The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: sledgemeister on January 03, 2012, 04:44:16 AM
-
Please go back and kick their camel fetish asses back to before they was a stone age!
ht tp://www.news.com.au/world/iran-warns-us-over-aircraft-carrier/story-e6frfkyi-1226235946743
Iran warns US over aircraft carrier, 'we insist that this warship not return...and we warn only once'
January 03, 2012 8:57PM
An Iranian Army soldier stands guard on a military speed boat during the navy exercises in the Strait of Hormuz. Picture:
(http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/01/03/1226235/946358-iran-military-oil-sanctions.jpg)
Iran has tested missiles underlining threats to close the oil-transit waterway if new sanctions are imposed.
A US aircraft carrier deployed in the Middle East should "not return" to its base in the Gulf, the head of Iran's armed forces declared today, adding ominously there would be no repeat warning.
"We advise and insist that this warship not return to its former base in the Persian Gulf," Brigadier General Ataollah Salehi told reporters, according to the armed forces website.
"We don't have the intention of repeating our warning, and we warn only once," he was quoted as saying.
The warning came just one day after Iran's navy completed 10 days of manoeuvres at the entrance to the Gulf with the test-firing of three missiles designed to sink warships.
The aircraft carrier Salehi was referring to was the USS John C Stennis, one of the US navy's biggest warships.
The US vessel last week passed through the Strait of Hormuz heading east across the Gulf of Oman and through a zone where the Iranian navy was holding its manoeuvres. The US Defence Department said the passage was "routine".
The US keeps at least one aircraft carrier in or near the Gulf at all times, on rotations of weeks or months. It maintains the base of its Fifth Fleet in the Gulf state of Bahrain.
It was not immediately known if the USS John C Stennis was scheduled to return to the Gulf, or if it was to be replaced by another of the United States' 11 aircraft carriers.
The carrier left its home base in the western US state of Washington in late July last year on a seven-month deployment that included operations in the Gulf, according to US navy websites.
Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if it is attacked or if Western sanctions cripple its oil exports. Some 20 per cent of the world's oil flows through the strait.
The US has warned it will not tolerate a closure of the strategic channel.
Adding to the tensions, Iran's Revolutionary Guards, whose maritime division handles military operations in the strait and the Gulf, are soon to hold their own manoeuvres in the area, according to armed forces chief-of-staff General Hassan Firouzabadi.
"Manoeuvres are part of the program Iran's navy and Revolutionary Guards hold each year to increase their preparation. We will soon show the massive might of the Guards' naval forces," Firouzabadi was quoted as saying by Fars news agency.
-
BhO will apologize and Ron Paul will say "OK with me."
I'd be asking the Skipper to turn around. Wonder if he'll have a poll posted on the ship's website?
-
If Iran stationed a warship on the North Coast of Cuba I wonder if that would be considered to be the US threatening Iran.
-
They do this because they know Hussein is a pussy who won't do jack about it. A bully or a child will always do whatever they can get away with. If we were to escalate this, they would do nothing but talk, because they don't have anything but their mouths and the UN. Both are worthless.
-
The ones that will have a fit over this is the EU.
That and I'm pretty sure if a missle leaves IRans air space in any direction, there is this small jewish country that will put a bunch more in the air.
-
If Iran stationed a warship on the North Coast of Cuba I wonder if that would be considered to be the US threatening Iran.
Not a valid comparison but I'll play along.
Not even a similar number of warships (we usually send about 8 surface ships with a CV) would be considered a threat here. Besides the fact that a flight of four FA-18s carry more ordnance than most of the IRGN, freedom of the seas is paramount to our Naval Doctrine. (You can put your boat where ever you want as long as it's legal and allows others to use the same international waters.)
Cutting off the Straits and not allowing free passage between the IO and Persian Gulf is the whole reason we have a CV deployed there. Operation Ernest Will reflagged Kuwaiti tankers in 1987 after the Iraqi and Iranian military began shooting up EVERYBODY'S tankers, not just thier own. Once the USN/RN/Soviet Navy began protecting shipping interests in the area both sides decided to only shoot at each other not anything on the water.
-
I'll second Jnevis mauler. Ever since the birth of the Republic we've stood for freedom of the seas. Most Of the reason for the War of 1812 was that we insisted, or tried to insist, on our rights to trade with both sides during the Napoleonic Wars. Should the Iranian Navy, such as it is choose to cruise through the Straits of Florida that's their business. The Soviets did it, the Chinese have done it, and the Russians just took a trip to Venezuela. It made some right wing idiots froth at the mouth, but cooler heads were actually glad, because it was a de facto acknowledgement of our doctrine of freedom of the seas. The Straits of Formosa, the Straits of Florida, and the Straits of Hormuz. Its all the same. As long as you stay in International waters its your right to be there. Now, that doesn't mean you don't go on alert, but it is in the interest of every country, including Iran to respect that.
Lets take this one step further. Let's say Iran did close the straits and we couldn't or wouldn't stop them. Who would get hurt worse, us or them? Remember that the rocket scientists in Iran made the brilliant decision to not build gas refineries. So they export crude oil and import refined fuel (gee, that was a great idea). That's why they want nukes, to generate electricity, because all that oil is useless till it is refined. Now, while that may not pass the giggle test, its also true in that without imported fuel, they are SOL. Same with food, electronics and all the rest of it. Minus gulf oil, we'll take a big economic hit, but if we turn off the pipelines to and from turkey, and no ships get through? The Iranians will be devastated while we are merely severely inconvienced.
FQ13 who ain't skeered a bit.
-
Somewhat true FQ, but it would be far more fun to engage their "Navy". A Phalanx Gun System does wonders to an outboard powered gun boat with 5 ragheads armed with AK's.
-
It's not just us that would be effected.
If Iran is allowed to close the Straits of Hormuz it sets a precedent that could be applied to places like the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal, or the Malacca Strait (which handles about 25% of the worlds shipping).
It would have the potential to screw up almost all international trade.
Bill, the gun boats are just a small part of it, the Iranians have had missile systems such as "Silkworm", and larger anti shipping missiles deployed for decades.
-
Have the ship return to base with all sailors at the rail mooning the Iranian forces. Some planes flying CAP.
All that will happen is we will be called Imperialist Devils....well, someone might call us insensitive to the feelings of Iranian sailors.
-
Have the ship return to base with all sailors at the rail mooning the Iranian forces. Some planes flying CAP.
All that will happen is we will be called Imperialist Devils....well, someone might call us insensitive to the feelings of Iranian sailors.
Gee, if they called us imperialists, everyone might start doing it, and that would be bad. I mean, in an ideal world, where words actually matter, one of two things would happen. In their ideal world, we'd be so ashamed we'd castrate ourselves like the Brits have done and apologize for not doing it sooner and failing to do it with a rusty spoon. Or, in my ideal world, we might say, "Gee, imperialism, haven't thought about that concept in a while. Hmm, they hate us anyway, they do have all that oil, and as long as we're in the neighborhood.........". ;D
FQ13
-
I'll second Jnevis mauler. Ever since the birth of the Republic we've stood for freedom of the seas. Most Of the reason for the War of 1812 was that we insisted, or tried to insist, on our rights to trade with both sides during the Napoleonic Wars. Should the Iranian Navy, such as it is choose to cruise through the Straits of Florida that's their business. The Soviets did it, the Chinese have done it, and the Russians just took a trip to Venezuela. It made some right wing idiots froth at the mouth, but cooler heads were actually glad, because it was a de facto acknowledgement of our doctrine of freedom of the seas. The Straits of Formosa, the Straits of Florida, and the Straits of Hormuz. Its all the same. As long as you stay in International waters its your right to be there. Now, that doesn't mean you don't go on alert, but it is in the interest of every country, including Iran to respect that.
Brought to you all directly from the TOOL-box yet again.
Slam the "right wingers", and then make a "bold" pronouncement that is true only so long - and I mean to the very minute - that the oceans can't be forcefully kept open, any little tinpot dictator with silkworms or left-over exocets can close any damn body of water they chose to close. In a world in chaos, "International" waters begin at the end of the range of a missile.
The US currently has the ability to project its power, but I would not bank on bho having the will to do any projecting any time soon. And tomorrow, who knows if we will have the will, the tools or the ability to do any projecting. It never bodes well if we have to rely on others, like the Russkies or China, to do our projecting for us. We may not benefit from their projection.
-
Best thing that would happen for the US is that BHO would cave on this one...(not likely though)...it would endure his non-re-election.
Second best is that he dithers and looks so indecisive on such a vital issue he again kisses a second term goodbye.
Worst thing would be that, as much as he may want to appease the world of Islam, he acts decisively, calls their bluff and look to be dynamic and powerful leader.
As a matter of fact, being decisive here will be such a benefit to him, you have to wonder if it's a setup.
-
Brought to you all directly from the TOOL-box yet again.
Slam the "right wingers", and then make a "bold" pronouncement that is true only so long - and I mean to the very minute - that the oceans can't be forcefully kept open, any little tinpot dictator with silkworms or left-over exocets can close any damn body of water they chose to close. In a world in chaos, "International" waters begin at the end of the range of a missile.
The US currently has the ability to project its power, but I would not bank on bho having the will to do any projecting any time soon. And tomorrow, who knows if we will have the will, the tools or the ability to do any projecting. It never bodes well if we have to rely on others, like the Russkies or China, to do our projecting for us. We may not benefit from their projection.
You really don't bother to read what I actually write do you? You just look for a fight. It has been a bipartisan policy to preserve freedom of navigation. I wasn't slamming the GOp or conservatives. You know darn well that there are alarmist idiots on the right that have a conniption every time any hostile nation conducts an exercise or sails its fleet. They do it for domestic consumption and they shouldn't be taken seriously. Reagan didn't, Bush Senior didn't, why do you? The reason why is that, in this case, international consensus on freedom of navigation is very much in our interest. And as for me not taking the need for a powerful, and expeditionary military as essential? Have I ever posted anything that sugests I don't? Take a Midol Path, and pick a fight with someone who actually disagrees with you on this issue. ::)
FQ13
-
Pathfinder, our resident liberal would never dream of bashing the GOP over Freedom of Navigation.
He'd much rather save his bashing for the Monroe Doctrine. ::)
-
Pathfinder, our resident liberal would never dream of bashing the GOP over Freedom of Navigation.
He'd much rather save his bashing for the Monroe Doctrine. ::)
I'm fine with that too. I had quibbles with the Roosevelt Corollary, but events in Mexico have made me reconsider the issue, and I think Teddy might have had it right. ;D
FQ13
-
Where's deepwater, he racks up the nautical miles of International Shipping, rules and reg's, and has passed through the Hormuz many times....
Challenge the 5th Fleet? In open Straights? Bad Idea....
The Navy, will eviscerate any "wannabe" Capt. that launches anything in the direction of the American ships.. Not only will we have maritime law on our side, (that the UN can cry at),...it just may send many a Iranian Sailor (kinda funny even typing that),...to meet Usama with his 72 sheep,,,uh, virgins....to the bottom....
Make it a poker game and call their bluff.
and Teddy did have it right,....except the Krag's issued to US GI's, were no match for the Mauser's. It was battle tactics, and calling their bluff, (with a wee bit of luck) that gave Teddy his San Juan Hill.
-
I remember back when Regan was Pres.
Some country, maybe Libya, had a couple of their aircraft come aggressively close to a US War Ship.
They got shot down and Regan wasn't informed of the incident till he was up and having his morning coffee.
When the media asked if he was displeased with the Commander for taking that action and for not being informed about it immediately, Regan responded that the Commander did exactly what the situation called for by SOP. There was no need for them to trouble me when they were just doing their jobs.
Same should happen in this situation.
-
Challenge the 5th Fleet? In open Straights? Bad Idea....
The Navy, will eviscerate any "wannabe" Capt. that launches anything in the direction of the American ships.. Not only will we have maritime law on our side, (that the UN can cry at),...it just may send many a Iranian Sailor (kinda funny even typing that),...to meet Usama with his 72 sheep,,,uh, virgins....to the bottom....
I only made three trips in/out of the Straits and spent two of them on airborne alert watching for anything "hinky" and about 50+ missions watching Iran while the boat was making circles off Kharg Island. Chased their P-3 away a few times.
The Straits aren't as "open" as you'd like to believe. The closest choke point is 35 miles point to point, that leaves 9 miles of channel between Iran and Oman. A CSSC-2/HY-1 could cover the entire gap in about 2 minutes at less than 50ft. Pretty hard to detect and destroy a small target in 45 seconds from launch to impact, even with CIWS.
They don't really have the Navy to go toe to toe with us, but they are the largest in the region. All they'd need to do is sink a tanker or, God forbid, warship in the right spot and try getting your shipping in or out. It's only 50-75 meters deep in the Strait.
-
The Iranians have two or three Russian Kilo diesel electric subs that are designed for shallow water operation with sound deadening tiles affixed to their hulls. Anyone in the Sonar business, passive or active is scared to death of these "Black Holes" in the ocean. They are the biggest threat to the Carrier Battle Group of the 5th.
On battery, they're all but undetectable.
-
Just shoot the quite spot.
TW, it was actually the support of the black troopers of the 10th US Calvary (Buffalo Soldiers) that gave Teddy his hill.
It was actually "Kettle Hill".
Just like at Bunker Hill, which was fought on Breed's Hill, the historians screwed it up.
(Hear that FQ ? ;D )
-
I remember back when Regan was Pres.
Some country, maybe Libya, had a couple of their aircraft come aggressively close to a US War Ship.
They got shot down and Regan wasn't informed of the incident till he was up and having his morning coffee.
When the media asked if he was displeased with the Commander for taking that action and for not being informed about it immediately, Regan responded that the Commander did exactly what the situation called for by SOP. There was no need for them to trouble me when they were just doing their jobs.
Same should happen in this situation.
According to wikipedia it happened in 1981 and again in 1989.
Why does the Libyan Navy have glass-bottomed boats? So they can see the Libyan Air Force. ;D
-
Thing is, the Libyans were occasionally stupid, but not crazy. The Iranians are the opposite. They are smart enough to know they can't win, but they might be too crazy to care. :-\
FQ13
-
They don't really have the Navy to go toe to toe with us, but they are the largest in the region. All they'd need to do is sink a tanker or, God forbid, warship in the right spot and try getting your shipping in or out. It's only 50-75 meters deep in the Strait.
Agreed,
One doesnt really need to have "the navy" to cause serious harm, remember the USS Cole? All that took was a dedicated dipshit and a fast speedboat.
-
Agreed,
One doesnt really need to have "the navy" to cause serious harm, remember the USS Cole? All that took was a dedicated dipshit and a fast speedboat.
From what I read, the attack of the Cole was the end event in a Keystone Cops type of plan.
From what I remember it took several tries to pull it off.
First try, the boat was to small and it sank or swamped before it got far from shore.
Second attempt, they got a bigger boat, but the pilot fell asleep and did not make the rendezvous with the explosives.
Third attempt was successful....
I seem to remember more attempts were made, but can't recall how they failed.
The Cole wasn't the ship they were going for on the failed attempts...it just happened to be the one in port when they got their act together.
-
Solus, Sledge misspoke. He was referring to the USS Stark incident.
You are correct that the Cole attack was a Cluster F**k that would have gotten some of it's participants killed even if it hadn't been a suicide attack.
-
Just shoot the quiet spot.
You know it ain't that easy Tom!
The Kitty Hawk had a Chinese diesel boat pop up in the middle of the battle group a few years back. It made quite a stir in the IUSS world!
Normally there are at least one or two LA class fast attack boats with a battle group! Even they missed it!
-
Why does this threat remind me of the following story:
Iranian Air Defense Radar: 'Unknown aircraft at (location unknown), you are in Iranian airspace. Identify yourself.'
Aircraft: 'This is a United States aircraft. I am not in Iranian airspace, I am in Iraqi airspace.'
Iranian Air Defense Radar: 'You are in Iranian airspace. If you do not depart our airspace we will launch interceptor aircraft!'
Aircraft: 'This is a United States Marine Corps FA-18 fighter. Send 'em up, I'll wait!'
To anyone that questions why we should be concerned about Iran having nuclear power I point out the fact that the U.S. military is in international waters protecting not only our own commercial interests but also the commercial interests of many nations. A power with access to nuclear weapons making this kind of threat should be a concern to all people of this world!
-
To anyone that questions why we should be concerned about Iran having nuclear power I point out the fact that the U.S. military is in international waters protecting not only our own commercial interests but also the commercial interests of many nations. A power with access to nuclear weapons making this kind of threat should be a concern to all people of this world!
Well put Mike!
-
Why does this threat remind me of the following story:
To anyone that questions why we should be concerned about Iran having nuclear power I point out the fact that the U.S. military is in international waters protecting not only our own commercial interests but also the commercial interests of many nations. A power with access to nuclear weapons making this kind of threat should be a concern to all people of this world!
The difference is that when that story was first heard we had a President who was a former AF pilot and a citizen of the US.
We currently have a shmuck with no military experience who is a "citizen of the world".
-
You know it ain't that easy Tom!
The Kitty Hawk had a Chinese diesel boat pop up in the middle of the battle group a few years back. It made quite a stir in the IUSS world!
Normally there are at least one or two LA class fast attack boats with a battle group! Even they missed it!
I was on that cruise. What a F-ing mess. They wanted us on 10 min alert 24-7 but our OIC was smart enough to inform CAG that if we were launching on a 10 min alert we were at least an hour late. Didn't stand alert after that.
I was also on Indpendence doing an OPPE and went to GQ and the evaluators had no clue what was happening. Then a pair of flares is on teh horizon and all the helos and S-3s went off the pointy end in a HURRY!
-
I was on that cruise. What a F-ing mess. They wanted us on 10 min alert 24-7 but our OIC was smart enough to inform CAG that if we were launching on a 10 min alert we were at least an hour late. Didn't stand alert after that.
I was also on Indpendence doing an OPPE and went to GQ and the evaluators had no clue what was happening. Then a pair of flares is on teh horizon and all the helos and S-3s went off the pointy end in a HURRY!
Ain't that stuff fun?
Glad you were there J and damn glad it didn't get out of hand! ;)
-
From what I read, the attack of the Cole was the end event in a Keystone Cops type of plan.
From what I remember it took several tries to pull it off.
First try, the boat was to small and it sank or swamped before it got far from shore.
Second attempt, they got a bigger boat, but the pilot fell asleep and did not make the rendezvous with the explosives.
Third attempt was successful....
I seem to remember more attempts were made, but can't recall how they failed.
The Cole wasn't the ship they were going for on the failed attempts...it just happened to be the one in port when they got their act together.
Continual attempts maybe foolhardy, inept, or even keystone cops kinda crazy but it is dedication none the less,
No one person/nation can be 100% effective against a dedicated zealot/s with a cause.