Be honest /pol/, would Iran be able to sink a US aircraft carrier?

are you able to stick your dick in your butt?

File: yea.jpg (162KB, 1020x720px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1020x720px

>>130491224
With some help, easy

>>130491455
Oh wew, no need to get mad, if they do sink it, you'll have 9 more you could use.

>>130491224
yes, supersonic anti ship missiles are a thing

File: russia-tier naval incompetence.jpg (210KB, 962x690px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 962x690px

It depends - does Iran have cargo ships of peace?

If they have a missile that can hit a moving ship at sea then they can sink any aircraft carrier.

>>130492173
well can you?
it's a real question

>>130491224
They have super sonic """torpedoes""" which are actually just missiles that travel just above the surface of the water which are buried across the Persian gulf to be used in this situation. Iran will lose a conventional war but the after war guerrilla fighting will be deadly and go for years. Think Afghanistan but 5 times the population actually armed with decent weapons.

>>130492420
The fighters can pop off outside of the range of those supersonic missiles. They'd have to hit a ship in transit through the straits of Hormuz

>>130492965
Fucking christ, nobody calls sea skimmers torpedos. They're missiles either way. Second, the primary ASCM of the Iranian fleet is the C802 , a subsonic missile with decent range.

>>130491224
No, not without Russian help. Even the Russians only have one tested system capable of taking out a carrier and it's short range and land based.

File: Mfw+chris+hansen+dateline+nbc+_3ba72cf423f77ea00b20481336d9ad29.jpg (24KB, 442x480px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 442x480px

>>130492674
>that file name

>>130491224
They could do it once, with some luck, but only in the strait. Wouldn't want to be in that area afterwards.

In the open sea, they have essentially zero chance.

>>130492674
Underrated

>>130492674

A loaded cargo ship colliding amid ship with a CVN absolutely would fuck it up.

>>130491224
Does Iran have philipines cargo ships? Men, a philipine cargo ship almost destroy a destroyer (kek) so Iran would be able to btfo that carriers

>>130491224
Doubtful, but I'm sure the CIA/Mossad could and frame it on them. That's how they'll most likely get us into their next war.

>>130492965
Who launches these torpedoes? They would be dead for sure.

>>130494048
On a moonless night at 3 am that's feasible.

I really don't know how the fuck that DDG collided. They have FLIR and should have local comms on the channels. Can't imagine which kind of fuckwit was conning.

A CVN can outpace a cargo ship anytime in sheer speed, so there's that.

>>130491224
It's only necessary to ignite the ordnance on board to destroy the ship.
The burnt carcass could float but it wouldn't make any difference.
John McCain burnt the USS Forrestal by wet starting his F4.

>>130491224
Only if they were very, very sneaky. Even then, it would only work once and the amount of hurt that would come from it would be mindboggling.

>>130494681

I'm gonna go ahead and say womandriving

>>130495544
lmfao I find that very believable
>>130495217
It's true. If the JP fuel lines were hit, it'd be a class D fire and there'd be no way to stop it. The only way to stop a class D fire is by attempting to remove the burning object by throwing it over board. There are some built in defenses to reduce or cut off obvious routes of damage, but it'd be unstoppable in damaging. The problem is, Iran doesn't have a way to do that. The most reliable way is to send a low and slow fighter equipped with two medium sized torpedoes on a suicide mission.

Perhaps, but the US Navy is pretty good at sinking itself.

They could sink one then if the US declares war they would be in a world of hurt.

>>130491224

Yes and easily. They have quite a rare bird a native high attack angle ASBM.

Probably

>>130496060
Link? The only ones I know about are three different Chinese ASBM's-and they weren't exporting them.

Probably. Most american soldiers are incompetent.

>>130493237

Total bullshit. Khalije Fars.

File: 1497709366721.jpg (71KB, 438x720px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 438x720px

Iran has on several occasians sneaked up on american carriers using drones.

>>130496233
>soldiers at sea instead of sailors
>being more incompetant than peacenik cuck anon

>>130491224
I almost think the US would not bother with a conventional war with Iran at this point. Trump might just nuke their major cities and call it good. (Assuming the military lets him.) I seriously think Iran needs to consider this. It would be substantially more cost effective, and serve the point. I doubt Russia will instigate a nuclear retaliation over that.

TL:DR No way Iran does what OP suggests, even if they could.

>>130496363
>who gives a shit

Have you tried to?

>>130495478

Nah they'll turn Israel into a wasteland by pummeling NNRC.

File: 1497318753317.jpg (41KB, 600x658px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x658px

anything is possible, not like they are invincible or anything.
how cool would it be to nuke tehran though in retaliation

It's not THAT simple. Can they get past the massive armed perimeter that surrounds each of these ships? It's not like these things are lone ducks. You have subs, destroyers, space missles, aircraft, space craft, all working with these monsters. Get passed all of that, then they could lob their missile at the stranded duck and possibly dent it

>>130491512
This. If Russia and China did most of the work, they probably could.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Literally the only time it was ever seriously tested the "Iranians" wiped out the "American" fleet with a saturation ballistic missile attack on the first day and ruined the entire wargames. They had to "re-float" the "American" fleet and change the rules to stop the "Iranians" sinking it again.

That was 15 years ago, but hell yes Iran could feasibly sink a US aircraft carrier. Point defense has advanced but so has the Iranian missile force.

>>130491224
Yes any nation worth its salt has countermeasures for aircraft carriers. Iran has maintained close ties to Russia. If the Russians can do it my bet would be Iran could do it.

>>130496357
>Iran sends drone to "sneak" up on American fleet
>American fleet collects sigint and telint information on the future Iranian drone fleet
>America better prepared to fight against them, and it cost literally nothing except Iranians being proud they flew something
>>130496466
wut

File: 1200px-Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg (273KB, 1200x767px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1200x767px

>>130494681
>>130494048
There is no way the ship could get through the carrier's escort. Carriers are never alone. They are always part of a larger task force.

pic related. They aren't always this close to each other obviously. And notice the leading 4 ships are actually subs.

>>130496695

They took the RQ-170 and the government and media denied denied denied and then once BTFO'd sour graped out that they wouldn't be able to access data....until Iran broadcast the aircraft's video feed which also included footage of the base it took off and landed from.

Hell yeah, just get some silk worm missiles on rhibs and fishing boats, and a courier that travels at light speed.

>>130497000
>They took the RQ-170 and the government and media denied denied denied and then once BTFO'd sour graped out that they wouldn't be able to access data....until Iran broadcast the aircraft's video feed which also included footage of the base it took off and landed from.

Yeah, because a nation famous for making propaganda films of plastic models and photoshopping extra rockets into their rocket launch videos would never stoop to faking something right

>>130491224
Iran doesn't need to sink one. The US seem to be capable of managing to sink one of their own ships without anyone attacking them.

Aircraft carriers are easy to sink. It's just a big target that you can launch whatever you feel like at. You don't even need to aim for any specific part of the ship as long as it hits.

>>130497286
And what ship sank?

>>130497000
That's because information is classified you tard. Just because it starts to become public access, it's still required to be denied for secrecy UNTIL it's authorized by the proper channels for release. This means that the public may know about something BEFORE the military admits something has happened. It doesn't mean the military doesn't know in the first place (extremely unlikely).
>>130496946
A cargo ship holding missile might. The typical Carrier guard used to be a cruiser, but we're phasing those out. BUT, if a cargo ship disguise with missiles were used, the group would have 0% chance of stopping those missiles. Even subsonic missiles within visual range are nearly impossible to stop, outside of an accident or a technical fault of the OPFOR. But you're right, most cargo ships wouldn't make it in that far, and any who did approach would typically have to answer a hail.

>>130497088

Dual volleys of silkworms and cavitation torpedoes while dropping high angle descent ASBMs.

>>130497276

You got fucked. U mad.

>>130497331
You have no clue what you are talking about. Ships have multiple compartments. The whole ship isn't going to take on water if you punch a hole in any part. They are warships designed to take damage.

>>130497472
>mad

I'm madder about the intact airframe being captured because Obama was too much of a pussy cunt to approve an airstrike to destroy it, than the ~software~ on board. If you think for a second there wasn't an automated switch to slap a magnet against the hard drive of that puppy, you don't know much about how a military thinks. The airframe and its shaping was the real loss.

>>130497396

No faggot not the way it happened. It was a never ending dog and pony show of denials, evasions and dismissals. ALL PUBLIC. U mad too.

>>130491224

They wouldn't have to, Israel would sink it first and blame Iran.

>>130497276
>Yeah, because a nation famous for making propaganda films of plastic models and photoshopping extra rockets into their rocket launch videos would never stoop to faking something right

TOPKEK, they were not the one who photoshopped it, it was your own MSM, to make Iran look more "invadable"

>>130491224
Nope

>>130497603

There wasn't an automated switch they got it all.

>>130497603
Airframes can be designed by any competent aeronautical engineer. Muh magnet slap doesn't actually happen if nobody can pull it because the C&C channel is toast.
Just admit you got cucked by underestimating your enemy and believing your own bullshit, and move on.
Also, you deserve every bit of the damage you take from nosing into other people's business.
Cuck.

>>130497331
Lookup missile test fires. Fire fighting teams on board should be able to minimize the damage to keep her floating. A torpedo is a different animal altogether-and might actually one shot a carrier.
>>130496583
That portion that says the cruise missile strike overwhelmed enemy sensors doesn't actually matter. They're going to launch chaff/decoys, light up the CIWS, and change heading accordingly regardless of passive sensors. It'll still fuck them up, but it seems kind of silly, the wording and mentality behind the writing of the report. In this scenario, it makes sense blue would put a carrier closer to shore w/in striking distance in order to provide CAS.

>>130497488
Doesn't matter, a hit anywhere will put it out of service, which would be a tactical win.

>>130494681
So you are saying
>islamic smacking
that without radar
>fucks a goat
or a carrier battlegroup
>stones wife
or any kind of communication
>bombs Berlin church
that we can
>rapes goat again inshallah to make sure
we wiz carrier destroyers and shieeeeet?

>>130497488
>hit the runway with one missile
>disable steam catapult beyond repair
>carrier still operational but capabilities are fully disabled

You don't even have to sink it. Just disable the runway beyond at-sea capable repairs. Done.

>>130498144
There are several fucking catapults.
In any case, the US in such a scenario might even have two carrier battlegroups on hand, not to mention coalition air bases actually on land.

>>130497407
>N Korea uses silkworms, not Iran
>Silkworms are the single worst ASCMissiles in the world-bar none
>Iran doesn't have ASBM's
>Iran doesn't own cavitation torpedos, but if the Russians gave them a free supply they would still have to be in uber short range to use them (less than 8 NM)
>>130497488
Somebody get's it! And kek confirms
>>130497658
Don't be a tard. The fact is, you wouldn't know if the military was collecting on them. Which the damn well were, but think whatever you want. You're a nation with twice as many prostitutes as soldiers, so I wouldn't expect you to understand.


>>130497757
Fact. And then we would go to war with Iran and give it to our greatest ally.

>>130498144
Carriers have runways to sortie from.

By the way, this idea has been run already. Look up the Millenium Challenge.
There's a lot of controversy around it.

>>130498326
Kill yourself, Shlomo.

File: 1024px-USS_Independence_LCS-2_at_pierce_cropped-800x534[1].jpg (86KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 800x534px

>>130491224

Yes, torpedo or missile.


U.S. Navy's newest $704 million warships suffers cracked hull

>>130498144
The whole point is that OPFOR would have to get close to the carrier. The carrier could dick around 300+ nm off the coast and still get shit done. Not to mention Iran doesn't have any decent weapons capable of hitting, except either low and slow fighter pilots with torpedos. Although, I'll grant that a drone might come close to getting to that range, not sure if a 50 lb payload is going to do enough.

>>130498446
If I were a Schlomo, I would.
>>130498393
Talk about it then. But for the most part, Iran can't do much against a properly spaced carrier.

>>130498144
If a US carrier were parked 1,000 miles off coast would Iranian missiles be able to hit it though?

File: 1497268007165.jpg (226KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 750x1334px

>>130491224
no

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ

>>130498326

Sad slo-mo Shlomo! Hezbollah burn never healed aye?

>>130498261
Carriers are a meme. Iran has good air defences, not only owning some s-300 but also built their own indigenous bavar-373, which are reported to be more advanced than the s-300, some quoting the range of up to 800km, though I seriously doubt that. They also started building them in huge quantities, and are 100% built in Iran, therefore they cannot be "backdoored" as to prevent them from shooting specific country planes, nor make them dependable on other countries, which can be stopped fro selling them weapons.

They also are one of the few countries who managed to put a satellite in orbit without the help of other countries.

Furthermore, they are also in the process of designing and building nuclear powered submarines.

On top of that, they plan to build an aircraft carrier, they have a fully iranian car manufacturer company.

Every year that goes on, they become more and more self-sufficient and independent. That is something that you will never see in arab countries.

They do not rely on anyone, not even for banking which is the reason why they are so feared by the west.

Well, they could probably ram it with a container ship

File: no-more-arguments.jpg (57KB, 468x477px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 468x477px

>>130498326
Lol at fags who can't argue so they call you a kike.

>>130491224
sure they COULD if the USN parked one off the coast of Iran without her escorts

>>130498326
Iran had loads of Silkworms in the 80s and the only reason they would phase them out is if they have superior replacements in the same operational capacity, so they definitely have ASCMs. Iran has reverse-engineered Shkvals which they call "Hoot", so they have at least some supercavitating torpedoes, and they have the Khalij Fars which is basically an ASBM (technically it isn't quite ballistic)

Considering the strategic value of the Strait of Hormuz, it would be totally retarded of Iran not to aggressively pursue all these anti-shipping technologies. It is literally their first line of national defense, so OF COURSE they have this shit.

File: 0732749d360049468f3372573b028070.png (2MB, 1152x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1152x1536px

Maybe.
But if they did.
"Iran" would be in the same list as Hiroshima and Nagasaki

>>130498614
The answer is no. The primary missile of Iranian coastal batteries is the C802 Saccade. Even the extended range versions are outranged by our fighters and their missiles.
>>130498728
>meme
Lookup the meaning of the word.

> own indigenous bavar-373, which are reported to be more advanced than the s-300, some quoting the range of up to 800km, though I seriously doubt that

Your doubt is well placed. The quote I'd seen said 100nm~.

>building nuclear powered submarines.

When this happens, we can talk.

Keep in mind that the flagship, Jamaran, is a fucking frigate. A FUCKN FRIGATE IS THEIR FLAGSHIP. Their strategy is to use jetski's armed with laser guided rocket launchers to hit naval targets. A carrier doesn't have to be anywhere near there(or any of the fleet, with Tomahawks).

>>130497379
Remember the Maine!

>>130498825
>>130498326
^The guy doesn't know shit.

1. When you hit a carrier with a missile, it doesn't just blow a hole in one compartment, it explodes the whole thing, or a very huge chunk of it. This is not WW2 where they are using artillery shells.

2. Iran has a very advanced sets of missiles, including anti-ship missiles, which can fly at supersonic speeds.

3. The fact that an Iranian drone got so close to a US carrier is a shame. Don't give me the bullshit that they let the drone there because they were spying on IT, it's actually quite the opposite, the drone was spying on them, and they probably didn't notice it until it was already there.
4. Your so called facts are complete bullshit

Why would they even be in range of the Iranian systems, fucking F/A-18E's have an operational radius of over 2000 miles.

>>130497923
>advanced stealth shaping designed by a supercomputer and over 9 million hours of R&D
>"any engineer"
>OH NOES THEY GOTS THE FLIGHT SOFTWARES WHAT MAKE IT FLY STRAIGHT LIKE THE DRONES IRAN ALREADY FUCKIN HAS

God, you people are fucking stupid.

>>130499083

Ethnically pure and not filled with fat degenerate puppets of Jews?

>>130498513
Go be a cuck somewhere elss

>>130499283
American forces are weak because of the millennials who are now running it. However, I do think them being complacent would end after one major event. Who knows leaf, I guess. I would also say that almost every Western country has the same issue. Uncaring iPhone faggots have guns, and don't care about defense but care about Katy Perry videos. Leafistan is surely worse in this.

>>130499138
>Your doubt is well placed. The quote I'd seen said 100nm~.
HAHAHAHA what a fag, their range is anywhere between 400km to 800km, the lowest one being twice the 100nm you read. Where the fuck do you get your information nigger. Actually I don't care, because its complete horse shit, try to take it from somewhere other than hareetz.jew

File: palpatine.jpg (8KB, 366x158px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 366x158px

>>130491224
First, the US is rapidly losing interest in the Persian Gulf due to the rapidly changing nature of energy production and demand in the US. Major American naval assets are in the Gulf less and less often.

With that said, it's very unlikely that Iran would be able to sink an American aircraft carrier without overwhelming force and total surprise and even then it would be a challenge. Lastly, if memory serves the US has a stated policy of nuclear retaliation for the sinking of an aircraft carrier.

>>130499283

1. Even the largest soviet AShM's carry a warhead weight of only 750 kilograms. Thats 750 kilograms exploding on a ship that weighs over 100,000 tons and is equipped with the best damage control systems and teams in the world. Good luck fucking sinking it with one missile.

2. Iran is using 1980's tier soviet missiles, with even less range. Almost every AShM is supersonic, and has been since the 70's, this is not some magical feat.

3. A fucking LEAF

>>130498612
>Talk about it then

MC2 showed what we already knew, that saturation missile attacks are incredibly lethal against ships, and every ABM defense can be overcome given enough increase in the number of missiles you launch. Since Iran's entire military doctrine for the last 30 years has been "Stockpile more missiles of every kind imaginable" and they have the most strategically valuable naval constriction on Earth on their coastline, it would be grade-A lunacy to say that Iran can't sink a carrier.

>>130498825
lmao inorite
>>130499071
They did have a Silkworms. They have replaced those with the C802 Saccade. The Saccade has good range, but not enough to hit a carrier at long range. It is subsonic,good payload, and extremely easy to detect relative to other ASCM's,especially regarding it's active radar. They have ASCM's, but they aren't good. Saccade is the best. They do not have ASBM's, the ballistic anti ship missiles. Those are Chinese only. The missile you mentioned has less range than the updated Saccades-so it's less useful here aside from it's speed and interception chance. Range is the game here.

As far as torps go-they have to get within 8nm to use even longer range torps. Missile carried versions usually only go out to 30nm max. It seems unusual they would bother, since their midget subs were the focus of their fleet as intended a decade ago. It must be in preparation for building bigger subs, b/c the midgets are crap.

>>130499603

Israel will be a nuclear wasteland.

>>130499283
>Your so called facts are complete bullshit
I wasn't even agreeing with him--in fact you're right, I just did some research on Iranian military capability--I was just pointing out that he was actually making an argument (albeit a bad one) and the other people were just like "lol shut up fag shlomo"

>>130491224

Yes, if the carrier's close to Iran like in the Persian Gulf or Strait of Oman missile spam will fuck it up.

>>130499326
>9 million hours of R&D
>muh superduperoopercomputer
>muh money
>muh very expensive pile of shit
Do you even listen to yourself? You think that spending money on overpaid Americans through defense contractors is directly proportional to a product like you're allocating resources in some vidya? The real world works much differently, son.
>flight software
They also got the crypto, nigga.
>fact
The first refuge of the submissive cuck is to declare facts that are merely opinions.

>>130499713
Literally nothing of value would be lost.

>>130499283
Well, I was a cryptotech in the Navy and I'm just telling you what regarding the training we were given.

> When you hit a carrier with a missile, it doesn't just blow a hole in one compartment

There are at least three repair lockers, meaning that even if one goes the problem area can be fully isolated. Most missiles will hit midships, which actually makes problem isolation easier.

>2. Iran has a very advanced sets of missiles, including anti-ship missiles, which can fly at supersonic speeds.

Find their most reliable supersonic missiles. The standard missile is still the c802 saccade. At long range, the supersonic weapon is not useful. The Iranians would have to have fleet superiority BEFORE hand or rely on the US bringing it's carrier within range and close to their batteries. Barring a Hormuz transit-that's not going to happen.
>3. The fact that an Iranian drone got so close to a US carrier is a shame. Don't give me the bullshit that they let the drone there because they were spying on IT, it's actually quite the opposite, the drone was spying on them, and they probably didn't notice it until it was already there.

Given the way intel works in collections, especially for us cryptotechs, they were likely spying and denied it so they wouldn't know that we have their specs in our hands.

Think about this for a second- if we say that we spied on the drone- they would just change all of the parametric data. If we deny it and they don't realize we have their data, then they'll continue using faulty data that we can later exploit.

>HAHAHAHA what a fag, their range is anywhere between 400km to 800km, the lowest one being twice the 100nm you read. Where the fuck do you get your information nigger. Actually I don't care, because its complete horse shit, try to take it from somewhere other than hareetz.jew

Your high number is wrong. Did you really think that Iran's engineers could out engineer Russian S500's a decade before they're set to release?

>>130499635
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c--fP017Xoc

That's a 290kg warhead literally tearing a destroyer in half. Okay so destroyers are small but in a lot of ways that works in their favour - longer, heavier targets experience significantly higher forces from uplift and wider targets experience significantly higher uplift and blast pressure.

Remember that water transmits blast forces far, far, far more destructively than air does. A 750kg blast below the waterline is serious shit.

>>130499684
They could only sink a carrier if it were in range. As we've established, we can use fighters and tomahawks well outside of their range. They would need to bait us in. Their fleet is incapable of gaining naval supremacy, so they would not be able to project power via missiles by way of sea.

>>130499635
>hurrr durr, even the largent anti ship missile only has 750, therefore it cannot sink any fucking ship, even though it was designed for that specific purpose
Holy shit, please tell me you're trolling.

>Iran is using 1980s tier soviet missiles, with even less range
Nigger, Iran has been developping its own missiles for the past 2 decades, and they are definitely not based on 1980s designs seeing as they were allied with the US before 1979, and between 1980 and 1988, russia was allied with saddam. On top of that, they have missiles with range that can reach all the way to europe. You obviously don't know shit. They managed to put a fucking satellite in orbit, something that only a very few countries managed to do. They sure as fucking hell didn't do so on soviet design.

>>130491224
probably
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcwDfaY4OW4

>>130499881
Sorry, I wasn't replying to you, I was replying the the fag with the jihadi flag. I wanted to reply to your post too, deleted it afterwards, but left the post number for some reason. my bad.

>>130500298
That's a torpedo. FFS, torpedos are SIGNIFICANTLY stronger than ships. However, they only deploy at ranges of less than 8nm. Even torpedos using a missile pod to drop it only goes to about 30nm. Again, this is a range game. They cannot put a torpedo anywhere past the fleet AND close to the carrier.

>>130492674
Kek

>>130500272
>Your high number is wrong. Did you really think that Iran's engineers could out engineer Russian S500's a decade before they're set to release?
I said in a previous comment that sources report the range between 400-800 kilometre, although I am suspicious of the 800km range. I definitely know for a fact that it is at least 400. And you should really not underestimate iranian engineers. They are a country with one of the most engineers in the world, and I am in an engineering program myself, and all my TAs and teachers are iranian. They are smarter than you give them credit for.

>>130496576
Or another (((middle eastern country)).

>>130500430
He's right. Isolation of compartments means that anything less than 500kg payload hit by missile means that it can be contained. There will certainly be losses- but the carrier will be functional.

>Nigger, Iran has been developping its own missiles for the past 2 decades, and they are definitely not based on 1980s designs seeing as they were allied with the US before 1979, and between 1980 and 1988, russia was allied with saddam. On top of that, they have missiles with range that can reach all the way to europe. You obviously don't know shit. They managed to put a fucking satellite in orbit, something that only a very few countries managed to do. They sure as fucking hell didn't do so on soviet design.

You're a retard. A living,breathing organism of pure autism.
>The primary missile of Iran is Chinese made, not even as good as Russian made(Russians do have the best ASCM's)
>They do not have accurate ICBM's
>They do have intermediate ranged ballistic missiles-but they are not designed for hitting moving naval targets. They have a large CEP against even stationary targets past 300nm
>Their longest range ASCM is not good enough to get within range of a carrier or skip past the enormous amount of air and naval supremacy they should expect.
>India managed to put a satellite in orbit on a budget, China can shoot them down. So fucking what? It's easier than getting through a fleet defense at long range and hitting a carrier

>>130500903

He's an idiot....engineering to Iranians is like stuffing your face to Amerikans as far as nationally popular pursuits.

>ITT: People who think war is rock, paper, scissors.

>>130501035

Remember when the Chink insects humiliated you by popping up totally undetected in the middle of your carrier group? Good stuff.

File: Air.png (978KB, 1822x846px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 1822x846px

lol no

>>130500903
>you said 400 km
>I said 100 nm
>400 km = 215 nm
>40N6 missile hits 250km, making it reasonable

Yes, 400km is closer to accurate and a good guess based on reverse engineering Russian technology(if I recall right, they didn't have access to the 40N6, so it's not a direct copy if they did reverse engineer). It's still wrong.

File: angry pepe.jpg (40KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 900x900px

>>130501328
Fucking godamn chicoms fakfl;healkfne'ikangfioesagn;orksgn


... They can hit our carriers, with torpedos if they wanted to. Or ASBM's. They're sneaky little fuckers.

>>130501581

REMEMBER? Fucking faggot.

>>130492965
Plus Iranians actually have many reasons to hate America and would prob fight a lot harder then one would think. IE (Iran flight 655, CIA assassinating the elected leader of Iran)

>>130501696

Off Okinawa so you got cucked by Chinks in front of Nips. SAD! but funny...

>>130501738
You're still mad about having twice as many prostitutes as soldiers. It's probably getting worse as we speak

>>130499688
>Range range range range range

Almost every strategically important bombing target in Iran is in the north east, towards the Caspian Sea. That means unless you want to fly a magical F-18 across like 2000 miles of Iranian airspace and back, you're gonna have to bring your carriers into the gulf. (Fun fact, the combat radius of an F-35C is about a quarter of that.)

Going into the gulf means you're never more than about 300km from the Iranian coastline. It requires that you go within 50km of the coastline for a long stretch while you pass through the strait of Hormuz. And sure you can try to suppress any missile forces but they'll be hiding in the mountains around the Hormod protected area, which is a hellscape of weird geological formations forming basically the perfect cover for mobile missile forces. Iran's geography makes range moot.

lol moot.

>>130501035
Holy shit, you are really stubborn aren't you? They have a zillion different type of missiles and you chose to focus on the old shitty ones. What about this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_(missile)
Is it fucking based on a chinese missile? No, it's based on this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fateh-110
Is that one based on a chinese missile too?

Ya go ahead, tell me about how they are using fucking soviet missiles from the 1980s even though They couldn't have put their fucking hands on them, seeing as they were not allies with the soviet union back then.

>Their longest range ASCM is not good enough to get within range of a carrier or skip past the enormous amount of air and naval supremacy they should expect.
The longest ASM they have is 300km. This is long enough for any ships inside the Persian gulf. I guess you couldn't even bother to double check your bullshit.

>India managed to put a satellite in orbit on a budget, China can shoot them down. So fucking what? It's easier than getting through a fleet defense at long range and hitting a carrier
Way to miss the fucking point. Putting a satellite in space all on their own with sanctions is a pretty huge fucking deal. If they can do that, they can definitely come up with their own missile designs.

>They do have intermediate ranged ballistic missiles-but they are not designed for hitting moving naval targets. They have a large CEP against even stationary targets past 300nm
Yes, that's what their fucking ASM are for. Why the fuck would they use an ICBM for a ship literally less than 200km away from their shores at most?

>>130501821
Not that there's a difference between a German prostitute and a German soldier these days.
>>130501817
It's not about fighting harder, it's about fighting smarter.

>>130501581
Holy fucking shit, did you even look at the god damn article? It is not reversed engineered from the S-300 seeing as they didn't even own those when the bavar was being designed. It is not only fully designed and produced by the iranians, but it is also superior to the s-300. If they just reverse engineered the thing, they would of at best had around the same specs.

>>130501882

I would laugh if they rained laser guided artillery down on the Ameritard vessels.

File: 369366_kosta-konkordija-francesko-sketino--foto-ap-ap-g-a_f.jpg (170KB, 683x410px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 683x410px

>>130492674
lets not forget Italian naval incompetence buddy

>>130491224
Yes if they had the element of surprise

They could not handle the ungodly hell that would follow

>>130491224

Incredibly unlikely.

On its own, no escort, a Nimitz-class or Ford-class carrier is something incredibly hard to sink. Why?

In terms of armaments and defensive capabilities, it carries

4 different radars for tracking and avoiding incoming fire and enemy threats

AN/SLQ-32 electronic warfare suite, capable of pretty severely gumming up most radars that would be out looking for the carrier

16-24 Sea Sparrow AA/antimissile missiles with a 19km range

3-4 20mm Phalanx CIWS rotary cannons

3-4 RIM-116 short-range infrared seeking AA missiles

80-90 fighters, strike aircraft, antisubmarine helicopters, all more than capable of downing most air or seaborne threats to the carrier

7,500 crew, which includes hundreds of damage-control specialists, firefighters, and other personnel who train specifically to keep a damaged carrier afloat in a crisis

And a massive fucking size, which is more than plenty to keep the ship above water and make it to safe harbor if it is damaged.

And this is all without considering THE MASSIVE FUCKING FLEET THAT FOLLOWS EVERY CARRIER AROUND THE WORLD, MULTIPLYING THE FIREPOWER AND ELECTRONIC DEFENSIVE CAPABILITIES BY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE

The Iranians aren't going to do shit, because they can't do shit.
>>130499283
>>130497407
>>130497396

About as retarded as the idea of any sane Iranian leader or military junta actually trying to pick a fight with the United States. Especially the leaf.

>>130491224

Yes. ONE carrier, their country would then cease to exist

>>130502289

Re-tread fuck off.

>>130500298
>missile discussion
>but look at this torpedo against this much smaller ship

great maybe they can make their super sonic missile dive under water at the last second and move under the keel of the carrier before detonating

>>130491224
Sinking a carrier isn't that difficult honestly. Most countries could do it. It's what Uncle Sam does to you 24 hours later that stops it from happening.

>>130502293

Another fucking muh list fag. Precious.

File: EA-18G-Growler-carrier-takeoff.jpg (137KB, 1536x807px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1536x807px

>>130502293
there's also this guy to help extend the dead zone

File: the time for argument is past.jpg (262KB, 750x842px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 750x842px

>>130498825

>>130502315

Nah. Israel will be gone from the realm of habitable. I did hear that Iran is making overtures to the flips in order the reverse engineer their cargo ships.

>>130502413


...eat all the food and leave an unflushable turd in the toilet?

File: autism.jpg (25KB, 277x296px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 277x296px

Autismo's are coming out in force today
>>130501852
We don't have to bring any carrier based airpower over there. We have airbases that can operate out of Pakistan and the Stan countries. Literally no reason to bring a carrier in littoral zones for the USAF's job.

>strait of Hormuz

And this is what I was saying earlier. The ONLY way Iran could hit a carrier is if it's heading through the gulf. Even then, every station is manned with extra support because it's stressful as fuck. Trust me, I know.


>>130501882
I can't tell if you're being a leaf and trolling at this point or legit retarded. Here, hold my hand:
>persian gulf = 300 km
>C802 Saccade =the latest Chinese is 500km, the Iranians use the 180km version

180-300km is NOT enough to hit a carrier, if they deck out their fighters with a single missile for each ride(increasing effective range).

The Chinese have a proven track record of accurate missiles. The Iranians do NOT. That is why their longer range missiles have a wide CEP(circular error probable, the chance of a miss in a proportionate radius).

>The longest ASM they have is 300km. This is long enough for any ships inside the Persian gulf. I guess you couldn't even bother to double check your bullshit.

Pull up a map. See how ships can sit outside the gulf and still fire tomahawks and fighters within range? Retard confirmed at this point.

>Way to miss the fucking point. Putting a satellite in space all on their own with sanctions is a pretty huge fucking deal. If they can do that, they can definitely come up with their own missile designs.

Except they don't have a good one. It's based around defeating targets inside of the gulf-not outside.

>Yes, that's what their fucking ASM are for. Why the fuck would they use an ICBM for a ship literally less than 200km away from their shores at most?

A carrier does not have to be within 200km, nor any vessel. In fact, they won't be.

File: EA-6B_Prowler (1).jpg (164KB, 1024x672px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1024x672px

>>130502494

Fuck, I forgot about them. I still miss our thicc gal, even if nobody else loves her

>>130502634

You've never helmed even a dinghy. Lubberly in-dwelling blubber bellied sad cunt.

>>130501882
Idk, I guess I am a little stubborn after having actually run anti missile defense drills specifically for this event, and now some retards on 4chan act like they know the first thing about ships and missiles(by the way, that's what a cryptotechs first job is:anti ship missile defense).
>>130502065
Did I read your article? Well, let me ask you this:
>trust military circulated information on classified weapons systems
>read anon's article

Which do you think has more quality control? The Iranians are shit engineers- professors or no. Your anecdotal reference about Canadian professors is wasted here.

>>130502422

>it's another muh list fag

I'm sorry you stopped being militarily or politically relevant after 1942

>>130503030
He's Muslim.

>>130501088

File: EA6B.jpg (227KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1920x1080px

>>130502793
yeah the A-6 and its variants were cool, they weren't pretty or fast but there was something neat about them

>>130502631
That's true white terrorism

>>130502065
>If they just reverse engineered the thing, they would of at best had around the same specs.
>thinks that reverse-engineering means producing exact knock-offs rather than trying to discover the engineering decisions behind something
I don't even need to ask. You don't even lift.

>>130502634
Wouldn't that be a hoot if hiroshimoot mapped .mil to the Fascist flag.

>>130502950
>quality control
Quantity is a quality all its own.
>see also al-Shayrat airbase strike, kek

>>130491224
easy peasy.

>>130502811
Sure- I've had the helm! A few times... Under supervision...

I even got helmsman qualified.

>>130491224
Sure, but its what happens afterwards that matters

>>130502634
>We have airbases that can operate out of Pakistan and the Stan countries
1. Turkey didn't let you use their base to invade Iran, and that was even before the US-Turkey relationships detoriated. What makes you think they'll let you use their bases to attack Iran?
2. Pakistan was butt budies with the US, but ever since 2011 when you started droning the people without asking for permission, the relations also deteriorated . They probably won't let you use the country as a base either.
3. Iraq allied itself with Iran, and would never allow the us to attack Iran from their territory
4. You don't have any bases in the north next to russia, and russia won't help you either
5. Only base you could possibly use is the afghan base, and all they'd have to do is to send a couple of missiles to blow your jets on take off. That's on top of the fact that its on the east side of Iran, and you'd have to fly significantly longer to get to any target. You'll encounter their air defence systems and it would be actually pretty hard to do.

>I can't tell if you're being a leaf and trolling at this point or legit retarded. Here, hold my hand:
They have a fucking missile that has a 300km range, totally built by themselves. I gave you the fucking wikipedia page if you wanted to know more about it. Obviously you didn't fucking read it. In any case, keep on going about the fucking chink missiles, completely ignoring what I said previously, because you cannot argue it.
>Pull up a map. See how ships can sit outside the gulf and still fire tomahawks and fighters within range?
If you're not in the persian gulf, your missile won't hit shit but desert. You think your fucking tomahawk missile will reach anywhere worth bombing? Use your fucking brain. They'll have time to detect it and respond before it reaches anywhere in their main land.
>Except they don't have a good one.
They don't need a good one. They don't go around bombing 3rd world countries, they use it to defend themselves.

>>130503207
>Quantity is a quality all its own.

That's how you lose 28 million men to an outnumbered outgunned outallied opponent surrounded on all sides.

Also, quantity doesn't count if it can't even hit. It's basically broken at that point.

>see also al-Shayrat airbase strike, kek
ha! Well, I didn't say we wouldn't waste a shitload of missiles.

>>130501913

The moment you decide to compete "smarter" against someone competing "harder" is the moment you lose.

See nam.

>>130503085

I'm sorry he stopped being militarily or politically relevant after 1571

File: 1472311155255.jpg (80KB, 720x750px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 720x750px

>>130503547

>>130502950
>Which do you think has more quality control? The Iranians are shit engineers- professors or no. Your anecdotal reference about Canadian professors is wasted here.
It's funny because it's those same iranians that teach your american students. What does it make them?

>trust military circulated information on classified weapons systems
Yeah, and where exactly is that circulated information? You haven't given any reference to your source whatsoever. I should just take you on your word? You obviously couldn't even get the missile range right.

dey gonna need a container ship

>>130503597

Where's the panel where the jacked guy with the bruised knee grabs him and rips his head off?

>>130491224
A chinese fishing boat carrying anime almost sunk a US destroyer.
It literally it would have sunk if they didn't use every pump they and a rescue ship had to keep it afloat

The iranians could easily do it

>>130503458
>uses one example from 30 years ago as the basis for present day international relations
>still have supply lines in Pakistan as this autist types
>We control Iraq, have troops there as this autist types
>literally used bases to the North in Turkmenistan a Tajikistan
>still have Afghan base
>completely surround Leafs precious Iranian promised land

>They have a fucking missile that has a 300km range, totally built by themselves. I gave you the fucking wikipedia page if you wanted to know more about it. Obviously you didn't fucking read it. In any case, keep on going about the fucking chink missiles, completely ignoring what I said previously, because you cannot argue it.

Not enough range and the CEP isn't desirable for moving ships. You still haven't argued how this weapon is effective at all for anything outside of the gulf.
>uses wikipedia instead of Janes as firstline information
What a fucking pleb. KYS, and when you get to hell don't bother talking about weapon systems.

>If you're not in the persian gulf, your missile won't hit shit but desert. You think your fucking tomahawk missile will reach anywhere worth bombing? Use your fucking brain. They'll have time to detect it and respond before it reaches anywhere in their main land.

Yeah, their naval bases AND their missile stations. We can wipe out their missile sites and then move the ships further in.

>They don't need a good one. They don't go around bombing 3rd world countries, they use it to defend themselves.
Envious of my fleet,eh?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayni_Air_Base

Reminder: Iran will launch a nuke against Israel from Libya. Israel will retaliate. Iran will lose the war.

Yes.

I could sink an aircraft carrier myself if you gave me the tools and opportunity.

There are no perfect weapons.

File: 1496886506705.jpg (64KB, 691x398px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 691x398px

>>130491224
Of course. Muh based Iran. Shiite master race, amirite?

>>130503927
>>130503927
>We control Iraq, have troops there as this autist types
holy shit, being this delusional. You ain't controlling shit. Iraq and syria are in Iran's pockets.
>Not enough range and the CEP isn't desirable for moving ships. You still haven't argued how this weapon is effective at all for anything outside of the gulf.
It doesn't have to be dipshit, as I said before, their military is purely defensive. They don't have to send a missile all the way to the white house to protect themselves. Any shit outside of the persian gulf or gulf of oman would be useless for an attack. You really think if you're 300km away from the iranian border, that you could have send fighter jets, which will have to fly all the way to the main land, and come bakc without refueling? And that's not even including any delays inside the country, that could drain the jet's fuel. The whole point of having an air craft carrier is so you can send jets without the need to refuel in mid air. Having your carrier stationed on the other side of the world makes it useless.

File: autism trigger setting.jpg (19KB, 448x227px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 448x227px

>>130503547
>I'll take shitty rules of engagement for 500

>>130503668
It's funny because it's those same iranians that teach your american students. What does it make them?
Fucking retards. If Iran was really a good place, their best engineers wouldn't be wasting time on you. They'd be back in Tehran building wonder weapons for muslim Stalin to conquer the middle east and overthrow American supremacy.

>"You haven't given any reference to your source whatsoever. I should just take you on your word?"

Basically we have to. Here's how it goes:
>I have TS/SCI clearance, not supposed to explain technical characteristics-even trivial ones
>No good websites actually give you the range- you still haven't given me a credible website
>wikipedia is not credible
>For that matter, nearly every military technical website covering modern day weapons is woefully inaccurate
>pointing out inaccuracies I can do, but then when you ask me I have to give you another shitty website that got it right by accident

When it boils right down to it- it doesn't fucking matter. I know I'm right. I don't need to convince you. The USN has already convinced me, so it's your word vs theirs. Sorry mate, but you're not fucking qualified.

>>130504450
>Fucking retards. If Iran was really a good place, their best engineers wouldn't be wasting time on you. They'd be back in Tehran building wonder weapons for muslim Stalin to conquer the middle east and overthrow American supremacy.
Nice way to completely avoid the subject
We are not talking about Iran being great here, we are talking about iranian engineers. You can't even come up with an argument, so you gotta pull out the fucking strawman.

>Basically we have to. Here's how it goes:
>I have TS/SCI clearance, not supposed to explain technical characteristics-even trivial ones
>No good websites actually give you the range- you still haven't given me a credible website
>wikipedia is not credible
>For that matter, nearly every military technical website covering modern day weapons is woefully inaccurate
>pointing out inaccuracies I can do, but then when you ask me I have to give you another shitty website that got it right by accident
Great I have to take a 4chan shitposter at its word. Great reference, totally better than wikiepdia. Oh by the way, wikipedia is actually a pretty good reference, when people don't vandalism posts. There have been many test done and comparison between other encylopedias, and wikipedia usually does way better when it comes to the accuracy of the information. I've used it for every class i've ever taken, and it has never been wrong. I guess the fucking 14 year old faggot larping as a brigadier general on 4chan should be taken more seriously than wikiepdia.

Not a chance. amerigan military might is overwhelming, all those early warning systems and whatnot. hard to believe some stinky iranian missile will get through their defense

Absolutely. They'll send suicide troops in explosives laden fast attack boats. It will be like a bear fighting a swarm of bees.

File: autism increased to 100.jpg (9KB, 400x219px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 400x219px

>>130504318
>"holy shit, being this delusional. You ain't controlling shit. Iraq and syria are in Iran's pockets. "
> mean while the US has troops stationed in Iraq, a puppet government, right now

Ok anon. Whatever you say.

> You really think if you're 300km away from the iranian border, that you could have send fighter jets, which will have to fly all the way to the main land, and come bakc without refueling?

Yes, as long as it's not carrying it's maximum payload it can. Lookup the range for tomahawks.

> not even including any delays inside the country

Name one. Either a mission is a go or it isn't. It's not like they have to cross bridges or shit terrain. If there's abominable weather, they call it off.

>"Anon I have it on good authority that the autism-373 can fire over 400 km and maybe 800 km b/c my shitskin professor is smart!"
>"real world experience- can't compare to my civilian sources anon"

meanwhile: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/bavar-373.htm

>"three local radar and missile systems with a range of over 40 km and 30 km altitude with power high maneuverability and fully indigenous"
>40km altitude

oh god this is too good- but wait there's more:
http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/new_iranian-made_bavar-373_air_defense_missile_system_has_greater_range_than_russian_s-300_10210165.html

>can take action against the objects within a 200-km radius.
>100 nm is what I said = 185.2 km
>being this fucking right as anon insisted he knew better than the guy who specialized in missiles

Bwahahahhaha it's fucking over leaf lmao /curtains

File: 1310485591942.jpg (155KB, 400x505px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 400x505px

>>130504774
roflmao glad you committed to wanting a reference so bad, since I found'em >:D

btfo my dude

And by the way I'm getting my degree right now to. The thing every professor tells you to do is NOT to use wikipedia as a valid source. It could have been me manipulating it. What the fuck kind of school do you go to anon? Don't answer that, I'm sure it's play to win style

>"fucking strawman"
>point was relevant, but since it's not convenient you decided it wasn't worth debating you just call it a strawman and move on
>mfw you actually think bringing up anecdotal evidence about Iranian-Canadian engineers being good professors is evidence of Iran having better military technology than the sole militaristic hyperpower of the world

>inb4 to is supposed to be too*

>>130505359
>point was relevant, but since it's not convenient you decided it wasn't worth debating you just call it a strawman and move on
Go ahead dipshit tell me how its relevant and not a straw man:

>Talk about iranian engineers and whether they are good or they suck
>Says if they were good, why don't they go back to their shitty country
>somehow completely related

Lmfao, listen to yourself

>And by the way I'm getting my degree right now to. The thing every professor tells you to do is NOT to use wikipedia as a valid source. It could have been me manipulating it. What the fuck kind of school do you go to anon? Don't answer that, I'm sure it's play to win style
My teacher say the same, and guess what, I always used it, and it never failed me so far. The only time I read bad info, was on a page that was getting vandalized. There is nothing wrong with wikipedia to get your information, you just don't base your fucking research solely on it.

As for the 400km range, I can't seem to find the site I read it on, I'll keep looking, the one I found so far is in french.

>>130503927
Dude your supply lines were blocked off by a bunch of protesters for months. Plus those only go to Afghanistan.

>>130491224
Yes. Whether they'd be willing to stomach the American response is another matter.

File: 13104.jpg (104KB, 505x533px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 505x533px

>>130506386
>you claimed it was a strawman
>burden of proof is on you

>not knowing that engineering professors in Canada has no bearing on missile engineers in Iranian military-industrial complex
>...even after it's explained to you

lmao

>" it never failed me so far."
>"failed me so far"
>Even as it fails you now

>"As for the 400km range, I can't seem to find the site I read it on, I'll keep looking, the one I found so far is in french."
>Anon that demanded proof for 20 minutes can't find proof

Like I said, I already know what the ranges are. You're not proving it to me, just yourself.

PS: My range of 100nm is more accurate.
>>130506970
And yet- bases in every country. The American military machine can project anywhere at anytime, regardless of protesters wasting their time. But go on thinking groups of individuals can make a difference against that kind of raw power and influence over such a massive space and timescale

>>130491224
>Be honest /pol/, would Iran be able to sink a US aircraft carrier?

Theoretically yes, but a US aircraft carrier hasn't been sunk in combat since like WW2...

Also sinking one of our carriers would only strengthen our resolve, and really pick up the patriotism full steam.

If one of our carriers were sunk by Iran then it would be an old one not a new one, and we would have probably set it up to be sank as a false flag.

>>130508305
>Also sinking one of our carriers would only strengthen our resolve, and really pick up the patriotism full steam.
Who's "our"? You think the people want any part of your desperate need to stick your dick in an ant hill?

>>130508427
Just change your flag to LGBT

You don't deserve your flag

>>130508427
Your lack of identity doesn't deny other people from being aware of American culture. If an American Carrier sank, Americans wold lose their shit and demand Iran be nuked off the planet.

>>130508305
>Sacrificing good American men sworn to protect and serve the country for a "false flag"
Shit dude did you think the Clinton Crime Syndicate got elected?

What you suggested is sickening.

ITT: Fitzgerald survivors on shore leave
>>130508795
I'm sure the neocons would, but they can be dispensed with, and the sooner Russia, China, Iran, any country on this planet with an active clandestine service does so, the better for all 7+ billion of us.

>>130508795
We aren't a direct democracy. We don't need a popular vote to go to war.
You are no American. You are a warmonger and a monster.

>>130491224
probably. the question is if the price they'd have to pay would be worth it.

>>130491224
they are increadibly easy to sink, ~ 40 - 50 speed boats with AP RPG and boom, whole AC fleet drowned

>>130491224
>sink an aircraft carrier

Put some big enough holes in it and it will sink. A ramming attack is a possibility.

>>130509150
You fucking peaceniks are the real traitors. Too fucking flaccid to deserve this nation.
>>130509259
>implying carriers are going to be within speed boat range
>>130509292
Only if they nab a carrier on it's way out of the gulf

>>130509513
Stop trying to incite war and crisis.
It makes America vulnerable to internal and external threats.

whenever someone is trying to force an unnecessary conflict they are trying to put their opponent at a disadvantage.

We do not want a civil war.
We do not want a nuclear war.
We do not want a crisis which is step 3 of 4 in ideological subversion.

1. Demoralization
2. Destabilization
3. Crisis
4. Normalization

Yuri Bezmenov outline that specific process he witnessed in Russia after he defected from the KGB in disgust and warned America years ago about this process.which named ideological subversion. Provoke conflict all you want, we are not all fools.

File: 1031350541.jpg (147KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1000x541px

*blocks your carrier battle group's path*

>>130508676
Better? :^)
>>130509259
The challenge is in getting there.
>>130510104
Sexy radomes.

File: navalminetypes.jpg (39KB, 700x485px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 700x485px

>>130500583
Torpedos can be launched from under water.

>>130492674
Has the captain of that ship lost his commission yet?

>>130498513
Not if your out of range.

>>130501821
You're right. We should of left Germany to the USSR. Time to withdrawal from NATO.

>>130510104
Sink it with an advanced cruise missile. Out of range and out of radar los.

>>130502190
Schettino is a neapolitan degenerate, makes sense

>>130491224
They would need at least 3 Filipino cargo ships.

>>130491224
Yes of course, this was all simulated in the 90s but the navy declared the results to be BS even though one of their most trusted and decorated guys was the opposing force commander in the simulation.

In the future all vessels will be submersible, the next war will prove the need.