Quote:

---

the iranian naval fleet before porn-boards, IR stood for international relations, which is mostly about diplomatically killing those you dislike. let me help you understand some things better.


take a look at the range of the 154-missiles an ohio class sub carries. hitting any country in the middle-east is cake from the red sea, med, etc.

the persian gulf is a littoral operation, you don't put boomers in there because you don't need to--iran's got TWO submarines and sonar-tech two decades behind the hull-deadening stuff on our little fast subs that can still launch dozens of missiles and sink whatever it wants.

do you know what a thermocline is? look it up. the persian gulfs shallows and currents actually mean that it's MORE difficult to detect submarines with passive sonar. you REALLY want to use passive sonar instead of active.

basically, the ohios can lob thousands of missiles from total safety while an antiquated navy has no answer to lots of small subs with a bunch of missiles,torpedos and the ability to launch seal teams while underwater. they'll have to throw done mines which'll get swept fast. failing to localize and target stuff until it hits the inner ring(like a dozen or less miles) is a disaster, and you still want aircraft to do it, but you don't have enough of them and the skies are full of hostile and superior planes. so you're looking at dropping a bunch of VDS units into the water and blindly pinging around because their accuracy goes to shit in turbulent,coastal water and you have to use less-effective, very short-range stuff from your warships.
not pretty.


sub crashes? these days it's mostly china, russia, and banana-republics involved with aging boats or our cheapies with inexperienced crews, not ohios and la's.

---

I'm lost, so who are you dissing? Or just everyone? You should put some sort of explanatory precursor in your signature. "I hate you all" perhaps.

So are you saying the entire Iranian navy would be any sort of match for a US battle group? Very very unlikely. They'd be sunk before they left port. They'd be sunk before they thought about leaving port. They'd be sunk while they were having dinner the night before thinking "Should we leave port tomorrow?".

The greatest danger by far to any ship in the persian gulf is a small speedboat packed with explosives.

Well, if there are no boomers in the gulf then the US navy has been lieing, as have captains of said boomers. I would think having subs that have more firepower than your entire military sitting at the bottom of your local Iranian harbour would be a bit of a discouragement.

Its also about extra cautious protection of the various nationalities ships enforcing embargos etc in the persian gulf. Australia for example is there.

Now I'm not making this up. Maybe the US navy is.


I've read there are dozens of unreported sub collisions [with other subs, subterranean objects etc]. Only the one's that are complete fuck-ups and they have to report are generally made public. Hard to hide hitting a civilian vessell.

And hey, if you want to talk collisons with US subs, how about this?

USS Greenville. SSN 772. LA class. The LA class of course being nuclear. February 9, 2001.
http://starbulletin.com/2001/02/17/news/story1.html

Now that was with civilians aboard. You'd think they would have been more careful not less. Sure they were hot-dogging, but if the crews are so faultless, how the hell did they miss a dirty great jap 190 foot fishing boat?


Another one. USS Philadelphia. SSN 690. LA class. September 5 2005.
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=19914

It managed to hit a cargo vessel.


I can find more if you like. And regardless of who's fault it is, you'd think you'd be reticent enough to stay a million miles away from any ship when you've got a billion dollar nuclear sub under your command.


Also, regarding "no US subs in Persian Gulf", again, that's not what the US navy says.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/news/.www/status.html

The Ronald Regan is in the Persian Gulf right now. And I'm pretty sure no Admiral sitting on the bridge of his carrier looking out upon his battle group would do so comfortably without having a sub lurking somewhere. In fact I think two attack submarines are the norm.

The USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) left port 17 August 2000 for a scheduled six-month Western Pacific (WESTPAC) and Arabian Gulf deployment. The carrier was joined the following week off the coast of Southern California by Carrier Air Wing Fourteen. The carrier and nine-squadron air wing spent the majority of the deployment in the Arabian Gulf supporting Operation Southern Watch which included the enforcement of the no-fly zone over southern Iraq. The Abraham Lincoln Battle Group, under the command of Rear Adm. Phillip Balisle, was comprised of the carrier, which served as the command ship for the battle group, and eight other vessels. These ships include USS Bunker Hill (CG 52) and USS Shiloh (CG 67), both guided missile cruisers assigned to Cruiser Destroyer Group 3; destroyers USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60) and USS Fletcher (DD 992) and the fast frigate USS Crommelin (FFG 37), all assigned to Destroyer Squadron 31; the Los Angeles-class fast attack submarines USS Cheyenne (SSN 773) and USS Tuscon (SSN 770); and the supply ship and oiler, USS Camden (AOE 2).

Again I can find something more recent if you don't believe me.



Another example of subs in the gulf as part of a battle group.

http://navysite.de/ssn/ssn760.htm

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08760.htm

Electronic Technician 3rd Class Donny Scroggins, from Groton, CT, checks navigational charts aboard the nuclear powered fast attack submarine Annapolis (SSN-760) on Nov. 29, 1997. Annapolis is currently operating in the Persian Gulf as part of the aircraft carrier George Washington (CVN-73) battle group.


There is stuff all over the net about LA class subs being deployed in the gulf.



http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pnav/is_200209/ai_874688834

When asked what he thought the biggest challenge would be for Honolulu on deployment, Harris said that operating in the Persian Gulf is always a challenge.

"It's a pretty tough environment for the submarine to operate in," he said. "The water is very shallow there, less than 180 feet, and the submarine is over 300 feet long. So if you were to stand her up on its end, almost half of it would be out of the water."



Which is what I said in the first place.


So I hope james you're not posting from the belly of a boomer. Because you're way off course if you don't think you're in the Persian Gulf.

Might explain your recurring abscences. But then I know why.