Jump to content
tanknet.org

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


Recommended Posts

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

 

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

 

EDIT for grammar

Edited by Josh
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

EDIT for grammar

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

EDIT for grammar

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

New High Mobility Submarine Designed By BMT

 

11-Feb-2004

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"A single nuclear weapon will cause the collapse of the electric power grid, all the critical infrastructures and other electronic systems across the entire continental United States and basically cause a permanent blackout," he told CBN News.

Pry's nightmare scenario shows Iran or its terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, parking an unmarked freighter off America's East Coast or in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

"A single nuclear weapon will cause the collapse of the electric power grid, all the critical infrastructures and other electronic systems across the entire continental United States and basically cause a permanent blackout," he told CBN News.

Pry's nightmare scenario shows Iran or its terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, parking an unmarked freighter off America's East Coast or in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

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

 

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

"A single nuclear weapon will cause the collapse of the electric power grid, all the critical infrastructures and other electronic systems across the entire continental United States and basically cause a permanent blackout," he told CBN News.

Pry's nightmare scenario shows Iran or its terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, parking an unmarked freighter off America's East Coast or in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

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

 

A single device affecting all of the US would have to be extremely large, and rather high up.

 

Not if you cause a cascading collapse.

 

http://www.samsi.info/sites/default/files/Wang_october2011.pdf

 

 

 

Above: What if the May 1921 superstorm occurred today? A US map of vulnerable transformers with areas of probable system collapse encircled. A state-by-state map of transformer vulnerability is also available: click here. Credit: National Academy of Sciences.

 

The strongest geomagnetic storm on record is the Carrington Event of August-September 1859, named after British astronomer Richard Carrington who witnessed the instigating solar flare with his unaided eye while he was projecting an image of the sun on a white screen. Geomagnetic activity triggered by the explosion electrified telegraph lines, shocking technicians and setting their telegraph papers on fire; Northern Lights spread as far south as Cuba and Hawaii; auroras over the Rocky Mountains were so bright, the glow woke campers who began preparing breakfast because they thought it was morning. Best estimates rank the Carrington Event as 50% or more stronger than the superstorm of May 1921.

 

"A contemporary repetition of the Carrington Event would cause … extensive social and economic disruptions," the report warns. Power outages would be accompanied by radio blackouts and satellite malfunctions; telecommunications, GPS navigation, banking and finance, and transportation would all be affected. Some problems would correct themselves with the fading of the storm: radio and GPS transmissions could come back online fairly quickly. Other problems would be lasting: a burnt-out multi-ton transformer, for instance, can take weeks or months to repair. The total economic impact in the first year alone could reach $2 trillion, some 20 times greater than the costs of a Hurricane Katrina or, to use a timelier example, a few TARPs.

 

Please take note of the source

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/21jan_severespaceweather/

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Not that I'd weight it heavily, but just to be the Devil's Advocate I'll leave these here.

 

Defence experts are warning of a new danger of ballistic weapons proliferation after a Russian company started marketing a cruise missile that can be launched from a shipping container.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/7632543/A-cruise-missile-in-a-shipping-box-on-sale-to-rogue-bidders.html

 

 

 

JERUSALEM—Syria has transferred long-range Scud missiles to the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah, Israeli and U.S. officials alleged, in a move that threatens to alter the Middle East's military balance and sets back a major diplomatic outreach effort to Damascus by the Obama administration.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304604204575182290135333282.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

"A single nuclear weapon will cause the collapse of the electric power grid, all the critical infrastructures and other electronic systems across the entire continental United States and basically cause a permanent blackout," he told CBN News.

Pry's nightmare scenario shows Iran or its terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, parking an unmarked freighter off America's East Coast or in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

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

 

A single device affecting all of the US would have to be extremely large, and rather high up.

 

Not if you cause a cascading collapse.

 

http://www.samsi.inf...october2011.pdf

 

 

 

Above: What if the May 1921 superstorm occurred today? A US map of vulnerable transformers with areas of probable system collapse encircled. A state-by-state map of transformer vulnerability is also available: click here. Credit: National Academy of Sciences.

 

The strongest geomagnetic storm on record is the Carrington Event of August-September 1859, named after British astronomer Richard Carrington who witnessed the instigating solar flare with his unaided eye while he was projecting an image of the sun on a white screen. Geomagnetic activity triggered by the explosion electrified telegraph lines, shocking technicians and setting their telegraph papers on fire; Northern Lights spread as far south as Cuba and Hawaii; auroras over the Rocky Mountains were so bright, the glow woke campers who began preparing breakfast because they thought it was morning. Best estimates rank the Carrington Event as 50% or more stronger than the superstorm of May 1921.

 

"A contemporary repetition of the Carrington Event would cause … extensive social and economic disruptions," the report warns. Power outages would be accompanied by radio blackouts and satellite malfunctions; telecommunications, GPS navigation, banking and finance, and transportation would all be affected. Some problems would correct themselves with the fading of the storm: radio and GPS transmissions could come back online fairly quickly. Other problems would be lasting: a burnt-out multi-ton transformer, for instance, can take weeks or months to repair. The total economic impact in the first year alone could reach $2 trillion, some 20 times greater than the costs of a Hurricane Katrina or, to use a timelier example, a few TARPs.

 

Please take note of the source

http://science.nasa....respaceweather/

 

I'm well aware of magnetic storms and the fact that one could end society as we know it, were it to have the magnitude of the 1859 even. What exactly this has to do with Iran somehow getting a fision-fusion 2 stage atomic device into an altitude of 100km somewhere over the US, I have not the faintest however.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Not that I'd weight it heavily, but just to be the Devil's Advocate I'll leave these here.

 

Defence experts are warning of a new danger of ballistic weapons proliferation after a Russian company started marketing a cruise missile that can be launched from a shipping container.

 

http://www.telegraph...ue-bidders.html

 

 

 

JERUSALEM—Syria has transferred long-range Scud missiles to the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah, Israeli and U.S. officials alleged, in a move that threatens to alter the Middle East's military balance and sets back a major diplomatic outreach effort to Damascus by the Obama administration.

 

http://online.wsj.co...0135333282.html

 

Cruise missiles cannot reach the altitudes necessary for EMP deployment. Non-starter.

 

Hez has Scuds? First of all, I doubt it, second of all, now they need is a nuke to put on it, assuming they have the technical capability to properly load it and fuse it at altitude. That nuke presumably would come from Iran...in which case, why wouldn't they just use it themselves? The nuke would also have to be relatively small--IIRC Scud has a payload in the neighborhood of 1 ton. Both of the atomic weapons used on Japan were 5 tons. Then they have to some how erect it and fuel it on board a cargo ship in open water not built for such a purpose--Scuds use liquid fuel and one of the components is quite caustic and dangerous. And we're still talking about a very weak and localized effect assuming everything worked perfectly unless we're talking about a two stage fission-fusion weapon as opposed to a first generation gun or implosion design--its not even clear that Israel achieved this level of sophistication with their nuclear program.

 

If Hez got a nuke, I'm thinking they would attempt something less sophisticated like floating it into a port on a ship which takes far less sophistication both in the delivery vehicle and the size and weight of the weapon. I'm also thinking that the first place they would use it on would Israel, not the US.

 

So no, on the list of things to worry about, Iran or Hez employing an EMP attack on the US is down there with asteroids running into the earth. Actually lower than that, because we wouldn't be able to stop an asteroid, where as there's every chance that existing ABM systems could intercept an Iranian nuke were one ever to exist.

Edited by Josh
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

True, but its going to allow a British Diesel boat to make a transition to areas of likely combat almost as quickly as an SSN. And an SSN, whilst it can run deep, is still going to be making a hell of a lot of noise tooling along at 20-30 knots.

 

Sounds like a good idea, lets buy some. if nothing else at least we have a chance of exporting them which we will never do (and will eventually lose) if we continue building exclusively SSNs.

 

Its not remotely a good idea, IMO. EDIT: For the RN at any rate, who has SSNs

 

The SSN can run deep enough it effectively doesn't cavitate at speed. The SSN isn't spouting exhaust so hot it can be seen from orbit. The SSN isn't breaking the surface with an apparatus large enough to be easily visible on a patrol aircraft's radar. The SSN isn't shooting up a rooster tail of water from its snorkel, assuming a snorkel could be made to withstand the pressure of 20-30 knots. The SSN isn't carrying a pile of dead weight on its sail once it reaches its operational area. The SSN isn't maintaining three different types of combustion engine to operate on its patrols. The SSN doesn't need to carry a crap load of fuel for its gas turbine to run for 10,000 miles. After 25 days, the SSN *still* doesn't have to snorkel. When evading or tactically maneuvering in the operational area, the SSN still can do 30 knots, indefinitely if needed. The SSN has an unlimited amount of electrical power for sensors, computers, environmental conditioning, etc.

 

The gas turbine design would only make sense for country that had regional, if not global responsibilities and no ability to deploy a nuclear powered a vessel. They make no sense for the RN and they make no sense for prospective customers abroad who have much more local missions for their D/Es, so none would be sold.

Edited by Josh
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hint - you don’t have to copy-pasta an entire post when you do quotes. Jus’ sayin’

I’m well aware of magnetic storms and the fact that one could end society as we know it, were it to have the magnitude of the 1859 even. What exactly this has to do with Iran somehow getting a fision-fusion 2 stage atomic device into an altitude of 100km somewhere over the US, I have not the faintest however.

Can’t see a corollary? Well, follow the bouncing ball then.

 

Collapsing the power grid with a HEMP or IEMI is articulated here, but pay particular attention to the map they use. It should look familiar.

http://www.ferc.gov/...ive_summary.pdf

100km, you say? Try the low, low bargain basement ceiling of 30km.

 

The high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) is defined as a series of electromagnetic waveforms that are generated from a nuclear detonation at altitudes above 30 km and propagate to the Earth’s surface.

 

http://www.todayseng...ep/HEMP.asp</p>

 

The German V-2 attained a max altitude of something like 200 km+ if launched vertically, so even something like a SCUD could make 30km. But yeah, firing a SCUD from a cargo ship? Inconceivable!

http://chinaconfiden...est-sea_25.html

 

http://www.globalsec.../dprk/nd-b2.htm

 

Meanwhile,

A Silkworm cruise missile easily could be concealed in a shipping container by terrorists who could launch it from the deck of a cargo vessel off the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. The country remains vulnerable to the threat of missile attack using asymmetrical means such as offshore merchant ships serving as launch pads

 

http://www.afcea.org...&zoneid=167

 

Besides, who says they have to use a nuke to get an EMP effect?

http://www.superconductors.org/emp-bomb.htm

 

 

I culd go on and on, but right now that’s all moot - the Iranians are grounded

http://iissvoicesblo...-irans-missiles

Edited by X-Files
Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, who says they have to use a nuke to get an EMP effect?

I culd go on and on, but right now that’s all moot - the Iranians are grounded

http://iissvoicesblo...-irans-missiles

 

Powdered Aluminum? Like from scrap? I'm sure the sanctions are keeping them from getting that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The gas turbine design would only make sense for country that had regional, if not global responsibilities and no ability to deploy a nuclear powered a vessel. They make no sense for the RN and they make no sense for prospective customers abroad who have much more local missions for their D/Es, so none would be sold.

 

The only country it might make sense for, and I stress might, is Australia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to edit posts and have all the quotes work out. So here I will simply refer your point with out quoting them.

 

"Can’t see a corollary? Well, follow the bouncing ball then."

 

Can't see the corollary between a natural global phenomenon and a difficult to manufacture man made semi equivalent? That's like saying because we developed 'earth quake' bombs in the 40's, I can't understand why some third world country couldn't cause the equivalent of a natural earth quake now. That's asking a question and then changing the scope, that's like asking "hey, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" and expecting a yes or no answer.

 

"Collapsing the power grid with a HEMP or IEMI is articulated here, but pay particular attention to the map they use. It should look familiar."

 

Yes, your map looks very impressive. However it is not remotely based on an attack from a low yield single stage nuclear weapon. I've no doubt that such a device would do damage; I merely doubt your assessment (as I read it) that the entire country is vulnerable to single, or even multiple, weapons of this caliber...unless you are implying that Iran can deliver multiple multi-kiltoton warheads in 2015. China, Britain, Russia, and France *can*. Iran...can't deliver the mail to the US at present. Or even in a few years. Probably even in a decade they'd just barely be able to deliver a decent number devices to this hemisphere. Assuming Israel doesn't tear them a new one first, unless you have intelligence to the contrary.

 

"100km, you say? Try the low, low bargain basement ceiling of 30km."

 

32km vs 100km doesn't matter...you are launching a ballistic missile attack against the US, and the two are roughly equivalent. In fact, one thing I'd like to point out is that Scud isn't I believe even capable of 100km altitude. Bottom line, it is neither cheap, nor easy, nor not completely obvious when you put a rocket into an altitude of even 32 kilometers. If you are implying that Iran can do this right now...well, perhaps, but not likely, and they don't have nuke, and its not like it would be a mystery where it came from; ship or otherwise. There are satellites that even in '91 could see the thermal bloom of Scud launches.

 

"The German V-2 attained a max altitude of something like 200 km+ if launched vertically, so even something like a SCUD could make 30km."

 

I've not checked that figure, but even if true, well sure, if you ignore all payload considerations, the V-2 might do that. And the Scud could do 30km, assuming you didn't mind the range limitations that imposed. No argument there.

 

"But yeah, firing a SCUD from a cargo ship? Inconceivable!"

 

Not inconceivable, but hardly non trivial. Iran I suppose could attempt it; they've had them in inventory for a while. Hezbollah? Just what do you think launching solid rockets of a hundred kilometers max prepares a group like that for fueling a liquid weapon with caustic, toxic, highly flammable fuel? yes, I know they put a hole in an Israeli destroyer. Color me unimpressed; that's like a kid firing off a model rocket in comparison.

 

"http://chinaconfiden...est-sea_25.html"

 

Yes, perhaps Iran managed to put a SCUD on a ship. Now they'd just need a nuke small enough to put on it. You think that will happen in 2015. I don't. We'll agree to disagree. We can also ignore the idea of retaliation once some one figured out where it came from. Either way, not a massive EMP attack, again unless you know something about Iranian warheads that don't currently exist that I don't. Putting 10kt over NYC will definitely make the trains go slower. Will it affect the whole country? Only in how righteously pissed off they'd be.

 

"A Silkworm cruise missile easily could be concealed in a shipping container...."

 

...and never reach an altitude remotely useful for EMP.

 

"Besides, who says they have to use a nuke to get an EMP effect?"

 

You did. My previous post said that if they were to use a nuke, it would never be in such an outlandish way--I didn't discount the idea of an Iranian nuke altogether; I just said the idea that they could use it for some kind of continent wide EMP attack is to not understand the physics behind such an endeavor. See my list of countries that actually could accomplish same-same. I'm sure when they get a nuke, they could eventually try to ship it over to our hemisphere...though hardly an endeavor without risks. They could ultimately miniaturize it on an ICBM, but right now they lack the nuke, the missile, or the miniaturization...which is why I think your posts are hyperbole.

 

EDIT: After a re-read, it almost seems to imply that Iran could achieve an EMP effect sans nuke. If this is the case; I'd love to hear that theory and the wonderful physics behind it. Yes, I'm aware of the rumors of HPM weapons with an EMP like effect--they are decidedly localized to hundreds of meters, if that, and as far as I'm aware the realm of major powers if they even operationally exist.

Edited by Josh
Link to post
Share on other sites
The gas turbine design would only make sense for country that had regional, if not global responsibilities and no ability to deploy a nuclear powered a vessel. They make no sense for the RN and they make no sense for prospective customers abroad who have much more local missions for their D/Es, so none would be sold.
The only country it might make sense for, and I stress might, is Australia.

 

I actually would agree; I was thinking someone would call me out on that one. I still think the disadvantages outweigh a more conventional arrangement like Collins, however many problems they've had.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...