Jump to content


Photo

Iran says that..sorry, can't hold back the laughter...it will send naval ships to US coast


  • Please log in to reply
218 replies to this topic

#41 Anixtu

Anixtu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,090 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 1540 PM

Though they better make sure they can find friendly ports to refuel from ahead of time.


I assume they would bring a replenishment tanker, like they did when visiting the Mediterranean earlier in the year.

Edited by Anixtu, 27 July 2012 - 1540 PM.

  • 0

#42 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,973 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 1304 PM

OTOH regarding the ridicule... I imagine British also laughed when USN first sent ships across the Atlantic ;)
  • 0

#43 FlyingCanOpener

FlyingCanOpener

    Kakistocrat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,138 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 1921 PM

OTOH regarding the ridicule... I imagine British also laughed when USN first sent ships across the Atlantic ;)


The problem with that was the Continental Navy was quite capable from the word go
  • 0

#44 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,947 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 0931 AM


OTOH regarding the ridicule... I imagine British also laughed when USN first sent ships across the Atlantic ;)


The problem with that was the Continental Navy was quite capable from the word go

American merchant ships had been routinely trading with Britain and around the world for a century and American privateers had been operating under the British flag for as long.
  • 0

#45 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,694 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 1418 PM

Indeed, there was a much finer hair between military and civilian service at that time, and the US merchant marine fleet was quite large and global by that time.
  • 0

#46 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,623 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 1655 PM

While the US fielded a small hand full of ships compared to the RN, the quality of those ships was top notch as were the crews and the officers aboard. An equivalent example would be if Iran had 2 Aegis Cruisers and 6 Burkes all with crews on par with what comes out of US training and operational experience.
  • 0

#47 John T

John T

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 239 posts

Posted 13 August 2012 - 1504 PM

Kilos anyone?
They sailed from Russia to Iran under own power if I remember correctly.

If you make an rough estimate on google earth its ~10 000 nautical between Iran and Hawaii
For a single trip a Kilo sub gets halfways before she needs to refuel.
Port call in India and a then peaceful refueling from a merchant on the surface east of Philipines on both legs.
As you don't have to hurry you can wait for calm sea, Germans did refuel sub from sub during ww2 so why not the Iranians?

The might even get home again.
And there's five months to 7:th December.

Cheers
/John

Edited by John T, 13 August 2012 - 1508 PM.

  • 0

#48 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,694 posts

Posted 13 August 2012 - 1520 PM

Kilos anyone?
They sailed from Russia to Iran under own power if I remember correctly.

If you make an rough estimate on google earth its ~10 000 nautical between Iran and Hawaii
For a single trip a Kilo sub gets halfways before she needs to refuel.
Port call in India and a then peaceful refueling from a merchant on the surface east of Philipines on both legs.
As you don't have to hurry you can wait for calm sea, Germans did refuel sub from sub during ww2 so why not the Iranians?

The might even get home again.
And there's five months to 7:th December.

Cheers
/John


Well if they want to creep towards Hawaii at a dozen knots, diesels blazing the whole time, and are able to refuel a couple times somewhere I guess that could work, but I wouldn't want to be one of the crew members crushed into the boat for that long trip. I'm pretty sure the Kilos were delivered to Iran on flo/flo ships.
  • 0

#49 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,623 posts

Posted 13 August 2012 - 1630 PM

Logistics ships, aka tankers met along the way would be the way I'd plan it. If the Germans could resupply subs and Commerce Raiders with cargo ships, so could an Iranian sub.
  • 0

#50 mnm

mnm

    Plague doctor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,739 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 0238 AM

http://www.uboat.net...es/milkcows.htm
  • 0

#51 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,694 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 1151 AM

Logistics ships, aka tankers met along the way would be the way I'd plan it. If the Germans could resupply subs and Commerce Raiders with cargo ships, so could an Iranian sub.


German U-boats had drastically more range and top speed than a Kilo. A Kilo is not really an open ocean asset, or at least not a patch of open ocean located 10,000 miles away. Again, a dozen knots snorting all the way...a Kilo can sprint at 20, but its diesels can only maintain steady hotel, propulsion, and battery strength at much lower speeds. Going faster can be done at the expense of battery charge, until the battery is flat. Most D/Es are like this, totally different from Type IX's or USN Fleet boats. AFAIK only the Collins and the JSMDF boats are truly long range / endurance.

EDIT for grammar

Edited by Josh, 14 August 2012 - 1439 PM.

  • 0

#52 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,694 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 1154 AM

http://www.uboat.net...es/milkcows.htm


I'm aware of them. And where and how pray tell would the Iranians get one? They're current inventory is 3 foreign imported submarines and midget subs that wouldn't make it out of the Gulf. How are they going to magically produce a large refueling boat? The tanker at sea is at least something they have the technology and resources to attempt. Assuming the Kilo's engines held out--which I wouldn't want to make bets on, personally.
  • 0

#53 mnm

mnm

    Plague doctor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,739 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 1536 PM

What is the matter with you? How can you harbour any doubts about the capacity and inventiveness of the Iranian people? Have they not been able to design and put into prodcution such marvelous weapon systems like the F-5 E II, oops, the Saeqeh all by themselves? Besides, they have the supply angle covered already, see the link :P
  • 0

#54 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,266 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 2139 PM

They have trouble building complete J85s. Which is why they arranged to steal and smuggle a pair of these out from Malaysia which has many spare as our F-5s are mostly in storage.
  • 0

#55 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,623 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 2227 PM


Logistics ships, aka tankers met along the way would be the way I'd plan it. If the Germans could resupply subs and Commerce Raiders with cargo ships, so could an Iranian sub.


German U-boats had drastically more range and top speed than a Kilo. A Kilo is not really an open ocean asset, or at least not a patch of open ocean located 10,000 miles away. Again, a dozen knots snorting all the way...a Kilo can sprint at 20, but its diesels can only maintain steady hotel, propulsion, and battery strength at much lower speeds. Going faster can be done at the expense of battery charge, until the battery is flat. Most D/Es are like this, totally different from Type IX's or USN Fleet boats. AFAIK only the Collins and the JSMDF boats are truly long range / endurance.

EDIT for grammar


Color me surprised. I just looked at the stats I could find online, about the same size but the Kilo has half the range for less speed. WTH? I'd have figured the Soviets would have designed better than WWII technology. Is it a matter of balancing the range functions for more stealth when on batteries?
  • 0

#56 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,847 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 0303 AM

WW II submarines were optimized for surface cruise, to dive only for attack or evasion: seagoing hull shape, strong diesel engines, though by modern standards dismal dived speed and endurance. They Type XXIs were the first to put more emphasis on dived operations, with more battery capacity, stronger electric engines and no deck guns except the streamlined AA turrets, to operate underwater as much as possible and at the same speed as surfaced, due to allied air and surface superiority. They still retained a somewhat seagoing hull though.

Modern subs are optimized for dived operations, with streamlined hulls that make for comparably bad seakeeping but better underwater speed - better than surfaced, actually; a concept that really comes into its own with nuclear propulsion where you don't have to surface anymore at all. Modern diesel subs are a bit of a bastard child of that development, running mostly on their electric engines with the diesels only meant to recharge batteries; with the noted rare exceptions, they are meant more for short-range work.

Of course, nothing is really new. The British R class of WW I were the first hunter-killer subs with a streamlined hull and strong electric engines for better speed dived than surfaced. They were meant to attack German U-Boats, but were small and short-ranged, since the technology was not really there yet.
  • 0

#57 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,694 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 0838 AM



Logistics ships, aka tankers met along the way would be the way I'd plan it. If the Germans could resupply subs and Commerce Raiders with cargo ships, so could an Iranian sub.


German U-boats had drastically more range and top speed than a Kilo. A Kilo is not really an open ocean asset, or at least not a patch of open ocean located 10,000 miles away. Again, a dozen knots snorting all the way...a Kilo can sprint at 20, but its diesels can only maintain steady hotel, propulsion, and battery strength at much lower speeds. Going faster can be done at the expense of battery charge, until the battery is flat. Most D/Es are like this, totally different from Type IX's or USN Fleet boats. AFAIK only the Collins and the JSMDF boats are truly long range / endurance.

EDIT for grammar


Color me surprised. I just looked at the stats I could find online, about the same size but the Kilo has half the range for less speed. WTH? I'd have figured the Soviets would have designed better than WWII technology. Is it a matter of balancing the range functions for more stealth when on batteries?


Your conclusion is spot on. Basically it comes down to snorting operations versus surfaced operations--a modern D/E is expected to remain submerged even when its running its diesels since its not really practical to remain on the surface in modern naval war. This means you are somewhat limited in how much air you can suck in from snorkel, as the USN found with its GUPPY fleet boats. A fleet boat on the surface is cranking four diesels in something around the megawatt range with a boat shaped hull optimized for surface work; it has no issue hitting 20 knots and holding it. Submerged however its performance plummets, even snorting--I don't think they could get enough air for all the engines and the hull isn't optimized for underwater efficiency.

You can make a D/E that has more endurance and more/stronger engines to give it better transit time, and then you have the Colins class (I think the Japanese boats also are larger, longer endurance, faster transit boats relative to European boats). Most D/Es however are designed for local coastal work and sacrifice horse power for size, cost, and a smaller snorkel exposted during snorts.

To give *very* rough approximations to show the issues a D/E faces, a nuke boat runs a reactor perhaps in the 30 megawatt range, a D/E runs diesels in the ~3 megawatt range, an AIP system is more in the 300 kW range. The nuke has orders of magnitudes more power all the time to do whatever it wants in the way of sensors, propulsion, environmental conditioning, active noise surpression, etc. The D/E always is going to have to compromise.
  • 0

#58 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,847 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 0919 AM

There was this recent British idea of a submarine powered by gas turbine during transit. Of course that basically requires the sub to poke the top of its sail with the turbines out of the water, so even with stealth application it would have a bigger radar and visual signature than a snorkeling diesel boat (not to speak of thermal).

New High Mobility Submarine Designed By BMT

11-Feb-2004

An innovative new hybrid gas turbine and fuel cell submarine that can travel faster and further than conventional diesel electric and more quietly than nuclear submarines has been designed by BMT Defence Services Ltd, in consultation with Rolls-Royce, has its UK premiere today. The new concept, known as the SSGT, is superior to the capabilities of the SSK submarine class in many ways; it can travel at speeds of 20 knots for up to 6,000 nautical miles, with short ‘sprints’ of up to 30 knots. It is also quieter during stealth operations than nuclear powered submarines, which must operate pump machinery continuously.

Dr Andrew Tyler, Managing Director of BMT Defence Services, said: ‘The SSGT concept is a major breakthrough in the design history of submarines with the novel but practical application of gas turbine technology. By developing a new hybrid propulsion system BMT has been able to provide greater flexibility in the speed, range and quietness achieved by the vessel. We have been very pleased with how well the concept was received by defence professionals when we announced it at Pacific 2004, the maritime exhibition held recently in Sydney, Australia. We are confident this innovative design will bring the skills of BMT to the attention of navies around the world that need unconventional but non-nuclear submarines.’

The high speed, long endurance transit capability is made possible by an innovative propulsion design which uses twin, independent gas turbine alternator sets, housed in the ‘bulb’ on top of the fin. When operating in the fast transit mode, the boat operates as a semi-submersible with the bulb positioned above the surface.

For more covert but slower transit requirements, fuel cell stacks provide the ship’s services and propulsion power. The stacks take in air from the atmosphere through a snort mast; this then reacts with hydrogen obtained from reformed kerosene, which is carried in external fuel bags mounted under the casing.

In-theatre, SSGT will operate fully submerged, in Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP) mode, for up to 25 days. The fuel cell stacks are fed by liquid oxygen (LOX) stored onboard to permit fully covert operations at up to 10 knots.

The 30 knots sprints confer tactical advantage and are provided by power drawn from a large advanced ZEBRA battery, which also acts as a load leveller during operation of the fuel cells or the gas turbines.

The design offers a flexible mix of vertical and horizontal weapon discharge tubes and unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) stowage able to satisfy a range of mission profiles. The vessel’s systems are fully integrated making it highly capable, cost effective and environmentally sound.

Posted Image


http://www.bmt.org/N...0#ixzz23clbPeLR


  • 0

#59 X-Files

X-Files

    1211st Desantsofter Legion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,308 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 1125 AM

"A single nuclear weapon will cause the collapse of the electric power grid, all the critical infrastructures and other electronic systems across the entire continental United States and basically cause a permanent blackout," he told CBN News.
Pry's nightmare scenario shows Iran or its terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, parking an unmarked freighter off America's East Coast or in the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2011/November/Intel-Shows-Iran-Nuke-Attack-on-US-Easy-as-EMP/
  • 0

#60 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,694 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 1134 AM


"A single nuclear weapon will cause the collapse of the electric power grid, all the critical infrastructures and other electronic systems across the entire continental United States and basically cause a permanent blackout," he told CBN News.
Pry's nightmare scenario shows Iran or its terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, parking an unmarked freighter off America's East Coast or in the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.cbn.com/c...US-Easy-as-EMP/


A single device affecting all of the US would have to be extremely large, and rather high up. To even have a noticeable EMP effect you'd still want something in 100kt+ range. Given that Iran hasn't even detonated a single stage Hiroshima style bomb, and that such a device would have a very limited impact due to low yield, and that they would have to miniaturize it to fit on a missile, and that such a missile does not currently exist, and that a US response would destroy the state of Iran as a country, if not a culture, this article is pure hyperbole.

I won't even speak to the idea that Hezbollah could some how mount a nuclear weapon on a ballistic missile on a ship and successfully fire it.
  • 0