It's not going to matter how fast it can go, it will make so much noise the navy will see it coming from miles out. Plus, the iranian navy's vessels arent exactly "stealthy". Our navy is the most advanced in the world, not to mention Isreal's navy. This is alot of hot air...

If only Bush hadn't invaded Iraq Iran would have never had felt threatened and this device of war would never have seen the light of day.

If the United States would stop behaving like an Empire then perhaps so many other nations would see less of a need to arm themselves.

That was fun. Got to get work.

Go Liberals!

First, you have to find the target.

This has always been the advantage of submarines. Pakistan has been building super quiet subs causing great concern in the Navy. We can't track them.

This was our advantage over the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Of course once you launch a weapon the stealth game is over. Ergo, if cruise missiles are launched by our subs it is a simple matter to triangulate and determine their position.

The question at this point is what is the state of their acoustic technology? Once launched can the torpedo acquire or reacquire the target if it moves.

Guys wearing Dolphins want to know.

yeah......all of what has been said is true I am sure....the testing though does point out that iran is going to have to be dealt with....and maybe the little shit in korea will get the message too...

and just wait for the whining and wailing from the left when there is something done about this....I can see that there will be the usual amount of changing history and noone will remember anyone from the left ever saying anything about what a threat iran is with nukes.....and those poor iranians.....oohh boo hoo.....its all empiralistic americas fault for taking away thier playthings that can kill millions.........

A Sarge Created Thread And It Is Not Bush's Fault? No Statements Like "When Cliton Was President Iran Didn't Have These Torpedoes, Box. That Is Why Cliton Was Great And Bush Is A Failure!"

Be Right Not Rush!

Oh, I forgot. A torpedo can't hit any Air Force planes. Never mind!

"and those poor iranians.....oohh boo hoo"

That is pretty funny man.

Besides, as long as we have the Army and the Air Force, we don't need the stinking Navy. (or the Marines)

Cheers,
Walt

If the US-installed and Khomeini-ousted Shah was still in power, he might well be developing something like this. A torpedo like this obviously isn't aimed at Oklahoma City. But check out some of the goings-on in the Persian (or Arabian) Gulf a few years back, mixed with small attack boats (now subs), and see what happens to oil prices and the West when/whether/if the Straits of Hormuz get shut down. Something like this wouldn't work against a US boomer, but it would sure play hell with an oil tanker or two.

These torpedoes are old news; the Soviets were working on this shit ten years ago.

Which, of course, begets the question of why we don't have them, why nobody bothered developing countermeasures to them, etc.

Scratch that. They were working on this OVER ten years ago. I first heard about it in the late '80s.

Thanks for that Ahab, are you saying that they could really hurt us if they wanted to so we better be nice to them? Seems to me that if they are so dangerous and could do all these bad things like terrorism and stuff, then that is all the more reason to attack them.

Cheers,
Walt

No, Walt, I'm not saying "they could really hurt us if they wanted to so we better be nice to them." I was attempting to add something to the mix that we seldom see, especially coming out of DC these days: perspective.

and there will also be a complete throwing out of bush having ANYTHING to do with it when we destroy or remove the nukes...just as libs talk about reagan and the cold war....they will forget all about the bush administration being the one in powet that rid the world of this threat.........you can book that.....

Fair enough Ahab

Maybe you guys can help out here, I had to take a break from here for a while and now that I am back, I see that all the lefties are using a new word. "republifundies" What does that mean?

Republifundies = a combination and bastardization of the words "Republican" and "fundamentalist Christians." It allows the trolls on this site to mock Republicans and Christians using fewer key strokes.

Sort of like "neo-con".

Iran is allowed to have all the torpedoes they want. We are also allowed to have a defense for them. Attacking a country unprovoked is still wrong.

Thanks STBI.

Ping,

You know when you see people driving and talking on the phone, well I cant help but think they need to be smacked. Same thing with Iran, we just need to smack them one good time.

What would they have to do for you to be able to justify attacking them?

Cheers,
Walt

"...they will forget all about the bush administration being the one in powet that rid the world of this threat........."

Not bloody likely.

"you can book that....."

And you'll lose that bet.

Nope, Bush has this tar baby firmly in hand. He owns this war. And, of course, now it owns him.

NeoCon = a combination of the term neo (meaning new) and convict (meaning prisoner).

The label came about because everyone holding to said ideology will eventually end up in prison.

Go culture of corruption!
Go Republifundies!

PS. please stop refering to Republicans as Christians. It's an insult to Christians.

Walt,

I'm sincerely hoping that you're not advocating yet another war in the Middle East. I'm certain that Bush is drooling and gnashing his teeth over the prospect of attacking Iran but even Halliburton would counsel caution at this point. We don't have the national resources to break-even in such a scenario unless it went tactically "nukular". Of course, REM has a song for that, "It's the end of the world as we know it".

But just to be proactive, if you ARE advocating an attack on Iran, you sir are a moron.

and yet........the dems are outsmarted at every turn............

PS. please stop refering to Republicans as Christians. It's an insult to Christians.

Posted by justsomeguy at 2006-04-03 09:25 AM | Reply

JSG,

Christians in the country voted, advocated and financed Bush's enterprise. They've made their bed, now, upon it they must lay.

why nobody bothered developing countermeasures to them, etc

I wouldn't be so sure of that. I wouldn't be surprised if the Navy has jammers that can make these torpedos stand on their tales and whistle Dixie. They are not deafening all those whales for nothing.

I can't see this as much of a real threat. It's underwater, which will limit its velocity and announce it's presence no matter how much thrust it has. A nuke tip would be too heavy to use.

Exocets are more dangerous.

This particular torpedo and its subs might take out an oil tanker or two before their subs were located and destroyed. In wartime they might get lucky and take out an aircraft carrier or two if our friends the Russians and Chinese passed on their positions to the enemy.

The real problem is subs capable of delivering nuclear missiles. If we get in a war with the major nuclear powers Russia or China, or Britain, France or Israel for that matter, we can all kiss our asses goodbye and so can they. If we get in a war with one of the "minor" nuclear powers like Pakistan, India, N. Korea or Iran(?) and it turns "hot" then most of us can probably kiss our asses goodbye and all of them can plus "collateral".

If the terrorists get hold of nuclear weapons or get control of a country that has them -- like Pakistan -- a lot of us can kiss our asses goodbye whether they get delivered by sub or not. Dropping a nuke on terrorists is difficult and kissing their asses goodbye is not a problem for them anyway.

What we have to ask ourselves is how likely is it that we will be able to keep making pre-emptive strikes against countries like Iran and maybe N. Korea and Pakistan and not suffer major nuclear damage ourselves as retaliation. And whether that policy makes it more or less likely that will happen from some other country practicing pre-emption or by creating more terrorists who do it later.

I prefer the option of using war as a last resort, not a first one. That's why we don't need an ineffectual figurehead President like G.W. Bush who is surrounded by a bunch of looney tunes ideologues with crazy ideas about American global hegemony. So that their ideas of what freedom and ideal economic systems are can be imposed on the rest of the world by force of arms. If Iraq has taught us anything it's that once you play the war card to achieve that then all bets are off.

I agree with the idea that the Navy likely has counter-measures in place or at least developing. However, the real point of the story that eveyone seems to be missing is that the failed foreign policies of this country, not just Bush's(his are especially heinous)have created a new military power structure where once there was a void.

I have taken a vow to stop referring to democrats as circus clowns.

It's an insult to circus clowns.

Box,

I'm going to stop referring to Republicans as "Cher songs". You know..gypsies, tramps and thieves.

"A nuke tip would be too heavy to use."

Actually nuke torpedos have been in our arsenal for 40 years.

Subroc and Asroc were nuke tipped depth charges.

Tactical weapons, but close is good enough to crush a submarine's hull or break the keel of a surface ship. Water is quite efficient in transmitting the shock waves.

You know when you see people driving and talking on the phone, well I cant help but think they need to be smacked. Same thing with Iran, we just need to smack them one good time.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Call me a hippy peacenick if you must, but I believe education, understanding and dialogue are the way to get people to understand what they are doing is wrong and change their behavior.

What would they have to do for you to be able to justify attacking them?

A declaration of war. I believe that Iran is just getting ready to defend themselves. Can you blame them? I'm sure they're scared as shit that they're next for us to strike at. I certainly am no expert so answer this for me, has Iran ever attacked another country? I understand they're a sponser of terrorism, which is horrible in it's own right, but once again, the West has given them enough reason in the last 50 or so years to make them feel threatened and paranoid.

My guess is the Iranians perceive is in a naunced (love the word, drives the Talibaptists nuts) way. We are (to them), at once: enemy, obstacle, and threat. Turn the tables and ask yourself, what would we be doing if the 500-pound gorilla was bogged down in our backyard and frontyard...bogged down, but still seen at the front and back doors?

ping.........surely.....SURELY you are not defending a country whose leader just called for the extermination of an entire country and people? and I know its just israel who the left would like to have disappear....but you have to see the danger in iran......I understand you are being cautious in your statements...but iran has to be kept from going nuke, period........but remember that this is a war and it is a war on terror and where will you find terrorists???
....iran....syria....iraq.....
to start with......this is not your father's war......

"...and I know its just israel who the left would like to have disappear..."

From what stable do you manage to shovel this muck? And what, exactly, is "the left"?

"Call me a hippy peacenick if you must, but I believe education, understanding and dialogue are the way to get people to understand what they are doing is wrong and change their behavior."

All that is great, but it doesn't always work. It sounds nice, and it sort of gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling, but I do not think that is going to do anything useful. These guys may not be very educated, but they do know what power is, and they do respond to the person with the most of it.

"the West has given them enough reason in the last 50 or so years to make them feel threatened and paranoid."

That sounds a lot like a justfication for their terrorist acts. At some point, don't actions and statements equate to a declaration of war? If they for example, sank a ship of ours, but didn't declare war, wouldn't you think of that as war? Would you wait for the lawyers to announce it as a declaration of war?

I am not saying we should invade Iran. But I would not care at all if we dropped some bombs all over the suspected nuke facilities.

-Walt

All that is great, but it doesn't always work.

It seems to me it works as often as violence does. And shouldn't we "err on the side of life"?

If they for example, sank a ship of ours, but didn't declare war, wouldn't you think of that as war?

An act like this I would consider a declaration of war. 9/11 was a declaration of war, but we went to war with the wrong people.

I thought it said fatest torpedo and wondered if they got Kennedy, we know the speeds he can attain under water.

I understand they're a sponser of terrorism, which is horrible in it's own right,

My opinion on that is under review. Whenever Bush makes a claim, I automatically have to assume it's a lie.

Some defense contractor is going to get a huge deal to design our version.

Just watching Fox about these torpedoes and they had this retired lieutenant general who said they got them from Russia and that Russia and China are using Iran for a "cash cow" by selling them weapons and therefore Russia and China are "enablers" of terrorism. He said that we are going to have to take military action against Iran.

This is the balloon being floated, how they do it nowadays, to see what what the reaction is.

Attack on a ship a casus belli? Sure. But only if we want it to be. Check out what happend after the North Koreans, Israelis, and Iraqis attacked (respectively) the US naval ships Pueblo, Liberty, Stark.

Call me a hippy peacenick if you must, but I believe education, understanding and dialogue are the way to get people to understand what they are doing is wrong and change their behavior."

what if they are steadfast in their belief and believe more intensly than you do
jasman

If we have a war with Iran, would the Chinese loan us the money to pay for it or would we get the money from saudistan like Saddam did?
Or would the deal be to let us bomb Iran (an invasion/occupation is out of the question) in return for them "unifying" with Taiwan?
It'll be interesting to see what Bush is willing to give Iran in return for them easing up on the sectarian violence in Iraq.

"But I would not care at all if we dropped some bombs all over the suspected nuke facilities."

You might if it incites the Shias in the south, or prompts Iran to invade Iraq. They all think of themselves as Persians, and now have a mutual defense agreement. Of course the Brits would be the first to bleed.

Just remember to tell the Marines you don't need their help.

what if they are steadfast in their belief and believe more intensly than you do

That is a tough one, but as long as there is no aggression on their part, non-violence must prevail on our part. That's what makes us better than them.

Iran Claims World's Fastest Torpedo

That's funny....I heard BLT's wife say he has the worlds fastest torpedo;^)

"You might if it incites the Shias in the south"

Nope, I really do not care.

"Just remember to tell the Marines you don't need their help."

That was said with tongue in cheek, but doesn't change the fact that in no way shape or form does the Army NEED the Marines, unless we are assaulting a beach head.

You know the quickest way to knock out a Marine is by throwing sand on a wall and telling them to hit the beach right?

I think I already told you that one.

-Cheers,
Walt

It's not going to matter how fast it can go, it will make so much noise the navy will see it coming from miles out. Plus, the iranian navy's vessels arent exactly "stealthy". Our navy is the most advanced in the world, not to mention Isreal's navy. This is alot of hot air...

Posted by boaz at 2006-04-03 08:03 AM | Reply

As a former Sonar Tech and Supervisor of the torpedo workshop aboard a destryoyer thoruhout the 90's, I can tell you that we havr nothing this fast. The fact that it's so noisy will alow us to pick it up further away, but there's still no out running it, only out manuevering....and thats basically a crapshoot.

The fact that there ships aren't stealthy makes no difference. My last deployment to the gulf (98) I got to see Iranian planes (US made P3's with US made harpoon anti-ship missles) that used to come out and buzz us everyday at noon. These planes can also deliver the torp.

"A nuke tip would be too heavy to use."

Actually nuke torpedos have been in our arsenal for 40 years.

Subroc and Asroc were nuke tipped depth charges.

Tactical weapons, but close is good enough to crush a submarine's hull or break the keel of a surface ship. Water is quite efficient in transmitting the shock waves.

Posted by OzarkAggie at 2006-04-03 09:55 AM | Reply

As of 94, we had the ASROC (AASW Rocket) launchers removed. The SH-60's do a much better job and it freed up space for our VLS (61 tomahawks). The nuke tipped torps were done away with because the ship that delivered them was alomost always damaged by the blast. The ship can't get far enough away, fast enough to escape damage.

As of 94, we had the ASROC (AASW Rocket) launchers removed. The SH-60's do a much better job and it freed up space for our VLS (61 tomahawks). The nuke tipped torps were done away with because the ship that delivered them was alomost always damaged by the blast. The ship can't get far enough away, fast enough to escape damage.

Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2006-04-03 02:29 PM

Well those nukes aren't small enough yet then, we need smaller ones that will still devastate our enemy. Why am I not on the payroll at the pentagon?

Walt-

My favorite Marine/Army joke:

This Marine, all messed up from Vietnam, went to the hospital to get checked. Because of the war, his brain was all scewed up, and all he could say was the words to the Marines hymn.


So the doctor asked his name, he replied, "From the halls of montezuma..."


The doctor decided to remove part of his brain, thinking that would cure it. When the doctor did this, the Marine still said "From the halls of montezuma..."


The doctor figured he did not remove enough of the brain. So after removing some more, the marine still only said those words.


The doctor, now getting frustrated, decided to take the rest of the brain out. Now the Marine, with no brain, stood up and started singing, "Be all that you can be..."

Oh gee let's negotiate with Iran. They seem like normal peace loving government.

"Oh gee let's negotiate with the US. They seem like normal peace loving government."

"Oh gee let's negotiate with the US. They seem like normal peace loving government."

Cock Starvis---

Can you name another government from the previous 80 years that has done more to maintain world peace?

Try not to confuse lame-ass attempts at moral equivalence with critical thinking.

The doctor, now getting frustrated, decided to take the rest of the brain out. Now the Marine, with no brain, stood up and started singing, "Be all that you can be..."

So then the Doc took out about half of what was left and the jarhead hollored "Megadittos!"

Stupid ass joke, devil dog! LOL

"As a former Sonar Tech and Supervisor of the torpedo workshop aboard a destryoyer thoruhout the 90's, I can tell you that we havr nothing this fast."

You people overestimate the military might of Iran, just like you did with Iraq and the taliban. I still highly doubt this scares our navy brass in anyway. If the soviets has this up to 20 or so years ago, then I am sure a deterrent to it has been thought of....

Mao,

While I would agree that the US has done much to maintain world peace, the Iranians seem to still have some problem with us ousting their democratically elected President in the early 1950's and replacing him with decades of cruel dictatorship.

(See "Operation AJAX", the first successful CIA overthrow of a democratically elected government.)

Of course, that was all about oil, not like now when.... er, nevermind!

You people overestimate the military might of Iran, just like you did with Iraq and the taliban.
So why are we still fighting them in Iraq and Afghanistan and why are they expanding, even as we decease in Afghanistan?
Any war with Iran will be like the current war with Iraq, only against a larger, more cohesive and better funded and armed enemy. We can bomb the hell out of them, but we'll pay in Iraq and around the world. And, of course, at the gas pump.

"You people overestimate the military might of Iran"

Saddam underestimated the willingness of the Iranians to die for their cause. What other army has human minesweepers?

But you may be right. Microwave technology produced false images on Soviet radars, so maybe that is also possible with sonar.

Even the older subs had noise makers to attract a passive array, but on the range our Mk 48's went active a very short time out of the tube. Active sonar would be harder to defeat.

I wouldn't want to be the one to gain a first impression of the results.

"Can you name another government from the previous 80 years that has done more to maintain world peace?"

You miss the point. Check into US-Iranian relations going back to the 1950s and tell me why the Iranians should trust us. Especially after Bush and his buddies destroyed any credibility we have in citing "intelligence" info to justify taking military action against another country.

Can you name another government from the previous 80 years that has done more to maintain world peace?
Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2006-04-03 05:29 PM | Reply

The government was run by relatively sane people for the last 80 years. That doesn't count the Bush II administration which is definitely not representative of the government we've had for the last 80 years. Even Bush I had enough sense not to go into Iraq when he had the chance. Why didn't Bush I go when he had the chance? Because he had no exit strategy.

"As a former Sonar Tech and Supervisor of the torpedo workshop aboard a destryoyer thoruhout the 90's, I can tell you that we havr nothing this fast."

You people overestimate the military might of Iran, just like you did with Iraq and the taliban. I still highly doubt this scares our navy brass in anyway. If the soviets has this up to 20 or so years ago, then I am sure a deterrent to it has been thought of....

Posted by boaz at 2006-04-03 05:50 PM | Reply

I never said this would worry the Brass nor did I 'overestimate' Irans capabiltiy. I know exactly what there ASW threat is. Does anyone here remember the USS Stark? Google it. What a disaster...they said it was an accident.

Alos, Iran has the Straights of Hormuz (the choke point into the persin Gulf) all locked up if they want to. The straights are only 12 miles across at the narrowest point and a land fired anti-ship missile is a mighty dangerous thing. I was only stating that we have nothing this fast. Fact is, subs are useless in the upper two thirds of the gulf. It's incredibly shallow there. I have no doubt that we would be able to defeat any ASW threat from Iran.

"Can you name another government from the previous 80 years that has done more to maintain world peace?"

Can you name the world's biggest arms dealer for the last several decades?

The Problem Is The Russian May Sell Them Subs.

Ozark,you know the Russians have been working on this Torpedo for years and the perfected it. Now to think Iran developed a similar Torpedo is Bullshit this is all Russian this is Putin making Money and Buddying up with them, just like China is.

We need to Keep Our Eyes On The Ball !!!

They Could Launch A Salvo Of These And It Being So Fast A Couple May Get Through.

We Have Not Lost A Carrier In 60 Years.

I'm Far From Being Happy About This !!!

-Sarge

"Check into US-Iranian relations going back to the 1950s and tell me why the Iranians should trust us."

Islam will never trust the west. We are counter to everything they represent. Islam will not rest until we are destroyed. You libs dont seem to see this. AND NO, WE CANNOT
LIVE SIDE BY SIDE WITH THEM, IT WILL ALWAYS BE WAR.

Boaz,
How are you doing? I read this yesterday and I smelled a Rat !!!

I don't trust them with any advanced weapons system.

They Talk Peace but always want to Kill and Destroy.

-Sarge

"Can you name another government from the previous 80 years that has done more to maintain world peace?"

Can you name the country that has launched the most military interventions in other countries and fought in more wars during the same period?