Bring It On!
The commander of the Iranian Navy is apparently claiming that the Iranian Navy will soon "have a powerful presence" near the United States. Other than the fact that it's very unlikely to happen -- they'd be lucky to limp into some Cuban harbor at the end of a 10 knot journey and lay over for several months of voyage repairs before trying to limp home -- the thought of them doing something like that would be a rude awakening to their crews if they did manage to hang around off our shores.
For those who haven't had the chance to participate during the few instances in the last couple decades when potential adversaries try to "show the flag" off our coast, we tend to drop the niceties we observe when conducting "freedom of navigation" exercises off Country Orange's shore and start playing at the varsity level. (I was the Sub Guy on the Stennis Battle Group Staff for the Oscar deployment mentioned in the link above.) If the Iranians think we're annoying when we follow all the rules of international maritime law when we're sailing through the SOH, just wait until they're the visiting team.
Since a "powerful presence" for them involves an oiler and a couple of 1400 ton frigates, I'm not too worried if they did end up following through with their "threat". Which they can't, not because they're not brave, but because their equipment isn't worth crap. (Unless you're a Congressional staffer trying to decide if you should tell your boss to vote for more money for the Navy to counter the Iranian threat -- in that case, they're a first-class Navy; Kilos get better with age!)
posted by Bubblehead at 8:06 PM
42 Comments:
A great opportunity for Hugo down in Venz. He lets the Iranians bring an FFL or 2 and an oiler for an extended stay. The Iranians get supplied and a chance at a decent refit site and do their own version of a crew swap (perhaps with augmentation crews from Hugo). Every few months making a driveby on the East Coast or Pensacola.
If for no other reason than to just thumb their collective noses at the US.
Of course this would be another NatSec disaster during election season.
9/27/2011 8:57 PM
Well to start with, I hope neither of those ridiculous Camel Fuckers in the bath robes are on anchor detail. And is texting allowed so close to the ship yard? No wonder Iran only has a coastal Navy with limited defenses only. With American destroyers left over from WWII, I'm sure they'll make us plenty skeert. Iran's Kilo class boats are good for what?...maybe 400 to 500 meters at crush depth? Oh wait, it doesn't matter what depth you're at, we'll still HEAR you with diesels at umm many yards away. Does Iran even know what passive sonar is?
Yeah, I guess we're supposed to be worried though. Gotta admit that whole thing is funny. Disabling or destroying one of their vessels would be fun9let's make certain we make it appear as though it's was their fault). What could they do about it anyway?
9/27/2011 8:58 PM
Would we even notice?
9/27/2011 9:14 PM
One of our SSNs could destroy their whole navy and have fish to spare. It wouldn't even be challenging.
9/27/2011 9:24 PM
What's with the sailor in ranks groping the other dudes butt? I though they executed people for that over there.
9/28/2011 9:19 AM
It would be way cool if they came during hurricane season.
9/28/2011 9:32 AM
I so hope they try this deployment, it would be great fun to watch. I would also hope the Navy would provide an appropriate wake up service; a supersonic Super Hornet fly-by every morning at prayer time is a real eye opener. Any near by ships could also join in by banging away on active to ensure the Iranian below decks are not ignored.
Oh the possibilities are endless to annoy these guys but I'm sure the political leadership with spoil the fun.
9/28/2011 9:51 AM
I think the game should be "how long can they stay at GQ?".
Anyone want to place some bets?
9/28/2011 10:57 AM
The correct response is to completely ignore them. Hell, maybe even arrange some port calls. Honest exposure to our culture separated from the propaganda they get at home is probably the best weapon we have against their regime. Offering to allow them to visit seems like a win-win proposition - even if they decline we come out looking gracious.
9/28/2011 2:33 PM
anon @ 2:33 PM
Assuming the Iranians can really travel that far without breakdowns, your comment has merit, especially since we will already have data on who and what's on board every vessel by the time they embark.
Naturally, We would request port visit reciprocity, later. Could be convenient in many ways. Would not count on much liberty for our canoe crews, however.
Mad Max
9/28/2011 3:54 PM
As a member of the industrial military base, I would mind a good naval war! A couple of engagements and maybe (I hate to say it)some damaged US ships would get things in gear again. Even better some sub on sub action!
Definately would be good for the wallet!
9/28/2011 5:57 PM
No sub on sub action, please and thank you!
9/28/2011 6:02 PM
They don't have the balls to cross the pond.
9/28/2011 6:20 PM
This will never happen, but I wonder what would happen if we attacked them and took their oil.
9/28/2011 7:04 PM
It would probably look a lot like Afghanistan and Iraq. We all know how amazingly successful those short little wars have been
9/28/2011 7:53 PM
"It would probably look a lot like Afghanistan and Iraq. We all know how amazingly successful those short little wars have been"
Unfortunately our politicians didn't take Iraqi oil when we had the chance.
And sub on sub with China would be great! It's really starting to get boring out there.
9/28/2011 8:24 PM
Has anyone else seen the reports of a new Iranian cruise missile? http://defensetech.org/2011/08/23/irans-newest-cruise-missile/
I looked at several of the reports and couldn't find an answer to this: Are any of the ships they would send capable of delivering this weapon? Even a blind pig can occasionally find a truffle.
9/28/2011 9:09 PM
"It would probably look a lot like Afghanistan and Iraq. We all know how amazingly successful those short little wars have been"
Those 2 FRONTS of a greater War were extraordinarilly successful. In Iraq it took us less than a week to destroy the Iraqi Army and have tanks rolling in Baghdad.
In Afghanistan the Taliban was removed from power and scattered into the hills.
However, the aftermath was a royal goat-f@%k as the politicians got involved and started creating PC ROEs and refused to acknowledge to actions of Syria and Iran (re Iraq) and Iran and Pakistan (re Afghanistan) in supporting geurilla activities to bleed American resolve.
It also didn't help that "leaders" like Pelosi, Reid, and Obama used the War as a political tool in their elections...even openly declaring the US had lost and refusing to support the surge tactic that brought about a final victory point.
General Betrayus ring any bells?
9/28/2011 11:37 PM
That is genuinely helpful. I would like to ask if it would be Okay if I mentioned some of that on my own blog. Of course, I would credit you, and link back here also.
Trey
9/29/2011 3:04 AM
Yes, KellyJ, given 3-4 months, we've proven three times (including 1st Iraq War) that we can crush any 3rd-world power.
You mention Democrats as holding back our success, but war in Afghanistan went on for ~7 years before Obama became president and war in Iraq went on for ~5 years: PLENTY of opportunity for the previous administration to get it right! Bush's administration had the responsibility and opportunity, while support in the US was high in 2001-2003, to do the follow-up correctly and re-build nations. But we went in with only enough to crush the opposition and with no plan afterwards and no forethought on what would happen. We were hailed as heros by the locals but lost the opportunity to take advantage of our initial successes with local support. Apparently no one read McArthur and his strategy in Japan...
Afghanistan COULD have been more successful if we hadn't gotten into Iraq and diverted funds & attention. Sadam was doing perfectly well doing pretty much nothing since 1991 and we could have continued to contain him (and let him distract Iran, thank you very much).
9/29/2011 6:10 AM
On to REAL news, all of you fag hags can now face reality: Allowing open homos to serve was only the first step into their deviant lifestyle.
9/29/2011 3:05 PM
That's funny!
At the Bangor Subase yesterday, I saw some flyers promoting "equal housing allowance rules" for all service members "regardless of sexual preferences". Apparently they are advocating some type of legal defense.
Also, saw two "guys" walking in the parking lot coming from the gym. They had the limp wrist motions and sashay walk thing going on.
The gates are open now...
9/29/2011 5:14 PM
There have been a few "cuming outs" in Kings Bay also.
And don't forget, from recent Navy training: "homosexual" is a bad word, "gay" and "lesbian" are ok.
Hmmm, and I always thought of "homosexual" as scientific type word...only in the military can things get so twisted.
And "peter puffer"? no way...that's bad too!
9/29/2011 5:37 PM
I'd like to see them try. They'll beat the crap out of their boats and tie up a lot of resources. Should be an interesting show when something big breaks.
9/29/2011 5:54 PM
I still think we need to send Amadinnerjacket, et al, a few periscope pics of their guys where nametags can be read, while they're humping their goats or whatever out on the fantail and see if they reconsider.
Something tells me they might.
And t, yeah, the bullshit ROE, political games, etc., made both Iraq and Afghanistan last a lot longer than either should have taken. Better we should have adopted the philosophy of General Mattis:
"I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all."
9/29/2011 7:19 PM
And don't forget, from recent Navy training: "homosexual" is a bad word, "gay" and "lesbian" are ok.
What about "fag?"
9/29/2011 7:24 PM
I agree with a couple of other previous posters that offering a couple of east coast port visits might be interesting. For example Norfolk/Little Creek; I'd voluteer to host a little party at Jewish Mother out at VB...that should be a HOOT!
Then there's (well, y'all pick some other spots but it would be fun to watch their heads explode.)
9/29/2011 7:59 PM
Nhsparky:
So the right approach to Iraq/Afghanistan was to just... what... Nuke them all? Kill all the women and children? I'm not sure what ROE had to do with it, because I remember US forces kicking ass all accross both countries. But after that, then what? 99.99999999% of the problems in both countries had to do with not having a coherent plan after we won the fighting part of the war.
I'm still not convinced that we have a coherent plan in Afghanistan. I don't even know if it's possible to come up with a coherent plan to civilize the country according our cultural norms. We should pack our shit, shrug our shoulders, and drive away.
9/29/2011 8:03 PM
NHSparky,
Thank You for your last. I had a helluva'long duty day but a good day. You clearly don't have to answer to the daily political horseshit which goes on constantly.
In the end, We can only track them. It might be nice if we could kill a few to make Afghanistan justifiable in the first place.
9/29/2011 10:15 PM
Anon 9-29; 6:10AM:
I said POLITICIANS, not Democrats.
However it was the Democrat leadership who were calling the war lost and using it as a political tool.
9/30/2011 12:27 AM
Speaking of political tools...
9/30/2011 8:41 AM
Widgethead,
Probably why I knew I'd never put on khakis and wisely left when I did.
t,
I'm not talking genocide, for Chrissakes, nor am I talking about imposing Western cultural norms. But you're fooling yourself if you think that ROE in both places hasn't contributed to our guys getting killed in greater numbers than they should have. Kind of the old, "When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow."
Couple that with the fact as has been pointed out that right in between Iraq and Afghanistan is this little country called Iran which has been shit-stirring the whole time, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out they're more than likely responsible (along with the ISI, et al in Pakistan) for a large part of the issues we're dealing with now.
Problem is, our "coherent" plan in Afghanistan doesn't deal with Pakistan, kinda like our coherent plan in Vietnam didn't include mining Haiphong Harbor, Laos, or Cambodia, etc...give an enemy a safe harbor to which they can retreat or hide behind, and you'll never defeat them.
9/30/2011 12:41 PM
Sidebar:
Maybe I'm the last submariner to hear about this, but a movie was made just last year, "Azorian," on Project Azorian (a.k.a. Project Jennifer), the CIA/Navy project to recover a sunken Soviet Golf-class submarine in the Pacific.
"Azorian" is available via streaming on Netflix. One of many cool things: actual (still) footage of the sunken submarine.
Info on Project Azorian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian
10/01/2011 9:01 PM
There is original video in Azorian as well.
Color me impressed. Quite a story.
10/01/2011 10:29 PM
Streamed Azorian on Netflix last night. Interesting seeing the actual footage.
10/04/2011 9:45 AM
A lot of footage I haven't seen before. I am still skeptical about the minimal amount recovered. It seems like a curiously good fall back story if you know your cover is blown.
10/04/2011 12:40 PM
Liked watching "Azorian"...but felt at the end that they chickened out from discussing the most obvious question in the overall story.
That being: why was the Golf boat so far off from its intended track that the entire Soviet Navy couldn't find it?
A clue to the answer may lie in the video of the boat's sail: notice how it's all torn and twisted from what looks like one of the boat's missiles having detonated in the sail.
Hmmm....what could cause that? Perhaps an internal missile-self-destruct signal from an attempted unauthorized launch? The kind of thing that a boat that's wayyy off of its intended track might be attempting to do?
Not all that far fetched of an idea, especially when you consider that the boat wasn't even close to its intended track. But the movie doesn't even mention this.
10/06/2011 2:00 PM
Oh, nice, I will have to check that one out! Always been interested in the Cold War stuff.
I wonder if the producers of the movie just thought it sounded too close to the plot of Hunt For Red October or something and nobody would believe it.
I don't know. The speculation for what happened that day is really interesting, but we will probably never know why the boat was where it was.
10/07/2011 10:56 PM
Azorian also provides a front-row seat to some of the then-usual Soviet party line guffhaw and bullshit. This is a good thing, IMHO, as it gives some small sense of the crass moronity and lack of integrity these guys had back in the day.
The movie features a USSR admiral who claims 'to his dying day' that he's convinced that a U.S. submarine ran into the Golf.
The idea just makes no practical sense, especially according to the admiral's ridiculous geometry for the collision.
The damage to the U.S. boat, as claimed by the Soviet apparatchik, was to front of its sail.
So...wait a minute...the front of the U.S. boat's sail somehow hit the trailing end of the Soviet Golf's sail?
Don't know how exactly you'd get something like that to happen even if you tried...but -- if you could -- my sense is that you could sell more tickets to the viewing than a donkey show in Tijuana.
10/08/2011 10:15 AM
Ok, so when a screw falls off or the mains seize, which 3rd world country is going to give them a tow? Better yet, a mutiny and flee to the Bahamas.
10/14/2011 6:30 PM
I though they executed people for that over there.
11/10/2011 10:45 AM
Wow, this so nice post and i like to share you some good information about sore throat visit my site to learn more
1/22/2012 1:43 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home