Iran's Guards launch aircraft carrier-scale warship amid tensions with U.S.: TV

[braindrain]

And SF has seen a drawn down as well. Back in 2012 at the peak just about everyone was there, not just American but all over from NATO and other allied nations.

But in terms of major combat operations, yes we've stopped them. SF teams are still active, but gone are the major combined offensives that ISAF used to launch to clear entire provinces. Now the remainder are stuck there trying to patch a leaking dam.

Drawn down is not stopped. And operations don't have to be major to be combat operations.

And I know exactly what SF has been doing over there. I have been there multiple times including twice since 2014. And we have a team from my company heading over there just a bit. And one that got back last year.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Drawn down is not stopped. And operations don't have to be major to be combat operations.

My point was moreso in reference to the drop in casualties being the cessation of major operations and the troop drawdown. BahamaBobs argument that we're doing so great because the Taliban have suffered so many more casualties than us is a pointless one because of how few troops there are left compared to the surge.

 

[MamboDervish]

1) Calling what's his name "duly elected" is quite an exaggeration.
2) The handful of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan don't qualify as "armies".
3) All nuclear weapons will do for Iran will justify the U.S. and the American people considering them a justifiable target for attack.

1). Mohammad Mossadegh certainly was duly elected under what was then Iran's parliamentary system. The backlash of his overthrow led directly to the Iranian Revolution, which overthrew the Monarchy that Great Britain and the USA installed after our coup d'é·tat overthrew him. Our CIA shares responsibility for the fact that Iran has been ruled by a theocracy for the past 40 years. It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences and it wasn't the first, or the last time our foreign policies have come back to bite us in the ass.
2) Since 9/11 we certainly have had armies in both Afghanistan and Iraq - up to 130,000 in Iraq, and up to 90,000 in Afghanistan. What you seem to be implying - albeit feebly - is that Iran should perceive our more recent drawdowns as a reason to ..... what? ... disarm ??!!?? They know full well how many military bases we have flanking their country, and how quickly we can bring exponentially larger forces to bear on their borders.
3). No. From their perspective, nuclear weapons are the great equalizer. Countries with nuclear weapons have a seat at the table, possibly even rotating through as non-permanent members of the UN Security Council. No nuclear capable country has ever been attacked by the USA - not even North Korea. And for obvious reasons. There is too much at stake.

 

[Dayton3]

1). Mohammad Mossadegh certainly was duly elected under what was then Iran's parliamentary system.
[QUOTE/]

I suggest you look up the actual history of his "election". At best, Mossadegh unethically abused and manipulated Iran's parliamentary system using very quasi legal (at best) means to do so.

 

[dave8383]

1). Mohammad Mossadegh certainly was duly elected under what was then Iran's parliamentary system. The backlash of his overthrow led directly to the Iranian Revolution, which overthrew the Monarchy that Great Britain and the USA installed after our coup d'é·tat overthrew him. Our CIA shares responsibility for the fact that Iran has been ruled by a theocracy for the past 40 years. It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences and it wasn't the first, or the last time our foreign policies have come back to bite us in the ass.
2) Since 9/11 we certainly have had armies in both Afghanistan and Iraq - up to 130,000 in Iraq, and up to 90,000 in Afghanistan. What you seem to be implying - albeit feebly - is that Iran should perceive our more recent drawdowns as a reason to ..... what? ... disarm ??!!?? They know full well how many military bases we have flanking their country, and how quickly we can bring exponentially larger forces to bear on their borders.
3). No. From their perspective, nuclear weapons are the great equalizer. Countries with nuclear weapons have a seat at the table, possibly even rotating through as non-permanent members of the UN Security Council. No nuclear capable country has ever been attacked by the USA - not even North Korea. And for obvious reasons. There is too much at stake.

Hey man, we've been through all this.

 

[MamboDervish]

How many aircraft carriers have been blown out of the water in your lifetime?

Is that a trick question?
In my lifetime, and even long before it, aircraft carriers all traveled in fleets, surrounded by support vessels that provide added firepower, early warning, extra fuel, jamming and countermeasures. And all of that on top of their own airborne firepower. Are you suggesting Iran would be better off investing in becoming a global naval power? Sounds both pricey, and decades away. I suspect they would settle for defending their territorial waters in the Persian Gulf - for which designing and building a state-of-the-art carrier based armada would be overkill by several orders of magnitude. They don't need to float a runway, and if they did they'd also have to buy the things you launch from and land on it.

Their small navy has about a dozen subs - mostly tiny ones - and maybe half-a-dozen corvette size warships. Since the end of their 8 year war with Iraq, they probably have no use for their landing craft. Who would they be invading? Basically they just need floating platforms for rotor-wing aircraft and drones. That, and maybe the ability to mine their coastal waters. Everything else is just patrol boats. As a platform for choppers, their freighter retrofit probably works fine.

 

[MamboDervish]

LOL
Mohammad Mossadegh had a higher percentage of the popular vote total than Trump did. Are you suggesting the Shah was more "elected" than Mossadegh was? Do you think the Ayatollahs have been more "elected" than Mossadegh? Mossadegh was the head of his party, a genuine populist candidate, and a man who's biggest "crime" was having the audacity to believe that Iranian oil profits should serve the Persian people instead of the oil companies.

How dare he monopolize our god-given oil, just because it was under his sand ?!!?
(LOL - I slay me!)

 

[MamboDervish]

Hey man, we've been through all this.

View attachment 67306112

Cool picture. Is that the Mrs?

 

[Dayton3]

LOL
Mohammad Mossadegh had a higher percentage of the popular vote total than Trump did. Are you suggesting the Shah was more "elected" than Mossadegh was? Do you think the Ayatollahs have been more "elected" than Mossadegh? Mossadegh was the head of his party, a genuine populist candidate, and a man who's biggest "crime" was having the audacity to believe that Iranian oil profits should serve the Persian people instead of the oil companies.

How dare he monopolize our god-given oil, just because it was under his sand ?!!?
(LOL - I slay me!)

We dare monopolize the oil because we drilled for it and refined it. Who cares about whose land happens to lie above it.

 

[BahamaBob]

Is that a trick question?
In my lifetime, and even long before it, aircraft carriers all traveled in fleets, surrounded by support vessels that provide added firepower, early warning, extra fuel, jamming and countermeasures. And all of that on top of their own airborne firepower. Are you suggesting Iran would be better off investing in becoming a global naval power? Sounds both pricey, and decades away. I suspect they would settle for defending their territorial waters in the Persian Gulf - for which designing and building a state-of-the-art carrier based armada would be overkill by several orders of magnitude. They don't need to float a runway, and if they did they'd also have to buy the things you launch from and land on it.

Their small navy has about a dozen subs - mostly tiny ones - and maybe half-a-dozen corvette size warships. Since the end of their 8 year war with Iraq, they probably have no use for their landing craft. Who would they be invading? Basically they just need floating platforms for rotor-wing aircraft and drones. That, and maybe the ability to mine their coastal waters. Everything else is just patrol boats. As a platform for choppers, their freighter retrofit probably works fine.

None of that is in dispute. What is in dispute is the op. let me quote it.
Iran's Guards launch aircraft carrier-scale warship amid tensions with U.S.

This POS is not I repeat NOT an "Aircraft carrier-scale warship". It is a frigin freighter with a helicopter on it's deck. When I see something like this it reminds me of a poster I saw with a bunch of creepy guys in a row boat with a standing guy in a captain's uniform and a sign saying "Redneck Yacht".

 

[dave8383]

Cool picture. Is that the Mrs?

Can you come up with something new and different? I hate to tell you but your posts are boring, redundant, years behind, predictable,.....................

 

[beerftw]

It might make for a passable "patrol vessel," meant for boarding and inspecting cargo ships passing through. Beyond that, however, I can't see it being good for much.

If any real military asset goes after the thing, its dead pretty much immediately.

It actually depends on how it is used, if it is used as a missile carrier before all else it would be formidable by even the best naval standards, as the number two navy on earth russia does the same, they use corvette class ships as their favorite which are much smaller but are also fast small missile ships. In the russian doctrine those corvettes are more effective than large ships because their doctrine focuses on defense not offense.

If iran is using a defensive setup a ship of that size as a missile carrier or hybrid missile carrier would be deadly, if it is offensive it would be highly innefective as the ship lacks the size to support the aircraft and logistics for long sea voyages performance force projection.

You need to realize how good a ship is is much like an aircraft or a tank, it depends not on how advanced it is, but how it is utilized. Currently we have no idea how iran would utilize it but can speculate, and it is highly possible they could use it effectivaly as a defensive ship in combination with their fast boat swarms.

 

[Rhakron90]

It actually depends on how it is used, if it is used as a missile carrier before all else it would be formidable by even the best naval standards, as the number two navy on earth russia does the same, they use corvette class ships as their favorite which are much smaller but are also fast small missile ships. In the russian doctrine those corvettes are more effective than large ships because their doctrine focuses on defense not offense.

If iran is using a defensive setup a ship of that size as a missile carrier or hybrid missile carrier would be deadly, if it is offensive it would be highly innefective as the ship lacks the size to support the aircraft and logistics for long sea voyages performance force projection.

You need to realize how good a ship is is much like an aircraft or a tank, it depends not on how advanced it is, but how it is utilized. Currently we have no idea how iran would utilize it but can speculate, and it is highly possible they could use it effectivaly as a defensive ship in combination with their fast boat swarms.

Judging from the image I posted, it only has four missile launchers. I can also tell you from looking at the thing it is neither fast, nor stealthy.

For defensive purposes, they'd get a lot more bang for their buck out of a few more truck mounted coastal defense batteries, or a couple of dozen fast attack craft. Their "aircraft carrier" would be a speed bump at worst.

Like I said, it might be decent for harassing oil tankers in the Straight of Hormuz, but I doubt it's capable of much else.

 

[beerftw]

None of that is in dispute. What is in dispute is the op. let me quote it.
Iran's Guards launch aircraft carrier-scale warship amid tensions with U.S.

This POS is not I repeat NOT an "Aircraft carrier-scale warship". It is a frigin freighter with a helicopter on it's deck. When I see something like this it reminds me of a poster I saw with a bunch of creepy guys in a row boat with a standing guy in a captain's uniform and a sign saying "Redneck Yacht".

You should not under estimate what an enemy is capable of, russia used vastly smaller ships as the bulk of their navy in a defensive form and their defensive form has proven valid enough that in simulations the american navy often lost fighting russia in their waters whilke under the same simulations russia always lost fighting outside their waters.

It may be based off a cargo ship, but with a proper doctrine and being used as a missile ship it could be deadly. Do not assume how good it is based off looks, it's use will be dictated by how competent iran is at utilizing such a ship, which has yet to be seen.

 

[beerftw]

Judging from the image I posted, it only has four missile launchers. I can also tell you from looking at the thing it is neither fast, nor stealthy.

For defensive purposes, they'd get a lot more bang for their buck out of a few more truck mounted coastal defense batteries, or a couple of dozen fast attack craft. Their "aircraft carrier" would be a speed bump at worst.

Like I said, it might be decent for harassing oil tankers in the Straight of Hormuz, but I doubt it's capable of much else.

For defensive purposes it only needs to be a missile launcher of higher quality missiles, the fast boats iran uses are essentially rocket and missile launching speed boats, that in the 2002 simulation they found would sink 19 us ships just during an initial invasion due to the fact the speed boats could be so numerous they would over run defenses and radars.

The iranian fast boats are the greatest threats to the us navy, if properly used they could defeat a carrier group easy, of course no competent navy planner would take your thought that their navy is a joke, and would rather run simulations, and find ways to actually win instead of hoping hubris would do the trick.

In their current state their craptastic aircraft carrier would complement their fast boat swarms, which are their deadliest naval weapon, sometimes the crudest methods in numbers work very well.

 

[MamboDervish]

None of that is in dispute. What is in dispute is the op. let me quote it.
Iran's Guards launch aircraft carrier-scale warship amid tensions with U.S.

This POS is not I repeat NOT an "Aircraft carrier-scale warship". It is a frigin freighter with a helicopter on it's deck. When I see something like this it reminds me of a poster I saw with a bunch of creepy guys in a row boat with a standing guy in a captain's uniform and a sign saying "Redneck Yacht".

Agreed. It's silly. The ship would need a minimum of 70 meters in length to be "carrier-scale" - and even that would be a stretch. Only the size of British jump-jet carriers - not "full length" aircraft carrier scale. Even more ridiculous was this sentence: "State television said on Thursday a "heavy, multi-purpose, and long-range warship capable of carrying all types of aircrafts, drones, missiles and radar systems" had been added to the Revolutionary Guards' fleet." Unless a helicopter qualifies as "all types of aircrafts", this is laughable. But of course they're just quoting Iranian state television - so take it from where it comes.

 

[MamboDervish]

Can you come up with something new and different? I hate to tell you but your posts are boring, redundant, years behind, predictable,.....................

Speaking of years behind, the image seemed dated. So . . . I take it that's not her?
Sorry to disappoint. I'll try to be less "boring, redundant, years behind, predictable, ..... " . . . . . just for you.
Or perhaps not. Time will tell.
My guess is that I'll just continue to correct the record here, whenever what's written strikes me as wrong.

 

[MamboDervish]

We dare monopolize the oil because we drilled for it and refined it. Who cares about whose land happens to lie above it.

LMAO - spoken like a true 'murican. ( insert emoji for chewing tobacco )

 

[BahamaBob]

You should not under estimate what an enemy is capable of, russia used vastly smaller ships as the bulk of their navy in a defensive form and their defensive form has proven valid enough that in simulations the american navy often lost fighting russia in their waters whilke under the same simulations russia always lost fighting outside their waters.

It may be based off a cargo ship, but with a proper doctrine and being used as a missile ship it could be deadly. Do not assume how good it is based off looks, it's use will be dictated by how competent iran is at utilizing such a ship, which has yet to be seen.

You lost all semblance of credibility when you said the Russian Navy could beat the American Navy. Post your simulations.

 

[BahamaBob]

Judging from the image I posted, it only has four missile launchers. I can also tell you from looking at the thing it is neither fast, nor stealthy.

For defensive purposes, they'd get a lot more bang for their buck out of a few more truck mounted coastal defense batteries, or a couple of dozen fast attack craft. Their "aircraft carrier" would be a speed bump at worst.

Like I said, it might be decent for harassing oil tankers in the Straight of Hormuz, but I doubt it's capable of much else.

For any ship to be effective at anything it needs to stay afloat. This thing would be sunk within minutes of engagement with any real war ship.

 

[dave8383]

Speaking of years behind, the image seemed dated.

That was the point. You're from the 60s. We've been through your discussion before. It's not news. You're fighting old wars.

 

[MamboDervish]

That was the point. You're from the 60s. We've been through your discussion before. It's not news. You're fighting old wars.

?? I'm not fighting any wars. Quite the contrary, I'm here dispelling the fantasy that we should all still be fighting 2001's war - 19 years later. We certainly should not be.

That should be obvious.

 

[dave8383]

?? I'm not fighting any wars. Quite the contrary, I'm here dispelling the fantasy that we should all still be fighting 2001's war - 19 years later. We certainly should not be.

Right, you have an ax to grind. Stop grinding and live in today.

 

[MamboDervish]

Right, you have an ax to grind. Stop grinding and live in today.

LOL - Live in today ?!? Good one. Now who's back in the 60's ?? Is that what the girl in the picture told you?

 

[dave8383]

LOL - Live in today ?!? Good one. Now who's back in the 60's ?? Is that what the girl in the picture told you?

Right, you have an ax to grind. Stop grinding and live in today.