Iran promises retaliation if Israel attacks

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap
Oh, and as for Zylka's little rant:

A modern Diesel Electirc sub is more silent than a nuclear sub, and in the world of subhunting, being quiet is the key. The Subs the Iranians have are not old WW2 types, but top of the shelf Russian deisels.

many links:

http://diodon349.com/submarines/diesel_subs_surface_as_a_new_threat.htm

http://members.tripod.com/~fidelispark/third/sub.htm

Information on the Kilo class sub (which is what Iran bought)

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kilo877/

maybe next time he will educate himself before speaking like an idiot...oh wait, too late for that.

Too bad that they have very little range and are not nearly as quiet as the devices we have sitting on the ocean floor outside of their bases just looking for them. I would be shocked if the Iranians managed to even obtain one hit on a major U.S. vessel in a full exchange in the Persian Gulf.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
The diesel subs, while they would not be a viable long term threat, could very easily inflict relatively severe casualties on the USN in the short term. Modern diesel subs do run more quietly than most, if not all, nuclear subs, and, operating in a pack, could probably be quite successful at taking out a carrier or two. The problem would be when they needed to get air, which would make them visible to some extent. The question is really how long they could hide.

I'm relatively surprised at the good perception of US intelligence and war capabilities posted in this thread. I would have thought that the Iraq fiasco had exposed the weaknesses of both to everyone by now.

The real problem for the US would be when OPEC cut off oil supplies. At that point, with Iraqi oil infrastructure in the state that it is currently in, the US would be utterly screwed, which is why we would never be so stupid as to support Israel in a preemptive strike against Iran, or defend it when Iran struck back.

I seriously doubt that they could take out a carrier, much less two. Do we even have a carrier in the Gulf to take out these days, or have we pulled it back to the Indian Ocean? Anyway there is a big difference between (maybe) being able to survive for a while and being able to locate, approach and destroy a well-escorted enemy target. They could pose a danger to tankers of course which is more to the point of their existence anyway.

[PLATO]

It doesn't matter how quiet you are when sonar goes active. If their was any chance of an Iranian sub near a US Carrier you would have a halfdozen destroyers banging away in a heartbeat. Chance of Iranian sub surviving=0.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
... the US would be utterly screwed, which is why we would never be so stupid as to support Israel in a preemptive strike against Iran, or defend it when Iran struck back.

Um, I rather doubt this. If a country doesn't consistently back its allies, then it rapidly loses credibility. The US would be in a no win situation - I just hope Israel realises this and doesn't start something that neither side can finish without immense damage.

Blood causes blood, you see.

Originally posted by Plato
It doesn't matter how quiet you are when sonar goes active. If their was any chance of an Iranian sub near a US Carrier you would have a halfdozen destroyers banging away in a heartbeat. Chance of Iranian sub surviving=0.

Always assuming the DE sub isn't hiding below a thermal layer...

... also, if the minefields are already in place, killing the sub won't remove the minefield. It also won't help any tankers that have already found out the hard way that a minefield is in place.

Placing a minefield is relatively easy compared with removing it. Thanks to the poster (Kirnwaffen?) who told me about the Avenger class in the USN - I was unaware of US minesweepers' capabilities.

EDIT: No, not Kirnwaffen. Thank you Plato.

[Edan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
We were right about Iran.

And North Korea.

Anyway, isn't Iran currently attacking Israel by proxy, anyway?

So they're saying they would attack Israel directly?

[GePap]

Cause Israel has no proxies-at least ones not currently busy with much bigger messes.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

I read this thread as "Imran promises retaliation if Israel attacks".

He always seemed like a moderate kind of guy to me.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
Cause Israel has no proxies-at least ones not currently busy with much bigger messes.

I would have thought Israel would have been the proxy...

[GePap]

Not politically they aren't.

[Panag]

Originally posted by GePap
To get to Iran, Israel has to overfly either:

1. Turkey
2. Iraq
3. Saudi Arabia

So in essence, they could not do it without the US knowing fully what is about to happen=and either give it tactic approval (overflights of Iraq) or stand by and do nothing.

Hence, the US would be the one to get the blame....

And we still ship them 3 billion a year

hi ,


take a look at a map , ..... you can fly over water also , ....


have a nice day

[GePap]

Originally posted by panag



hi ,


take a look at a map , ..... you can fly over water also , ....


have a nice day

Oh, Of course: lets see, take off near tel Aviv- head to the med...then.......Fly over egyptian airspace to get to the Red sea, then fly several thousand miles around Arabia, which of course will give plenty of time for the saudis to know you are headed Iran's way, and then finally get accross the Arabian peninsula to strike at Iran.. and then what? Cause I assume you want them to be able to fly back, right?

Or go over the mediterranean, then fly over turkey yo get to the black sea, then either fly over turkey again to hit iran, or fly over Armenia and Aizerbaijan to get to Iran..ypu, another quicky....

[Az]

Fly over egyptian airspace to get to the Red sea,

Umm, not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I read this thread as "Imran promises retaliation if Israel attacks".

He always seemed like a moderate kind of guy to me.

That's what I wanted you to think

[MrFun]

uh . . . .

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

Fly over egyptian airspace to get to the Red sea,

Umm, not.

You are right about that one- I forgot the gulf.

Still, flying around SA? right..its not like the modern SA airdefense systems would not be able to track all the movements...