Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
  OnTheRocks said:
UK sailors captured at gunpoint

 

Is Iran just pushing buttons to start Armageddon? Or will this blow over in a few days?

 

It will probably blow over in a few days. Sounds dramatic but these things aren't all that uncommon and incidents like this were always going to be likely with the British and Iranian forces in close proximity in the Gulf. There'll be a lot of huffing and puffing in public from both sides and the return of the sailors will be resolved by quiet diplomacy.

Posted
  molson_golden2002 said:
Holy crap! This is big! WTF are the Iranians thinking?

 

 

Big...like when they did it in 2004, and nothing happened.

 

The utter silence from the Iranian government is interesting, though.

Posted
  Bungee Jumper said:
Big...like when they did it in 2004, and nothing happened.

 

The utter silence from the Iranian government is interesting, though.

 

Scouring the earth for cricket coaching candidates, no doubt.

Posted
  chicot said:
? Are you confusing Iran with Pakistan?

 

I don't think so. I figure cricket coaches are in shorter supply now, so this is one way to corner the market.

Posted
  molson_golden2002 said:
I wonder if Iran has these missles?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070323...rg/ako7y_orw538

 

That article's complete bull sh--. The Navy's been planning around defeating supersonic antiship missiles since the mid-70's.

 

And even if the "Sizzler" is a threat, and even if the Iranians have them...do you have any idea how difficult it is to get within launch range of a carrier if it doesn't want you there? The article's not even believable bull sh--.

Posted
  DC Tom said:
That article's complete bull sh--. The Navy's been planning around defeating supersonic antiship missiles since the mid-70's.

 

And even if the "Sizzler" is a threat, and even if the Iranians have them...do you have any idea how difficult it is to get within launch range of a carrier if it doesn't want you there? The article's not even believable bull sh--.

Complete BS? I guess that's why the Pentagon is so adament about addressing this issue. I guess they should consult you first before they start worrying. And as top this weapons potential, if it is as good as is claimed, it could be launched from land around the Persian Gulf at American ships, and not just Air Craft carriers. If they knocked out a few cruisers that would be a serious blow.

Posted
  molson_golden2002 said:
Complete BS? I guess that's why the Pentagon is so adament about addressing this issue. I guess they should consult you first before they start worrying. And as top this weapons potential, if it is as good as is claimed, it could be launched from land around the Persian Gulf at American ships, and not just Air Craft carriers. If they knocked out a few cruisers that would be a serious blow.

 

 

Yes, complete BS. The Navy's been preparing against this kind of threat for 30 years, the Navy knows this, had they bothered to interview more than on Navy officer for the article, they may have twigged to this. "The Navy" isn't worried...a bunch of appointed civilians who understand as little about this sh-- as you do are as worried as you for the same reason you are: a complete lack of understanding of the naval battle space.

Posted
  Bungee Jumper said:
Yes, complete BS. The Navy's been preparing against this kind of threat for 30 years, the Navy knows this, had they bothered to interview more than on Navy officer for the article, they may have twigged to this. "The Navy" isn't worried...a bunch of appointed civilians who understand as little about this sh-- as you do are as worried as you for the same reason you are: a complete lack of understanding of the naval battle space.

Chuckle, career navy experts in the past have dismissed ironclad warships, air craft carriers, submarines and many other weapons. Ever hear of Billy Mitchell? Do you remember the attack on the USS Stark? That was an old missle that hit that ship, I'm sure the technology has improved since then and so should the defensive capabilities

Posted
  /dev/null said:

 

 

Doesn't mean it was easy. :thumbsup:

 

 

And it highlights a far bigger concern than "Sizzler" missiles: US ASW practice and training has seriously declined since the end of the Cold War. I wouldn't be surprised if the Kitty Hawk didn't even have a squadron of ASW aircraft on board at the time...

 

Yep...the only ASW component is HS-14, with 4 Seahawk/Oceanhawk helos. Nothing to prosecute subs in the outer ASW ring. The carrier battle group has one ship - a Spruance-class destroyer - that's a true anti-sub platform. You want to complain about something, complain about the state of ASW practice in the Navy, not "Sizzler" missiles.

Posted

Tom knows more about this subject than I do... but I believe China uses 4 targeting satellites for their missiles. Even with radar and inferred targeting, the missiles can't distinguish between a tanker and a carrier.

Posted
  Bungee Jumper said:
Doesn't mean it was easy. <_<

And it highlights a far bigger concern than "Sizzler" missiles: US ASW practice and training has seriously declined since the end of the Cold War. I wouldn't be surprised if the Kitty Hawk didn't even have a squadron of ASW aircraft on board at the time...

 

Yep...the only ASW component is HS-14, with 4 Seahawk/Oceanhawk helos. Nothing to prosecute subs in the outer ASW ring. The carrier battle group has one ship - a Spruance-class destroyer - that's a true anti-sub platform. You want to complain about something, complain about the state of ASW practice in the Navy, not "Sizzler" missiles.

 

Which leads me to another question. Who the hell names a ship the Kitty Hawk?

Posted
  meazza said:
Which leads me to another question. Who the hell names a ship the Kitty Hawk?

 

Never took US history in school up there, I take it? Or history of aviation...

×
×
  • Create New...