did in WW2, they wouldn't stand much of a chance. Even with reinforced pens, I don't think they'd be able to withstand modern bunker busters or fuel air explosives (FAE)..or just having their harbor mined.

Originally posted by fastpat


They could take 5 or 6 hundred tramp steamers to the Hormuz narrows and sink them which would raise holy hell with shipping for 6-12 months.

Except where are they going to get 600 tramp steamers? The total merchant marine carrying the Iranian flag is only 139 ships. Many of which are oil tankers that they need for their economic livelihood. It's simply not doable or desirable and probably wouldn't work in any case.

http://www.bartleby.com/151/fields/117.html

A more reasonable tactic would be to lay mines like they have done in the past. However, mining international waters is usually looked upon quite dimly by the rest of the world....particularly the other gulf states which depend upon this waterway for their economic livelihood. Not a good way to win friends and influence people.

But the most important reason for Iran not to do such a thing is that IRAN ALSO depends on those self same waters for it's oil exports and it's food imports. No sense cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Originally posted by svandamme

mwah , i would think the carriers are hard to get to, plenty of escorts , plenty of ASW, it would have to be an all out multiple layer attack (sea, sub , air ) and very suicidal... maybe if they are cornered, but that would put em in a position unsuitable to go for the carrier with a bigscale attack...

Suicidal is correct. But that tactic has been tried by the Imperial Japanese Navy. Kaitens (suicide subs) were NOT highly successful as a weapon. With anti-submarine technology even more advanced now, I can't see it being any easier for the Iranians.

[Rick V]

Originally posted by bell
"camel? .........winston you schmuck"

Ok, well when I smoked I was a Marlboro man.

[M.D. Holloway]

I asked my Dad about this. He spent 36 yrs in underwater warfare and after he got done laughing he thought that our concerns are better placed on getting out of Iraq and tending to our own over here. The ol hawk has turned dove yet shows little concern for the underwater folly of anybody these days - few armies can hold a candle to ours and our underwater technology is vastly superior compared to anyone to the point it has changed navel warfare forever - compare Kentucky windage to smart laser sites.

[DavidI]

Pat, it sounds like you want the Iranians to kill Americans! If you hate our country that much, leave.......Did you forget the hostages?

David

[fastpat]

Originally posted by DavidI
Pat, it sounds like you want the Iranians to kill Americans!

Americans are here, in America. Those that become government thugs invading a foreign country get what they deserve.

If you hate our country that much, leave.......

I love my country, resist what you would like for it to become more of, a police state, and I'm not leaving. But, please be in the front row of any attempt to make me leave.

Did you forget the hostages?

David

Did you forget the US government's putting the Shah on the throne and destroying the lawfully elected government prior to that?

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by fastpat

Did you forget the US government's putting the Shah on the throne and destroying the lawfully elected government prior to that?

Actually, there was no "lawfully elected" government. Mossadegh, the prime minister, DECLARED a republic which only lasted a few days before the return of the shah.

In any case, however one might interpret those events, they were 30 years before the hostage crisis, and are hardly any reason to justify it. The Iranian Republicans were long gone from the scene by the time the Fundamentalists stormed the US Tehran embassy.

But back to the main topic....about submarines...remember those?

[svandamme]

actually , there was the basis that he had been democratically elected several times prior to the Shah upsetting the democratic process...
in 51 the Iranian Parliament voted him into the hotseat by 79-12 votes
he got approved a second time in 52, despite the embargo due to the nationalisation of the oil production..

so before the Brittish and US decided (in 53) he had to be ousted
he was , by all means , the Prime Minister of the parliament, doing what he had to for his voters, even against the Shah's (who was not elected) wish...and he was under pressure by Brittain and the US , because he took the control over oil, into the hands of Iran.

he never actually did declare Iran to be a republic , which would have made his president, he never was, Prime Minister was the highest position open for election...he tried to get the Shah out, who was pro western , as proven by his return , and cancellation of the oil policies...

[Victor]

Oh how I would love to be selling guns to you boyz right now....I could be driving a 911TT.

[allaircooled]

Those that become government thugs invading a foreign country get what they deserve.

And what exactly was meant by this comment?