Me, too. Even if we don't have anything that can stop it once its fired, we have really,really,really good detections systems. They gotta get within about 4 miles to use it, which with our detection systems is very close. Not that they couldn;t do it, just very unlikely.
Iran tests underwater missile
- Thread starter Old Partner
- Start date
- Status
Me, too. Even if we don't have anything that can stop it once its fired, we have really,really,really good detections systems. They gotta get within about 4 miles to use it, which with our detection systems is very close. Not that they couldn;t do it, just very unlikely.
Manedwolf
member
You mean like with the USS Cole?
To me, assuming that they can't use the thing is tantamount to assuming that the crackhead wandering around down the street waving a questionable cheap revolver can't actually shoot and kill you with it. Would you take that chance?
I do, however, think we have other problems to worry about. All the ships in the Gulf could be hit with a literal swarm of hundreds of Exocets (remember the Stark?), punctuated by unstoppable Sunburns and their even faster successor, with the only way out being the Straits of Hormuz. The Shkval just adds another dangerous uncertainty.
Dannyboy
Member
Yeah, like that's the same thing.
HankB
Member
Well, if one of our ships (or, for that matter, one of ANYONE's ships) is ever hit by one of these things, we'll know for sure where it came from. No question of plausible deniability . . . then it will be "lights out" for Tehran.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Since the torpedo is travelling at 200+ mph it is going to have very little time to make course corrections or change depth once it detects the magnetic field - and the speed also means that these course corrections won't be dramatic.
The problem I see is that the torpedo has to run at a preset depth so it arrives under the keel but close enough to set off the magnetic imploder. It isn't going to take much to cause it to miss that depth. If it explodes too shallow, it does damage like an early WWII torpedo and modern damage control can handle that. If it explodes too deep, it does even less damage.
My guess is that Shkval was originally designed to carry a nuclear warhead and was developed with that use in mind. The current technology has a high cool factor; but pretty limited applications for naval warfare. About the only other use I can think of for it is to fire it down the line of bearing of an oncoming torpedo in hopes of killing the sub that kills you or forcing it to break the guidance wire; but that is more a defensive use.
Obviously not the same situation...I'm assuming a battle group at sea, using all available resources. I'm pretty sure that with what's going on in the Middle East, all our systems are at "high alert". But, you are correct in that it might not prevent a surprise attack, under very limited circumstances...However, they gotta realize that, at that point, their entire country is gonna become a parking lot.
Not a lot of room to manouver those big ol' ships in the Strait of Hormuza, is there?
They could also simply sink a couple of tankers which could really clog things up for our navy and other oil tankers. Lots of crude passes through that little Strait.
Biker
They could also simply sink a couple of tankers which could really clog things up for our navy and other oil tankers. Lots of crude passes through that little Strait.
Biker
seeker_two
Member
All you would need is a transmitter mounted in a cargo container, small boat, or even in a suitcase to give those missles something to home in on, and you're looking at a lot of expensive wreckage. Not something beyond current Iranian technology, I think...
Actually, the radioactive glow would provide a good light source...
HankB said:
Actually, the radioactive glow would provide a good light source...
/*Unless they are 100% suicidal then I dont see them using these kinds of weapons in combat. */
Well, the president of Iran is an adherent to the following, this information coming from this link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...an14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html
"Iran's dominant "Twelver" sect believes this will be Mohammed ibn Hasan, regarded as the 12th Imam, or righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammad.
He is said to have gone into "occlusion" in the ninth century, at the age of five. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic confrontation with evil and darkness, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace.
This is similar to the Christian vision of the Apocalypse. Indeed, the Hidden Imam is expected to return in the company of Jesus.
Mr Ahmadinejad appears to believe that these events are close at hand and that ordinary mortals can influence the divine timetable."
Well, the president of Iran is an adherent to the following, this information coming from this link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...an14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html
"Iran's dominant "Twelver" sect believes this will be Mohammed ibn Hasan, regarded as the 12th Imam, or righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammad.
He is said to have gone into "occlusion" in the ninth century, at the age of five. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic confrontation with evil and darkness, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace.
This is similar to the Christian vision of the Apocalypse. Indeed, the Hidden Imam is expected to return in the company of Jesus.
Mr Ahmadinejad appears to believe that these events are close at hand and that ordinary mortals can influence the divine timetable."
HankB
Member
Aren't prevailing winds from west to east?
Regardless, now that they've bragged about having these underwater missles, the use of these weapons anywhere by anyone will bring a response which the mullahs in Tehran will find . . . unpleasant. (For example, it wouldn't take either nukes or "boots on the ground" to reduce most of Iran's power plants and water pumping stations to rubble. And keep them that way.)
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Radio waves don't propagate very well under water, and they don't propagate very well through a supercavitating air bubble either. Sonar doesn't propagate through bubbles either. So what type of transmitter do you propose to use? How do you propose to get it on a U.S. Naval vessel? How do you propose the U.S. Navy doesn't notice an alien electronic signal transmitting from one of their own ships?
Crosshair
Member
Most people seem to be assuming that they are going to use these against our ships. This would probably be used on tankers. From what I understand, we used Kiowa warrior helicopters to protect tankers against Iranian gunboats. These torpedos could be used in hit and run attacks.
Gunboat rushes into range of tanker. Line up the torpedo with the tanker and fires and hauls arse out of the area before the other side can fire back.
Also, in narrow waterway and busy sealanes, it is sometimes very difficult to detect small craft and then you have to figure out if it is a hostile craft.
Gunboat rushes into range of tanker. Line up the torpedo with the tanker and fires and hauls arse out of the area before the other side can fire back.
Also, in narrow waterway and busy sealanes, it is sometimes very difficult to detect small craft and then you have to figure out if it is a hostile craft.
The problem for Iran is this:
Since there's little or no good defense against an "underwater missile" used against a tanker -- a pretty easy target to hit -- then the threat of extreme retaliation is the only way to "defend" against it.
They may see this as a strong bargaining chip, but it probably puts them in a worse position. The likelihood of Iran being attacked (before or after they use it) just went way up. Only someone like another President Carter would change the equation.
Since there's little or no good defense against an "underwater missile" used against a tanker -- a pretty easy target to hit -- then the threat of extreme retaliation is the only way to "defend" against it.
They may see this as a strong bargaining chip, but it probably puts them in a worse position. The likelihood of Iran being attacked (before or after they use it) just went way up. Only someone like another President Carter would change the equation.
LoadAmmo
Member
Looks like another War for Israel might be a bad idea.
Me say no invadey Irany.
Oh wait, they're anti-Israel! Nuke em!
Me say no invadey Irany.
Oh wait, they're anti-Israel! Nuke em!
ElTacoGrande
Member
That was also my thought on this.
RevDisk
Member
Back in the day, if you said the RPG could be used as a reasonably cost-effective anticraft weapon, you'd be laughed at. After the Somalis figured out the idea of welding an angled tube on the back of the RPG, no one is laughing very much these days. (Tis how our Blackhawks were shot down.) RPG's produce backblast, aiming one up high enough would fry your legs. Until the Somalis used a couple cents of steel tubing to redirect the backblast. Volley fired, they can and do shoot down some of our helo's. The insurgents in Iraq seem to have picked up on this trick also, with varying degrees of success.
At first glance, these underwater missiles don't seem very practical. However, never discount human ingenuity. I have few doubts that the Iranians could figure out a way of making them very effective under certain circumstances. I could come up with a bunch of ways of using them, and I have zero Naval experience. Why not put some at the bottom of the ocean/Gulf/whatever, aiming straight up? Hide them in sunken wreckage, and a mine sweeper is unlikely to pick anything up. Volley firing is another tried and true method.
Another possibility is that they do not intend to be fielded whatever. Announce very publically they're making 'supersecret' modifications to these missiles for coast defense (or whatever). We can't ignore it, because it's more than likely to be true. And it potentionally makes a pre-emptive invasion look even less inviting to our brass. Never underestimate the psychological aspect of weapons, or even war in general.
First strike usage of nuclear weapons in a non-nuclear war is not US policy, and probably never will be. From the Korean War on to present day, more than a few folks have said "If we just nuked 'em, the war would be over by Christmas." It's never happened, and likely never will. Possible, sure. But about as likely as me single handedly winning the next Superbowl. Every time we occupy a foreign country, it turns into an infantry war. Fancy toys like super neato fighters, super high tech missiles, super nifty ships, etc are very nice toys. Yes, they can be helpful, very helpful at times. But they cannot win a war. Unfortunately, that will likely always be reserved for boots on the ground.
At first glance, these underwater missiles don't seem very practical. However, never discount human ingenuity. I have few doubts that the Iranians could figure out a way of making them very effective under certain circumstances. I could come up with a bunch of ways of using them, and I have zero Naval experience. Why not put some at the bottom of the ocean/Gulf/whatever, aiming straight up? Hide them in sunken wreckage, and a mine sweeper is unlikely to pick anything up. Volley firing is another tried and true method.
Another possibility is that they do not intend to be fielded whatever. Announce very publically they're making 'supersecret' modifications to these missiles for coast defense (or whatever). We can't ignore it, because it's more than likely to be true. And it potentionally makes a pre-emptive invasion look even less inviting to our brass. Never underestimate the psychological aspect of weapons, or even war in general.
First strike usage of nuclear weapons in a non-nuclear war is not US policy, and probably never will be. From the Korean War on to present day, more than a few folks have said "If we just nuked 'em, the war would be over by Christmas." It's never happened, and likely never will. Possible, sure. But about as likely as me single handedly winning the next Superbowl. Every time we occupy a foreign country, it turns into an infantry war. Fancy toys like super neato fighters, super high tech missiles, super nifty ships, etc are very nice toys. Yes, they can be helpful, very helpful at times. But they cannot win a war. Unfortunately, that will likely always be reserved for boots on the ground.
ElTacoGrande
Member
Anyway, does anyone seriously think the US could "win" a war vs. Iran, for some definition of "win"? We are sort of deadlocked in Iraq, and the war is lacking popular support at home, and it's straining our military past its capacity. And Iran would be a much more difficult fight.
If we need a military solution to the Iran problem, we've already lost.
If we need a military solution to the Iran problem, we've already lost.
captain obvious
Member
Don't the Iranians have a couple of Kilo class subs? I don't recall too much of an emphasis on ASW by the Navy of late, either.
Shkvals look like nothing but bad news.
Shkvals look like nothing but bad news.
HankB
Member
I do. My definition of "win" would be along the lines of what Rome did to Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War. Or what Sherman did during his march to the sea during the American Civil War. Or by doing what was done to Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo during WWII.
We COULD pretty much do that - at least to every major and most minor cities - without using nukes.
Whether today's crop of politicians would do that, regardless of Tehran's preceeding actions, is another matter entirely.
Oh, but wait! Do they also have drones that could attack the United States with chemical and biological weapons? Goodness gracious, I hope not.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79450,00.html
Don't you guys ever get tired of this stuff?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79450,00.html
Don't you guys ever get tired of this stuff?
Lupinus
Member
I'm not worried. Yes, if it hits it will be devistating to a ship. However, actually getting a hit is the hard part. One, it is inacurate. Two, you have to get so darn close that you are gonna die well before you are in range.
It isn't worthless, but it isn't the weapon that will make Iran king of the gulf either.
Make a ring around our capital ships, anyone that crosses gets fair warning to turn back, and if they don't within a few hundred yards they get blown out of the water before we are in range. The Russians have had the same basic thing for awhile and the only reason this is scaring the public is because it is being hyped up.
It isn't worthless, but it isn't the weapon that will make Iran king of the gulf either.
Make a ring around our capital ships, anyone that crosses gets fair warning to turn back, and if they don't within a few hundred yards they get blown out of the water before we are in range. The Russians have had the same basic thing for awhile and the only reason this is scaring the public is because it is being hyped up.
- Status