Iran's torpedo

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

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

----------
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

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.

~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.

"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

In article et,
(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.

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.

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

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.