Iran's torpedo

[John C]

Can Iran potentially put a nuclear weapon on the tip of that torpedo and
take out one of our carriers?
If so this poses a real threat to our ships. If the weapon is as good as
they say it is.

-JC

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 19:56:36 -0400, "John C" >
wrote:

>Can Iran potentially put a nuclear weapon on the tip of that torpedo and
>take out one of our carriers?
>If so this poses a real threat to our ships. If the weapon is as good as
>they say it is.

The Soviets developed nuclear-tipped torpedos and deployed them during
the Cuban Missle Crisis. Since it is unlikely that Iran has an
operational weapon (yet) they would be a long way from developing
anything quite so "tactical" in-house.

I don't know if these can be had on the market (open or black) and
what type of support it takes to keep them operational.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[DDAY]

----------
In article >, "John C"
> wrote:

> Can Iran potentially put a nuclear weapon on the tip of that torpedo and
> take out one of our carriers?

Not in the next several decades.

First generation weapons are always very big. It took the US over a decade
to reduce the size of its nukes, and that was with huge resources and
knowledge. Iran is, by many estimates, at least 5-10 years away from
producing its first bomb.

In fact, I recently read something (and I'm trying to figure out where) that
asked a really good question--why has it taken the Iranians so _long_ to
build a bomb? They've been at it for decades. I seem to remember that the
speculation was that they've simply done a very poor job of it.




D

[~Nins~]

John C wrote:
|| Can Iran potentially put a nuclear weapon on the tip of that torpedo
|| and take out one of our carriers?
|| If so this poses a real threat to our ships. If the weapon is as
|| good as they say it is.

I don't know anything about this topic, but I've read here and there.
Wouldn't they need to have a way of getting those close enough, without
detection, to deliver them to the target? I would think, and hope, the
carriers would detect something was up long before they were able to get a
good shot at 'em.

[John Keeney]

~Nins~ wrote:
> John C wrote:
> || Can Iran potentially put a nuclear weapon on the tip of that torpedo
> || and take out one of our carriers?
> || If so this poses a real threat to our ships. If the weapon is as
> || good as they say it is.
>
> I don't know anything about this topic, but I've read here and there.
> Wouldn't they need to have a way of getting those close enough, without
> detection, to deliver them to the target? I would think, and hope, the
> carriers would detect something was up long before they were able to get a
> good shot at 'em.

I wouldn't be suprised that given the narrow waters down around the
straight that a lone atomic mine wouldn't have decent odds of being
able to take out a carrier.

Laying the mine might be considered a hazardous undertaking though.

[Joe Delphi]

"FatKat" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> John C wrote:
> > Can Iran potentially put a nuclear weapon on the tip of that torpedo and
> > take out one of our carriers?
>
> Lots of ifs.
>

This brings up the issue of Iranian submarines. Do they have any? How
many? Where are they based and are they operational or just some hulks
rusting away in dry dock?

Anyone know the answer to these questions?

JD

[John Dallman]

In article t>,
(DDAY) wrote:

> In fact, I recently read something (and I'm trying to figure out where)
> that asked a really good question--why has it taken the Iranians so
> _long_ to build a bomb? They've been at it for decades. I seem to
> remember that the speculation was that they've simply done a very
> poor job of it.

I suspect that they've tried to do it too cheaply, and have chopped and
changed strategies and management. It isn't an /easy/ job; they seem to
have acquired plenty of bomb design information, but they may well have
failed to grasp the scale of work and the persistence necessary to get a
materials production system running.

---
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

[Gordon]

US carriers crave deep water - the idea that a skipper would risk a
strategic asset (his ship, crew, airwing, and of course, his own
career!) by taking the CV into the gulf is a non-starter. A/C can
easily fly from one end of the gulf to the other (there is tanker
support after all), and penetrate the gulf from far out into the NAS
and IO. Whatever wants to sink a carrier has to get out into Gonzo and
Kermit Station, putting the delivery platform under the guns of the USN
for hundreds of miles. On war day, anything we remotedly considered a
delivery platform is going to have a hard time putting out fires.

v/r
Gordon
PS, that doesn't mean I am not rightly impressed with this Russian
technology transfer.

[Gordon]

They had/have some small DE boats - nothing that would be capable of
penetrating a CVBG outer defense zone; also, this is not a small
torpedo so I think it would require a lot of modifications to even
carry it, let alone use it effectively. Once launched, self noise
makes it deaf so it has to be aimed very carefully if it is going to
get a hit from any great distance.

v/r
Gordon

[John Keeney]

Gordon wrote:
> US carriers crave deep water - the idea that a skipper would risk a
> strategic asset (his ship, crew, airwing, and of course, his own
> career!) by taking the CV into the gulf is a non-starter.

Umm, I was under the impression that carriers have been in the Gulf for
some years now and were likely to be there for a few more.

> A/C can
> easily fly from one end of the gulf to the other (there is tanker
> support after all), and penetrate the gulf from far out into the NAS
> and IO. Whatever wants to sink a carrier has to get out into Gonzo and
> Kermit Station, putting the delivery platform under the guns of the USN
> for hundreds of miles. On war day, anything we remotedly considered a
> delivery platform is going to have a hard time putting out fires.
>
> v/r
> Gordon
> PS, that doesn't mean I am not rightly impressed with this Russian
> technology transfer.

[Gordon]

No kidding?? that used to be verboten!

sorry to be spouting bad gouge.

v/r Gordon

[Jeroen Wenting]

"Gordon" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> No kidding?? that used to be verboten!
>
> sorry to be spouting bad gouge.
>
> v/r Gordon
>
they have operated in the gulf and the red sea since 1990 at least for
operations against Iraq.

[Jeroen Wenting]

"Joe Delphi" > wrote in message
news:R7aZf.2488$CL6.633@fed1read11...
> "FatKat" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>>
>> John C wrote:
>> > Can Iran potentially put a nuclear weapon on the tip of that torpedo
>> > and
>> > take out one of our carriers?
>>
>> Lots of ifs.
>>
>
> This brings up the issue of Iranian submarines. Do they have any? How
> many? Where are they based and are they operational or just some hulks
> rusting away in dry dock?
>
> Anyone know the answer to these questions?
>
Iran purchased several Kilo class submarines from Russia. They may also have
others, Iran has been very cosy with the PRC lately for example and they
have a largish submarine program.
They're AFAIK not based in the Arabian Gulf itself but on the shores of the
Indian Ocean to patrol the approaches to the Gulf which offer somewhat
deeper (and thus more submarine friendly) water.

[TJ]

Gordon wrote:
> No kidding?? that used to be verboten!
>
> sorry to be spouting bad gouge.
>
> v/r Gordon

Gordon,
The US has been operating carriers in the Persian Gulf for some years
now. It annoys the hell out of the Iranians. They are always sending
MPAs out to try and identify carriers and their escorts. Their ship
recognition is crap. Their intelligence guys must have nightmares
trying to collate all the crap vis reports that both the IRGC and the
IRIAF send back to base? Their MPAs are forever getting warned off on
freq.

TJ

[John Keeney]

Gordon wrote:
> No kidding?? that used to be verboten!
>
> sorry to be spouting bad gouge.

To be honest, I don't know that you are. I know several people have
responded in support of what I said (the second time); unfortunitly you
knew what I meant, that carriers were in the Red Sea.

Looking quickly, I can find note that Enterprise was in the Red Sea in
2003 & 2004, Kennedy in 2004, Eisenhower in 2000, Carl Vension in 2005,
the Washingon in 2004, Truman in 2004 & 2005.
That's according to
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm

Not as a heavy a commitment as I though, but still in and out.

[John Keeney]

Gordon wrote:
> No kidding?? that used to be verboten!
>
> sorry to be spouting bad gouge.

To be honest, I don't know that you are. I know several people have
responded in support of what I said (the second time); unfortunitly you
knew what I meant, that carriers were in the Red Sea.

Looking quickly, I can find note that Enterprise was in the Red Sea in
2003 & 2004, Kennedy in 2004, Eisenhower in 2000, Carl Vension in 2005,
the Washingon in 2004, Truman in 2004 & 2005.
That's according to
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm

Not as a heavy a commitment as I though, but still in and out.

[~Nins~]

Gordon wrote:
|| No kidding?? that used to be verboten!
||
|| sorry to be spouting bad gouge.
||
|| v/r Gordon

Wasn't the Constellation in the Gulf region back at the beginning of 2003?
I seem to recall an article where Rumsfield wanted to add 2-4 more carriers
in that region at the time. Given their size I doubt they would position
themselves in an area too close to the mainland, right? I saw the
Enterprise once, and I was just flabbergasted at the size - totally awesome.
I wanted to find someone to see about going aboard, or find a way of getting
aboard, but my husband (now my ex-, but still on friendly terms), a Marine,
steered me away from it. lol. All I wanted was to step aboard it, so I
could say I've been aboard the Enterprise. It wasn't like I was going to go
in search of Kirk or Spock. Geez....

[Jason H]

"TJ" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Gordon wrote:
>> No kidding?? that used to be verboten!
>>
>> sorry to be spouting bad gouge.
>>
>> v/r Gordon
>
> Gordon,
> The US has been operating carriers in the Persian Gulf for some years
> now. It annoys the hell out of the Iranians. They are always sending
> MPAs out to try and identify carriers and their escorts. Their ship
> recognition is crap. Their intelligence guys must have nightmares
> trying to collate all the crap vis reports that both the IRGC and the
> IRIAF send back to base? Their MPAs are forever getting warned off on
> freq.
>
> TJ
>

My ship, the TR (CVN-71), was in the gulf from october 2005-march 2006. We
cruised just off the iranian coast while bombing iraq for almost a month
just to **** them off. They kept sending out boats to intercept us claiming
we were violating their territory but they stopped after we started firing
warning shots. they didn't find 5 .50 cals shooting at them very appealing.
<G>

Jason

[Jeb Hoge]

Don't know about the Iranians, but THAT brings up the issue of US
attack boats. Carrier groups never go anywhere without one or two SSNs
screening the group, so there's the big stick in your counter-sub
operations already. Shkval has been a known quantity in the Russian
arsenal for a while, and one would presume that the USN sub force has
been at least working on, if not deploying, a counterforce option
already.

[FatKat]

Jeb Hoge wrote:
> Shkval has been a known quantity in the Russian arsenal for a while, and one would
> presume that the USN sub force has been at least working on, if not deploying, a
> counterforce option already.

I would presumne no such thing. My guess is that we've been hedging
our bet on Shkval's nascent technology.

[Joe Delphi]

"FatKat" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jeb Hoge wrote:
> > Shkval has been a known quantity in the Russian arsenal for a while, and
one would
> > presume that the USN sub force has been at least working on, if not
deploying, a
> > counterforce option already.
>
> I would presumne no such thing. My guess is that we've been hedging
> our bet on Shkval's nascent technology.
>

No word on a supercavitating torpedo, but USN does have a supercavitating
bullet that can be used to blow up mines. It was developed in the late
1990s, so is probably operational by now.

http://www.supercavitation.com/html/projectiles.html



JD

[Jeb Hoge]

Wanna bet that we've already got a solid recording of a Shkval launch
in every SSN's database? I don't think they're homers...there's
probably a pre-defined evasion maneuver that OOD commands the second
sonar calls out a launch cue.

In training, of course.

[FatKat]

Jeb Hoge wrote:
> Wanna bet that we've already got a solid recording of a Shkval launch
> in every SSN's database?

Don't see what good that would do - these things are so loud there's
probably no mistaking them pnce they've been launched.

> I don't think they're homers...there's probably a pre-defined evasion maneuver that
> OOD commands the second sonar calls out a launch cue.

I don't see how they could be maneuvering homers - that
super-cavitation probably makes it impossible to get any decent sensor
working. They're probably launched similar to straight running
torpedoes. Even so, what are the range paramters? You've got the
length of the target sub, how fast it can get away, target-sub aspect,
and guesses as to where the torp is aimed/heading - against a torp
that's supposed to cover 5 miles a minute.