U.S/Iran Strait of Hormuz encounter....threat or not?

[MercutioATC]

I've seen posts here indicating that some believe it's a joke...that Iran's Navy poses no threat to our ships.

I disagree. In fact, I believe that this knee-jerk reaction to any press that comes out of this administration makes us look like idiots.

Now, we don't know what weaponry the Iranian ships carried, but it's possible that they carried the "Hoot" supercavitating torpedo. http://thebosunlocker.blogspot.com/2006/04/iran-ups-ante.html

This encounter was in international waters. Either side would be condemned for firing first, but I doubt that that deterrent is as strong for Iran as it is for the U.S. Although the U.S. ships could have easily destroyed the Iranian ships at longer range, they allowed them to approach within 200 yards.

This being the case, the following facts are implicitly true:

1) The U.S., for whatever reason, allowed Iranian ships to close to well within the range of the Hoot torpedo.

2) The Hoot torpedo travels at approximately 225 mph underwater. There are no known countermeasures for a supercavitating torpedo.

Therefore, this is NOT fluff propaganda...a threat did exist.

To state that there was no threat (and that basis for the story is purely political) makes us look like a bunch of uninformed tinfoilhatters.

Comments?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. It's a clear threat.

I don't like how U.S. warships are going around harassing Iranian boats in international waters.

[bdamomma]

9. and we all know we are just ready to start something or this

despicable regime we have is.

[JFN1]

66. It is a manufactured threat

Doesn't make it any less dangerous...the encounter was real, the dangers were real, but the circumstances which enabled it are, as many have pointed out, questionable.

Bush and Cheney still want their war with Iran. Who knows what they'll do to get it?

[EFerrari]

2. We are a threat wherever we go.

And the issue isn't whether the Iranian boat could pose a threat. Clearly, they can.

The issue is, qui bono?

[Rex]

3. Ya the 200 yard thingy kinda makes ya go hmmmm...

I doubt our navy was 'asleep at the wheel' so letting those 'attack' boats get that close was intentional. Our navy was going to let them ram our ships (Maybe?) and then blow em out of the water? Very curious as to if the Iranians came within 200 yards.

That is easy firing ranch for both 'fleets' and I use that term loosely.

[MercutioATC]

5. I believe that the close proximity may have been due to

the U.S.'s aversion to firing first.

The encounter was in international waters, so the Iranian boats has the right to maintain a close range as long as they did not interfere with normal navigation. The U.S. ships were unwilling (rightfully) to fire on them because of this.

[Rex]

19. True, I bet their ROE states to fire only when threatened

but they have recorded evidence of the Iranians stating they were going to blow up one of our ships in a few seconds. The order to fire was being given as they veered off.

It was very close, if the reporting is all accurate and true. I for one am glad we have trained professionals at the wheel.

200 yards is dam close.

[FogerRox]

24. They were likely speed boats, 30 to 70 ft long, a frigate is about 500 ft long

so the Frigate would tend to crush the speed boats, plus IIRC there was also a cruiser there. The story is BS, any leak bu the Bush admin is a lie, just to start, and this torpedeo is 30 yrs old and obsolete, see my other post in this thread.

[Rex]

29. Well if the story is BS then it was a setup.

That is what amazed me about the distance from the ships, if this is also about them looking for a missing sailor. I thought it silly when I read the M$M called the boats 'attack' ships.

Leaks are just coming fast and crazy now from the Bush admin. They seemed worried.

[FogerRox]

47. Iran sends its speedboats out all the time, remember the Cornwall incident?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/29/14238/7293?detail=f

http://rdanafox.blogspot.com/2007/03/hms-cornwall-never-contested-cap

http://rdanafox.blogspot.com/2007/04/pelosi-while-in-syria-encourages-syrian.htmlturing.html

[Rex]

67. Did not know about that thanks FogerRox

[FogerRox]

70. 6 Iranian speedboats nabbed those British sailors

[Rex]

73. Yeah after reading that I remembered the 'incident'.

I guess that was far more than what was reported today. I think the Bush WH is primed and ready to try and start a war before they leave, with Iran.

[FogerRox]

75. Or are lloking to affect the NH primary

[Rex]

76. There message right now is fear fear fear.

I don't think they have any other cards to play but the fear card. Which, IMO, is very dangerous because sometimes you get what you've been scaring others about.

[FogerRox]

81. So very true REX, very true.

[MercutioATC]

44. 13, not 30....see MY post below

...and I've seen nothing to suggest that they're obsolete

[FogerRox]

49. 1st deployed in 1977, the US navy never bothered to develop counter measures

that means obsolete pal. The Russians developed the Sunburn missile cruise to counter the Arliegh Burke Cruisers with the Phalanx gun, now the Phalanx's are being replaced with a new point defense system.

The Military Industrial Congressional complex would love to get contracts to make counter systems for the Hoot, if they actually thought it was any good.

Start here

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_060420_shkval,,00.html

This stunning weapons system has 2 Entries at globalsecurity.org

http://www.globalsecurity.org/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/webinator/search/?pr=default&order=r&query=VA-111+Shkval&submit=Submit

[MercutioATC]

51. A couple of issues with that:

1) The first versions of the Shkval might have been developed in the late 70's, but the new design was developed in 1995 and deployed in 1998.

2) The first jet fighter was deployed in WWII (the ME-262). The fact that jet fighters are "1940's technology" has no bearing on their effectiveness. They're certainly not "obsolete".

[FogerRox]

58. Me-262 1st flew in April 18 1941

Gloster_Meteor first flew in May 15, 1941.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor

I cant believe it.... you got that one right...... Your getting better.

[FogerRox]

62. I got issues with you bloviating crap at DU with little or no support/links

Be prepared to back your claims with links from now on.

I'll be back later to play some more, but please some homework.

[MercutioATC]

69. What would you like me to link to?

You don't seem to disagree with the facts I've presented so far, our conclusions (and attidudes) just differ.

[FogerRox]

74. I suggest you provides links for all of your statements.

I looked around, the Heinkel_He_178 flew in 1939......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_178

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/jet_engine.htm

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Heinkel/Aero57.htm

So I have to withdraw the acclaim I laid at your feet previously.

Amazing claims need amazing proof, general rule of thumb at Daily Kos and DU.

[MercutioATC]

79. Try Post #77

Any other specific links that refute you that you'd like me to provide?

Oh, and the He-178 was the first jet aircraft, not the first jet fighter. That honor would belong to the ME-262 as I stated (well, the first jet fighter to fly in combat, not as a test bed or a prototype).

[FogerRox]

22. International waters start at 12 miles right ?

W/o checking the straits are about 5 miles across.

[sabra]

4. I feel more are questioning the details, the timing, etc..

- There was an encounter between US Naval ships and Iranian boats. We do know that this kind of thing is not unusual.
- Pentagon says they heard a radio transmission saying "we are going to get you" - though can't say for sure who the source is
- Incident occurred 2 days ago - reports come out Monday morning
- CNN reports the ships were looking for missing sailor - that's just odd
- Bush is on his way to Israel to talk about Iran - coincidence?

[EFerrari]

8. And, el Baredei is going to Iran on the 11th or so. n/t

[bdamomma]

12. dimson is stoking the fire to start something as usual.

is it Nov. 2008 yet.

[FogerRox]

36. Hormuz is narrow .. traffic is well regulated, there a lane going in, and a lane going out

Do Iranians get on the radio and speak english

You american pigs are going to die, we will kill you...... Or does the US NAvy carry Iranian speaking personel on a Frigate or cruiser.......

Nice list you made up, good points.

[sabra]

40. thanks. Maybe it was a case of something lost in translation?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2619333&mesg_id=2619333

[MercutioATC]

52. "Do Iranians get on the radio and speak English"?

...if they're speaking to Americans, they might.

English isn't some secret dialect.


That aside, the verbal threat may well have been fabricated.

[peacebird]

6. For us to believe anything, especially about an Iranian "threat", from the current administration

would be ridiculous. We would have to be knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, morons to take ANYTHING stated by this administration at face value. The so-called "incident" is too convenient by far.

Coming on the heels of news that Israel will sit down with bush to discuss THEM pre-emptively striking Iran. And the "news" being put forth today in M$M that Iran is responsible for killing our soldiers (via IEDs etc), AND that Iran is supplying the weapons used by Hamas to attack Israel.

What this all says to me is Cheney thinks enough time has passed since the intelligence estimate which stated Iran was NOT a threat, that he can start his next little adventure. He likely is convincing the repukes that another patriotic foray in the middle east will swing voters back to the repuke side of the ballot next fall.

[MercutioATC]

11. I'm not questioning the timing, just the content.

ALL administrations time certain releases for political advantage.

I'm taking issue with those that claim that the "threat" issue is untrue.

[FogerRox]

27. un named source in the Administration

what a effin joke. ANd an OP about an obsolete 30 yr old torpedeo.....

Somebody help me...... AHHHHhhhhhhh shit.

[kineneb]

46. can't help you

but the comments about aggressive maneuvers made me laugh. Having lived in Iran, I know how they drive their cars...

[Marrah_G]

7. I tend to agree

Many people here are SO run down by the constant barrage of BS coming out of the WH that they have gone the opposite direction of our gung-ho bomb-them all RW neighbors. They seem to believe that *ush and Co. are the only bad people in the world and if America was gone the world would be a stable and loving Utopia.

I believe that:

There are some VERY bad people in the world.

There are some very bad people in the world with weapons that can hurt us.

There are some very crazy extremists that want to harm the US, especially the troops.

I believe there are extremist out there more then willing to die to accomplish that.

I believe that the WH has had a policy that has increasingly made us a target through it's own horrible actions.

I believe that we need a political solution to end the growing divide of hate between the Muslim world and the west.

I believe that there is no Military solution.


Excuse me while I go look for my flame retardant suit.

[baldguy]

10. Who was harrassing who?

[MercutioATC]

13. Assuming the story is accurate, they were probably harassing us.

There's no law against somebody running toward you on the street and stopping two feet away, but most would agree that it could be considered a hostile act while it was occurring. I have no problem believing that the Iranian boats acted similarly. Probing an "enemy" like this has been a common tactic for centuries...it unnerves them and provides the chance to learn how they deal with specific threats.

[baldguy]

14. And what would our reaction be to a large Iranian warship patroling off NYC?

In international waters, of course.

[MercutioATC]

16. I'm not disputing that

Obviously, were the situations reversed, we would behave similarly.

But if the actions occurred in international waters, our behavior could definitely be viewed as "harassing".

[baldguy]

31. Our presence there is a provocation - its INTENDED to be.

You can't dismiss the fact that there are powerful people in Washington would love to start a shooting war with Iran. And being able to put the blame on them? - even better.

The destabilizing factor in the Persian Gulf & beyond is the US Military. Thats the stated goal of the Bush Regime.

[malaise]

32. Sometimes I just laugh

The US has been trying to start a war with Iran for ages. Get the fuck out of the people's back yard. The United States does not own the fucking planet.

[Pavulon]

99. At 12 miles no one owns the water

Iran has a long history of harassment of shipping in the gulf. Including mining international waters..

Iran has had its toys broken by the navy before. Putting 5" shells in speed boats will not start a war. It will kill a few really dumb guys.

200m and closing is dangerous. They are very lucky that they were not fired on.

[Truth2Tell]

135. They are very lucky that they were not fired on

Actually, mankind is lucky they were not fired on - because that is exactly the kind of trigger the neo-cons are looking for to start WWIII. That's why we are there harassing them.

[Thothmes]

113. Large Soviet Warships

routinly use to sail between the souther tip of Florida and the Northern tip of Cuba. We kept an eye on them but that was about it.

[Ian David]

15. Bush wants to be in Israel when he starts The Apocalypse. He thinks he's fulfilling prophesy. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

17. Do you, do you REALLY think that Iran wants a confrontation with the US Navy?

But the NeoCons and Cheney sure as hell do.

[FogerRox]

26. Right, I bet the Iranians did shoot

some pictures though, doncha think....

[Junkdrawer]

30. Yeah, right. I can hear them now....

"Hey, let's give Dick Cheney the PERFECT excuse for a strike on our nuclear facilities by launching a doomed-to-fail attack on US Navy destroyers."

[FogerRox]

43. LOL, a sense of humor - good

[Junkdrawer]

45. At times like these, you either laugh or cry....

Dealer's choice...

[Emit]

18. I think it's clear we are a threat.

:shrug:

[FogerRox]

20. Somebody stop me from kicking the crap out of this OP, its tripe

1) leaked from the Bush Admin, means its BS.

2)The Hoot is the 30 year Russian VA-111 Shkval rocket torpedo.

-Rockets make noise, sonar hears noise

-sound travels at about mach 5 underwater

3)VA-111 Shkval rocket torpedo was meant to deliver a nuke, thusly has very rudimentary guidance.

- a change in direction by the target may go unnoticed by the VA-111 Shkval rocket torpedo.

So the idea that

"There are no known countermeasures for a supercavitating torpedo."

is quite unrealistic.

4) After 30 yrs the US Navy has not chosen to worry about this weapon, because it sucks big hairy balls.

[EFerrari]

21. Hey, are you still on the road?

:hi:

[FogerRox]

23. back in NJ, planning some reports on NH, it was freakin Awesome

It was SO COOL....

[EFerrari]

41. That's great! Look forward to your report!

:)

[Marrah_G]

25. It's a little different from the one you describe, I think.

I am going to have to ask my brother about this one - It seems to be based on the one you were talking about.

Hoot (missile)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hoot Type Supercavitation Torpedo
Range Unknown
Warheads One
Max speed 360 km/h
Payload High explosive
Manufacturer Iran
In service 2006
States Iran

Hoot (Persian: حوت - "Whale") is an Iranian supercavitation torpedo that travels at approximately 360 km/h, several times faster than a conventional torpedo. It was test-fired successfully from a surface ship against a dummy submarine during the Iranian military exercise "Great Prophet" (Persian:(پيامبر اعظم(ص) on 2 April 2006 and 3 April 2006.

According to the official Iranian news agency IRNA, the torpedo was produced and developed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (Persian: سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی). Some sources have speculated that it may be based on the Russian VA-111 Shkval Supercavitation torpedo, which travels at the same speed <1> <2> <3>. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov denied supplying Iran with the technology <4>.

[FogerRox]

34. Wiki is weak on military things,,,,try global security .com or

www.military.com


http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_060420_shkval,,00.html

If the Iranians developed this weapon by themselves, they would likely want to recoup the investment, and build 1000's.

Regardless the weapon was crap, the OP is at best weak. The Russians are known for pushing their older versions of weapons systems for good hard cash.

I have well sourced blogs on Iranian weapons

http://rdanafox.blogspot.com/2007/01/modern-iranian-sam-missiles-can-they.html

http://rdanafox.blogspot.com/2007/01/iranian-missile-systems.html

And KSA

http://rdanafox.blogspot.com/2006/12/now-middle-east-gets-interesting.html

[Marrah_G]

35. I'm heading home now.

But I shall do some digging when I get there. I always like learning about new things.

My brother is a naval Commander with a specialty in surface warfare and navigation (which makes his last activation on the ground in Iraq even more bizarre) - Maybe I can reach him for his opinion tonight.

[FogerRox]

48. Plaese do.

[Marrah_G]

71. I did a bit of looking

From CNS

The third system tested was the Hoot ("Whale"), an underwater missile, or a high-performance torpedo, purportedly manufactured by Iran. Iranian sources have boasted that it is the world’s fastest underwater missile, traveling at a speed of 100 meters per second. The Deputy Commander of the Revolutionary Guard stated that: "After testing this missile, the Islamic Republic of Iran is one of two countries that possess such a technology in the marine military industries." <10> The Revolutionary Guard Commander also emphasized that "the vessels which launch the missile cannot be picked up or identified by radars," making it particularly difficult for warships or submarines to escape attack. <11> Iranian officials also commented that "the missile has the ability of destroying any vessel on the surface of the water or at any depth underwater" and warned the West against "playing with fire." <12> Although Iranian spokesmen have stated that these missiles were manufactured domestically, outside analysts suggest that they are copies of older Russian models and that Iran received technological assistance for these missiles from Russia, North Korea, and/or China. <13>
Indeed, the Iranian Hoot may be a copy of the Russian-produced VA-111 (or BA-111) Shkval missile, which is capable of traveling three to four times as fast as a standard torpedo. It can reach a speed of 359 kph and has a payload of 210 kg and a range of 7 km. <14> Russia allegedly deployed these missiles in the 1990s to counter U.S. submarines and torpedoes. (This underwater missile can be fired at an enemy torpedo, which forces the incoming torpedo to evade and snap its guidance wires.) The Shkval uses an auto-pilot system to guide it rather than a homing head. Supposedly, there are no known countermeasures against the system. It is reported that the missile originally carried a nuclear warhead, but later an improved model with a conventional payload was developed. <15> The Shkval-E is the conventionally-armed version that was designed for export, forty of which were allegedly sold to China in the 1990s.

From the BBC

Iranian military chiefs said the new missile would be fired from ships with technology to avoid radar detection.
It is said to travel at 360km/h (233mph), three to four times faster than most conventional torpedoes.
"It has a very powerful warhead designed to hit big submarines," Gen Ali Fadavi," deputy head of the Revolutionary Guard, told the Associated Press.
"Even if enemy warship sensors identify the missile, no warship can escape from this missile because of its high speed."
Friday's test demonstrated the Fajr-3 missile, also designed to escape radar and capable of hitting several targets with multiple warheads.


And from google:


12.
Find Iranian hoot missile at eBay
eBay has great deals on Iranian hoot missile! At eBay you can buy or sell electronics, cars, clothing, apparel, collectibles, sporting goods, digital cameras and more. Click he...
Sponsored by: ebay.com

(sorry I just couldn’t resist)

Do you have some articles specifically about this missile? Seems to me in a small area like the Straights it would be very effective for one quick strike, but not for anything longterm since the vessels launching them could easily be taken out once they did the initial attack. So far I haven't found anything that contradicted the speed and lack means to avoid these missiles.

Looking forward to more discussion on this.

Marrah

[FogerRox]

80. This lacks analytical thinking

So far I haven't found anything that contradicted the speed and lack means to avoid these missiles.

There is no reason to contradict the speed of the missle, which is why I dont. Follow me.

The Shkval uses an auto-pilot system to guide it rather than a homing head. Supposedly, there are no known countermeasures against the system.

What is an Auto pilot?

An Autopilot in an airplane can be used to enter a course, take off, fly from JFK airport to Newark airport, and land, the autopilot causes the airplane to follow the course. SO If moved the runway 100 ft to the east, the plane on autopilot would try to land where the runway was. The Autopilot is dumb. All one needs to do is change course, The US Navy considered that a sub could change course or, change its depth.

As a target, all I need to do is not be where the autopilot is programmed to go. So its that easy to spook, why even consider counter measures? Countermeasures that aren't necessary.

Further more:

Although Iranian spokesmen have stated that these missiles were manufactured domestically, outside analysts suggest that they are copies of older Russian models

Well our friend, the author of this bloviating OP states that the Iranians have the new version, you found info that suggests thats not true. See, you have contradicted the author.

This underwater missile can be fired at an enemy torpedo, which forces the incoming torpedo to evade and snap its guidance wires.

The US Navy mark 48 torpedo does use a guidance wire, see the Military.com link I posted previously. Well, what if the torpedo is not the Mark 48, and thusly uses no wire guidance? No serious reporter would write that, its obviously a flipant comment made by someone with limited knowledge or a liar.

People with Military experience dont make these sorts of flippant claims. Far more experienced people than me have judged the Sunburn cruise missile to be one of the most threatening weapons systems to a surface Navy.

To further understand military thinking in these arenas, one needs to be conversant on topics like point defense, layered or tiered defense.

[Marrah_G]

82. Apparently I am just not smart enough to have a conversation with you

So I will walk away. I am not sure if you intend to be condescending and insulting, but let me assure you, your posts come across as both. I was also going to respond piece by piece to you and ask a few more questions, but frankly, with your attitude, both to my post and to others on this thread, it just isn't worth it.

[FogerRox]

85. The articles you cited , not you did you read what I posted?

chriss sakes. But on the other hand if you dont help your self, I cant do it for you. Did you make a habit of walking out of class in High School? If not, then dont you dare do it here.

Now pay attention.... this weapon cannot be steered:

The Shkval is considered to be somewhat unrefined because it can travel only along a straight trajectory

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/shkval.htm

Straight from an engineer working at the Mystic sub base.

[Marrah_G]

86. Yes and when fired at a close enough range it is to fast for the target to get out of the way.

It's a one shot, one chance type of weapon. That is what everything I've been able to find says. I'm going to go take a look at that link, but while I do I also suggest you re-read your post. Perhaps it is not how you mean it to come across but it did.

[FogerRox]

90. take this with a grain of salt

My Dad just emailed me back, he laffed at me for asking about this missile. My dad is US NAvy, retired, he used to teach @ Pensacola Naval base. He says no one in the west has seen the weapon, and all reported video tapes of the demo end being 3rd party stories. Very strange.

Anyway if your brother is US Navy, get him on the horn and ask him. You may get the same info my Dad gave me.

[MercutioATC]

92. First you claim that it's "obsolete" and then you suggest that it might not exist?

Which is it?

If it's the latter, you might want to tell Germany...

"The supercavitating underwater missile is a technology demonstration program for close-in defence against underwater targets. It is equipped with a solid-propellant rocket motor, inertial measurement unit, autopilot and a conical tip which can be moved by means of an actuator system. The rocket motor provides the missile with a submerged speed of more than 400km/hr. The inertial measurement unit and the autopilot stabilize the missile so that the heading is held. The flexible nose cone provides steering just as a missile's fins do. Due to its high submerged speed, it moves in an air bubble, the so-called cavitation bubble, wherein almost vacuum prevails, thus greatly reducing its water resistance and enabling the high speed. To date, around a dozen test models of the underwater missile have been built and tested successfully. The tests focused on stabilization, guidance and maximization of agility, which is of great advantage for engaging rapidly moving underwater targets. The supercavitating underwater missile is suited for use from submarines and surface vessels."

http://www.diehl-bgt-defence.de/index.php?id=550&L=1

[FogerRox]

96. it cant be steered ?

As of 2001

As a result, experts say, the U.S. Navy currently has no supercavitating weapons[br />

Well, I am beginning to think that Russia did not have a truly operational or reliable system, the conspiracy theory nature of whats on the net (sinking of the Kursk), and the apparent lack of fruitful US research according to the academic papers I've found, suggest a long term effort to develop the technology, that has yet to reach fruition.

Like DR Bussard's hydrogen scooping ram star ship, real nice theory, but after 50 years we still dont have a proof of concept prototype.

Which is it?

Thats was hours ago, we've learned so much more since then, didnt we ?

[MercutioATC]

97. Why would you need to steer it? The Shkval wasn't designed to be steered.

It was meant to be fired from close range at very high speed.

There are plenty of effective weapons without guided munitions.

[FogerRox]

101. Time for the math

The Russians built this weapon, no? At least were the first to do so. Or so its claimed....

The reported range of the US Mark-48 torpedo according to the fas.org website is 40,000 yards, with a reported speed of 40-50 knots. The reported range of the BA-111 Shkval is 7,500 yards, with a reported speed of 200 knots. Shkval has 4-5 times the speed of the Mk48, and the Mk48 has a little over 5 times the range. If both weapons are fired at their operational range, they will impact the opposing targets at the same time. Clearly, this does not make the Shkval a groundshakingly superior weapon. Why would Russia design a weapon that is a suicide machine in the midst of the Cold War, they couldnt have afforded to lose subs, and is a complete contradiction of the Russian Cold War tactical and strategic doctrines.

No, all this ever was is a research program. It still is.

[MercutioATC]

104. You're an absolute loon.

1) The Mark-48 and the Shkval are completely different munitions, designed for completely different roles.

2) Russia has been selling the Shkval at IDEX (International Defence Exhibition and Conference). IDEX is a well-attended event and is covered by the international media.

3) You're arguing that a weapon that has been bought and sold on the international market for over a decade doesn't exist because a) you've never seen one and b) its application doesn't make sense to you.


seek professional help immediately

[FogerRox]

106. Dear right winger, did you forget to change user names ?

Additionally do the math, I win. you lose

[MercutioATC]

107. Rant away

Denying that this torpedo exists is akin to denying gravity.

...and if "I win, you lose" is your idea of an argument, I pity you.


Additionally, I've been on DU long enough to make your "rightwinger" accusation laughable.



I will, however, be happy to discuss this issue further with others who might have an opinion.

[FogerRox]

109. No one else seems to be giving you the time of day

Just me.

I'm going to contact Skinner and have him look this thread over, he might decide to move to the 9-11 graveyard, or lock or delete it.

[MercutioATC]

110. Go for it

You might want to examine the rules on calling members "right wingers" first, though...

[FogerRox]

115. MAking extraordinary claims, w/o extraordinary proof is a no no, what proof you started with

is a right wingers blog. Right this, Right that, conservative this up and down the blog roll.

Ok, maybe you made a mistake, fine. But for the length of time you've been here you should know better.

[MercutioATC]

121. "Extraordinary"? Like claiming that weapons sold for 10 years don't exist?

:shrug:

[Marrah_G]

94. I sent an email

He doesn't always answer right back, depending on where he is and how busy he is.

(to clarify: He was retired for almost ten years and re-activated and sent to Iraq. He is back to semi-civilian life for the moment (since November), knock on wood. I didn't want you to think he is currently active duty.)

[FogerRox]

108. Additionally that Bosuns locker blog is very deceptive

I started following some links, that don't cite germane material. ANd it appears to be a right wing blog.

http://thebosunlocker.blogspot.com/2006/04/iran-ups-ante.html

Of not very good quality.

[MercutioATC]

91. Exactly.

It's not meant to rely on guidance or range or stealth.....just speed.

[MercutioATC]

37. You may wish to read up a little....

1) That's the problem with some people...if the Bush administration said that the Sun would rise in the east tomorrow, there are those that would call it "BS" simply because of the source. Those are the extremists that make the rest of us sound like idiots.

2) The Hoot is indeed believed to be based on the VA-111 Shkval...developed in 1995 (13-year-old technology, not 30).

- yes, rockets make noise and sonar detects it
- sound travels at closer to Mach 4 underwater, but it's irrelevant

3) (summary) Supercavitating torpedoes aren't designed to possess a great deal of guidance...speed is their threat. Noticing a change of direction isn't necessary, because their simply isn't time for a submarine or surface ship of any size to change direction in time. It's an underwater bullet.

4) The .50 Browning machine gun was invented in 1910 (over 95 years ago). Regardless of how you armor a soldier, there are no known "countermeasures" for a man vs. a .50 round. After 95+ years, the U.S. military has "not chosen no worry about this weapon" by your definition. The fact that the U.S. military hasn't developed countermeasures to a particular weapon in a particular scenario does not mean that it is ineffective.

(on edit) You provide links for a lot of surface-to-air missiles. Do you have a link to anything that supports your contention that supercavitating missiles are ineffective?

[FogerRox]

54. 'weak.

the first Shkvals entered service at the height of the Cold War, after a decade in development, back in 1977. That's almost thirty years ago. Since America's Submarine Force and other intelligence assets in those days kept very close tabs on Moscow's naval weapon tests and exercises, Washington's defense establishment has been well aware of supercavitating torpedoes for a entire human generation. That the U.S. Navy chose not to develop and field such weapons years ago says something, not about a lack of ability as some writeups have insinuated, but about a lack of desire.

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_060420_shkval,,00.html

The tank might be good protect against the 50 cal.





Later on I think the M-113 APC was the counter measure to the Browning.

Do you have a link to anything that supports your contention that supercavitating missiles are effective?

Its good you want to play

[MercutioATC]

77. Jane's disagrees with you....

"As there are no known countermeasures to such a weapon," states David Miller's April 1995 article "Supercavitation: Going to War in a Bubble," in Jane's Intelligence Review, "its deployment could have a significant effect on future maritime operations, both surface and subsurface, and could put Western naval forces at a considerable disadvantage."

...and, as Scientific American reports "Supercavitating weapons work in the U.S. is being directed by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) in Arlington, Va. In general, the ONR's efforts are aimed at developing two classes of supercavitating technologies: projectiles and torpedoes."

...they go on to state "The other supercavitating technology of interest to the ONR is a torpedo with a maximum velocity of about 200 knots. Substantial technical and system challenges stand in the way of the desired torpedo in the areas of launching, hydrodynamics, acoustics, guidance and control, and propulsion, to name a few, according to ONR program manager Kam Ng. NUWC Newport is doing the applied research and some of the basic research work as well. The effort is supported by the Applied Research Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University (ARL/Penn State), the University of Florida, Anteon Corporation and Lockheed Martin."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=000CA29B-0EA6-1C70-84A9809EC588EF21&page=1

...and, in 1995, the ONR awarded a contract to Anteon Corporation for "Advanced Development of a High-Speed Supercavitating Undersea Weapon".

http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2005/03-March/03-Mar-2005/FBO-00760713.htm


...your turn...

[FogerRox]

83. What guidance system is used in this weapon?

And how does it steer itself in a bubble of gas without violating the integrity of the gas bubble, which would cause the cavitation to cease..... abruptly turn it into "a crushed Coke can," ?

Next thing you know, you'll be telling that this is what sunk the Kursk.

[MercutioATC]

84. Which weapon?

The one that the U.S. paid to have developed (despite your claims that "the U.S. Navy chose not to develop and field such weapons years ago...")?

[FogerRox]

87. The ONR appears to be "developing" no ? you said developed

at least according to the Scientific American article you cited, research at the time was ongoing.

What weapon, the Shkval. How does it steer, and what guidance system does it use.

[MercutioATC]

89. Not that I can see how that's germaine, but here:

"The 'Region' Scientific Production Association has developed developed an export modification of the missile, 'Shkval-E'. Russia began marketing this conventionally armed version of the Shkval high-speed underwater rocket at the IDEX 99 exhibition in Abu Dhabi in early 1999. The concept of operations for this missile requires the crew of a submarine, ship or the coast guard define the target's parameters -- speed, distance and vector -- and feeds the data to the missile's automatic pilot. The missile is fired, achieves its optimum depth and switches on its engines. The missile does not have a homing warhead and follows a computer-generated program."

...and interestingly...

"On 05 April 2000 the Russian Federal Security Service in Moscow arrested an American businessman, Edmond Pope, and a Russian accomplice, on charges of stealing scientific secrets. A FSB statement said it confiscated "technical drawings of various equipment, recordings of his conversations with Russian citizens relating to their work in the Russian defense industry, and receipts for American dollars received by them." Pope, a retired US Navy captain who spent much of his career working in naval intelligence, was at the time of his arrest the head of a private security firm. On 20 April 2000 the FSB revealed that Pope had been seeking plans the Shkval underwater missile. Pope was detained during an informal contact with a Russian scientist who had participated in the Shkval's creation.

The arrest of Daniel Howard Kiely, deputy head of the Applied Research Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University, came almost simultaneously. The laboratory led by Mr. Kiely has for many years been developing torpedoes for US warships and submarines. Professor Kiely had joined Pope in Moscow to offer technical advice and determine the tasks for Pope's further activity. Kiely was interrogated as a witness. His testimony and objects confiscated during the search proved his involvement in Pope's activities. Later the 68-year-old professor was released and allowed to return to the United States."
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/shkval.htm

But, of course, this couldn't have happened because "the U.S. Navy chose not to develop and field such weapons years ago".......

[FogerRox]

93. it cant be steered ?

The Shkval is considered to be somewhat unrefined because it can travel only along a straight trajectory, but future supercavitating vehicles are being designed to maneuver through the water. Steering is possible through the use of cavity-piercing control surfaces such as fins, and thrust-vectoring systems, which are directional nozzles for jet exhaust. Extreme care must be taken to keep the body inside the cavity during turns, however, because should it stray from the cavity, the force of slamming into the surrounding wall of water would abruptly turn it into "a crushed Coke can," according to Ivan Kirschner, an engineer at Anteon's Engineering Technology Center in Mystic, Conn.
mine

ANTIMINE PROJECTILE. Supercavitating projectiles shot from above the ocean surface must fly stably in both air and water - a difficult engineering task. The RAMICS round (partially visible) was developed by C Tech Defense Corporation.

"Three-dimensional pitch and yaw maneuvers could also be accomplished by moving or rotating the nose cavitator in two planes simultaneously," Kirschner continues, "although such devices would be more complicated." Researchers have also considered using forward-actuated canards.


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/shkval.htm

It can't be steered? OMG how silly is that.

As of 2001

As a result, experts say, the U.S. Navy currently has no supercavitating weapons[br />

Oh, Ok.

[MercutioATC]

95. Neither can a bullet...which is, essentially, what the Hoot is

Yes, it has a very limited range.

Yes, it makes a lot of noise.

Yes, it's essentially unguided.


It's not meant to do any of these things well. It's built to overwhelm through speed. If you can't get out of its way, it doesn't matter if it can follow you...it will hit you before any guidance becomes necessary.

You've made an issue of the U.S. ships involved being 500' long. Three U.S. ships were involved, The USS Hopper (504.3 feet), The USS Port Royal (567 feet), and the USS Ingraham (453 feet). How fast do you suppose these ships turn?

[FogerRox]

98. So how come no one has ever seen one ?

A bunch of academic papers, no pictures, a bunch of theories about how the Kursk was sunk by one. A lot of contradicting material, autopilot, then its got a data link for remote control, but it cant be steered... but it slows down and "hunts for the target".

Its a research program nothing more.

I'm no longer interested, thanks for playing though.

[MercutioATC]

102. They';re freakin' SELLING them....at IDEX, no less.

What do you mean "no one has ever seen one"?

[FogerRox]

105. Additionally the blog link you provided in the OP contains many

decpetive links, that lead next to nowhere


http://thebosunlocker.blogspot.com/2006/04/iran-ups-ante.html

have set to work in their own supercavitating torpedo designs, the latter having produced a prototype as of 2004 named the Barracuda.

I clicked on 2004 and it sent me to wiki, for the year 2004, bogus crap, on a right wing nuts blog no less. ANd the picture of the Torpedo was link to fas.org, very poor etiquette, stealing some one elses band width.


DU frowns on anyone making extraordinary claims w/o extraordinary proof. DU is also for Democrats. See ya.

[Pavulon]

100. Operation Praying Mantis. Required Reading

at the Naval academy. Iranian navy involved in the first modern missile engagement.

Bottom line they lost.

All the wunder weapons do not make up for mass.

Iran used to play these games in the 80's. We killed plenty of them with radar guided 5".

[Leopolds Ghost]

125. "we"? I don't recall US war with Iran in the 80s. Do you?

[Pavulon]

128. They mined international waters

we sunk their navy..

[Truth2Tell]

136. And you love it, huh. Makes you all hard. nt

[gratuitous]

28. Well, you certainly concede . . .

You certainly concede this administration and its military a great deal more credibility that I would at this stage of the game. If a military spokesman told me the sun was coming up in the east, I'd look out the window first. And if they told me there was some kind of Gulf of Tonkin situation brewing off the coast of Iran, I'd be highly skeptical without independent corroboration.

[FogerRox]

38. iranian speedboats have been talking pictures of the US NAvy for years

No really this is the first time this has ever happened


yeah right....

/snark

[gratuitous]

42. Taking pictures?! The dastards!

Oh, if only there was some countermeasure that could be taken. Sadly, there is no way to stop such a violation of our holy sovereignty. Prepare to blast the living bejesus out of Iran. It's the only option we have left.

It strikes me as humorous, though. When I was in Chiapas, that was exactly what the Christian Peacemaker Teams did in the displaced villages when under surveillance by the unfriendly eyes of government military: Whip out a camera, start taking pictures, and watch the heavily-armed federales scatter.

[Giant Robot]

33. I think the story is quite plausible and that a threat may exist

Unfortunately I no longer have the desire to parse out the information that is "leaked" so that I can try to decide what is true and what is spin. It may have happened like this, it may be all misinformation, or it may have just been some boats getting close to say hi. I don't know.

I think the problem is that we are in some unfriendly waters over there, and the heads of both governments are pretty reactionary nationalistic kinds of folks. That becomes a mixing pot for trouble and things spiraling out of control rapidly. From that aspect, yes a threat exists and will continue to exist while we dick around over there, bang the war drums against Iran, while the current administration is in power, and likely while the administration in Iran is in power as well.

[FogerRox]

56. A 500 ft Frigate is more likely to accidently CRUSH a 70 ft Iranian speed boat

Next thing some one will tell Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb.

[Giant Robot]

60. I guess I'm not judging threat as amount of damage to US military

assets. I'm judging threat by how quickly this "incident" could boil over into something big and ugly. Speedboats against a frigate? Odds are low that it will do serious harm. But speedboat against frigate with two reactionary nationalists in respective offices? That has big and bad possibilities.

[FogerRox]

61. Its been going on for years, choosing this point in time to make it an issue is infantile

Remember the Cornwall ?

[Giant Robot]

123. I guess I'm not trying to make this an issue

I'm just expressing my concern for the way both country's leaders behave. And yes this has been going on for years. And yes any one of these incidents could be inflammatory. And that is how I am looking at it. This ANOTHER incident that could be very very bad. I wish they would stop.

Why not worry about it now? We need to be mindful about these things, and if nothing comes of this, wonderful. If another incident happens, I will be concerned about that one too.

I also don't think calling my concern "infantile" because I express it this one time helpful to the discussion, by the way.

[damntexdem]

39. Of course it's a threat!

It's always a threat when the U.S. tries to pull another Gulf of Tonkin scam!

[lovuian]

50. Iran navy is something to worry about

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SOL0j0yqqMM

Its been growing and growing

its the timing that Iran now hasn't the WMD card to go after
now a confrontation like Tonkin

I fear for our ships there locked in the narrow straits
it reminds me of Pearl Harbor

[FogerRox]

55. WTF.....3 diesel electric subs? Dude this is not 1962

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/877-specs.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ships.htm

[Supersedeas]

53. Knee jerk reactions come from our Navy too -- remember the USS Vincennes incident

the relatives of dead Iranians do, I bet.

[spanone]

57. after the USS Cole, i bet NO boats don't get within miles of our warships

add to that the fact that i don't believe shit that comes from this administration....

[FogerRox]

59. Apparently that sort of logic doesn't come into play with the author of the OP

I got some good tin foil hats, but this DU'er needs a Duzy for its tin foil hat.

[MercutioATC]

78. So you don't believe the Iranian boats were ay 200 yards?

Actually, the post responded to said "within miles"...you don't believe they were "within miles"?

If you're going to take potshots at me, at least be specific about it.

[CANDO]

63. Bush has little time left....must get started on Iran... now or never.

That's what's going on. They haven't earned the benefit of doubt.

[leftchick]

64. the Iranians had boats not Warships.

:eyes:

[FogerRox]

65. Well, a 30 to 70 ft speedboat with RPG racks welded on the side

but yeah, boats.

Think of a MAck truck rolling over a bicycle..... ya know...

[leftchick]

122. small-caliber weapons

not RPGs.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2008/01/08/iranian_boats_press_us_ships/

<snip>

Roughead said it was unclear whether the five so-called "fast attack" craft, which are outfitted with small-caliber weapons but not anti-ship missiles, were operated by the Iranian Navy or by the more aggressive Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps or by both.

[I work for workers]

133. A few years back the military lost an invasion war game to an enemy using speed boats

to attack large naval ships and other unconventional methods of attack.

Six months ago everyone on DU was talking about how torpedo and bomb armed Iranian speedboats would destroy the US Navy in a war. Now that Iranian boats threaten US naval ships, we do an immediate about face?

[Fire Walk With Me]

68. The Iranians may be doing to us exactly what we did to Iraq. Trolling.

Taunting them into making a large military response that would justify an even greater escalation.

Iran, if attacked, might be able to bring in the non US-aligned muslim countries such as Pakistan, etc. into a justified conflict. A full-blown conflict could polarize any remaining muslim into an active US hater.

[Hugabear]

72. We are a bigger threat to Iran than they are to us

If anyone was harassing anyone, I'd bet it was our warships doing the harassing.

[Occam Bandage]

88. Iran just embarrassed us badly, and that's all they were trying to do.

[Pavulon]

103. By not shooting them with 5"

shells we did them a favor, they get to live. We spent plenty of those killing these same little speed boats in the 80s.

Taking a personal vessel within 200m of any warship in international waters is a great way to die a moron.

But hey, fishes have to eat!

[Occam Bandage]

111. Firing on Iranian vessels in international waters is a great way to start an idiotic war.

[Pavulon]

118. Approaching a war ship

at speed in a small craft is a great way to become fish food. It would not be the first time we sunk their speed boats, and it would not start a war.

It is very stupid for them to come within 1000m of those ships.

[FogerRox]

114. It appears none of the US ships hada 5" gun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz

[Pavulon]

116. The MK45

naval gun was used in "skirmishes" with speedboats. I work with a guy who fired at them.

Spruance class vessels fired on them before and after we broke their floating toys in the 80's

[FogerRox]

119. My bad, the Port Royal has the Mk 45

[Leopolds Ghost]

126. I guess you have no problem with this... if they did it to us off the coast of NY it'd be terrorism.

Shooting down speedboats who are coming too close to our semi-naval blocakade of their country.

[Pavulon]

129. Like the soviets did

we did not harass their vessels that routinely skirted us borders.
Well except for that one time..

Try harder...

[yurbud]

112. what would we do if another country had a couple of carrier battle groups off our coast?

[Pavulon]

117. Like the Soviets used to do?

Not a whole lot. Pretty common cold war thing.

[FogerRox]

120. I would attack the carrier groups with speed boats

[yurbud]

124. We did what Iran did: send aircraft or ships to intercept or shadow intruder

and warn them if they got too close or invaded our space.

[Pavulon]

130. Seen the vid. They are lucky that fishies

aren't eating their eyeballs.

They were obviously trying to earn a trip to virgin land. If YOU maneuvered a boat like that in Norfolk you would be arrested, or shot.

[yurbud]

131. It was Norfolk, it was off the coast of Iran

[rug]

127. The spread of Hooters is a bigger threat.

[anastasiatwo]

132. Clear Threat? Where is your authority

The U.S., for whatever reason, allowed Iranian ships to close to well within the range of the Hoot torpedo.


Dear Sir: You said.... the U.S. ship... "allowed Iranian ships to(o) close...."

Either there were no rules that controlled the conduct of the speed boats, or there were rules that did not permit these boats to travel on the waters at the distance they were from the U.S. ship. Your statement implies and suggests (but does not say) that there were rules in place that did not permit these small Iranian boats to go as close as they went, which did not seem so very close at all from the video.

You also suggest, but do not say that the U.S. ship had the authority over these waters and over other boats sufficient to keep other boats at a particular distance.

And here is both your error, as well as your presumption about whether Iranian speedboats constituted a "threat."

Either they were permitted travel on the water as they did, or they were not permitted to travel on the water as they did. Which is it?

The fact that torpedos may reach the U.S. ship at the distance the speed boats traveled from the U.S. ship is not in any way relevant....and you know it.

[L. Coyote]

134. The voice over sounds like a guy calling a girlfriend on the way over for a visit??

[Truth2Tell]

137. I thought maybe it was Borat. nt