Should Iranian subs be dispatched towards the U.S. [Archive]

View Full Version : Should Iranian subs be dispatched towards the U.S.

Azarakash

02-20-2007, 05:13 PM

to attack mainland targets or be active in the Middle East if war occurs? I was thinking that the whole Oil crises is merely a joke that major oil corporations use to make larger profits. But Iran could attack off-shore oil drilling ports to cause an oil crises and environmantal disaster with in the United States. Plus Iran could also attack sensitive targets such as underground bases, N.O.R.A.D. and Area 51 targets. This would prevent the U.S. strength of nuclear retaliation.
Iran could also eliminate U.S. AEGIS damaging the American missile theatre system as well which would provide a window for North Korean missiles. If Iran launched cruise missiles at these targets it would create an internal State of Emergency.

Spartacus

02-20-2007, 05:50 PM

In my opinion, Iranian submarines shouldn't leave the area. When the situation gets really hot during early March, they must weigh anchors and leave port. They should sail across places like Gulf of Oman, Red Sea and Bab-el-Mandeb, always avoiding American ASW assets.

rabs

02-20-2007, 05:52 PM

AK54

02-20-2007, 06:07 PM

rabs

02-20-2007, 06:14 PM

was this part of your wet dream last night?

Why be disrespectful, why couldn't you of just said that the post had no basing in reality what so ever and move on. Why be insulting and immature, what does it accomplish.

Azarakash

02-20-2007, 06:19 PM

And your profanity riddled statement was any better?

AK54

02-20-2007, 06:23 PM

Why be disrespectful, why couldn't you of just said that the post had no basing in reality what so ever and move on. Why be insulting and immature, what does it accomplish.write a letter about it, sally.

TankHunter

02-20-2007, 10:15 PM

Good joke. Iran only has Klubs and the Kilo only has a 6,000 mile range. Considering that the short way to the US is some where near 9,000 + miles (disregarding the return trip) it would be impossible to get beyond Gibraltar with a Kilo.

JEskandari

02-21-2007, 12:08 AM

why send the sub to us when you can use them efectively its right that kilo clas submarine can carry missiles but their primary design was to operate perfectly and silently in shallow waters like persian gulf not the pacific or atlantic ocean when iran buy them it thought of its defence not to attack other countries if you look at their weapon you see they can fire torpedoes with the range of 40 mile which mean havoc in persian golf and sea of omman its best use in case of any war is to be used against american navy not to be sent 9000 mile away for an insignifant mission

JEskandari

02-21-2007, 01:46 AM

Pfft. Yeah. Right. the US Navy would eat them for lunch.what an stomach does they have any relation with goodzilla
thank god our navy havn't such stomach it only made some hole in your navy body for example with the diameter of 10 meter is it enough

Shahab-3

02-21-2007, 02:00 AM

the US Navy would eat them for lunch.

Subs... Lunch....umm I take Martadella with tomatoes and extra Jalopeneo! :biggrin1:

burster

02-21-2007, 04:33 AM

Azarakash,

Disregarding the range question, I think it would be inappropriate for Iran to send its diesel powered submarines to attack US assets in the United States. This would be considered an act of war and would ensure even greater destruction of Iran's infrastructure. Keep the subs closer to home where they can strike (in the limited time they have before being destroyed) at US naval assets. Remember, Iran cannot win a military war with the United States. It must win a _political_ war. So as long as it seems to draw blood and isn't wiped totally off the map, it can claim a victory.

to attack mainland targets or be active in the Middle East if war occurs? I was thinking that the whole Oil crises is merely a joke that major oil corporations use to make larger profits. But Iran could attack off-shore oil drilling ports to cause an oil crises and environmantal disaster with in the United States. Plus Iran could also attack sensitive targets such as underground bases, N.O.R.A.D. and Area 51 targets. This would prevent the U.S. strength of nuclear retaliation.
Iran could also eliminate U.S. AEGIS damaging the American missile theatre system as well which would provide a window for North Korean missiles. If Iran launched cruise missiles at these targets it would create an internal State of Emergency.

Kamistan

02-21-2007, 06:15 PM

what?

Your sense of reality is shallow at best.

NORAD is in the middle of the country UNDER A F'ING MOUNTAIN MEANT TO WITHSTAND NUCLEAR ATTACKS thats assuming you have any weapons capable of delivering that far inland, which you don't.

You talk about cruise missiles, what cruise missiles do you have that have that kind of range?

Attacking area 51? what?

Even if you wiped those two places off the map, the nuclear retaliation would still becoming, NORAD has nothing to do with Command and Control of US nuclear forces, there just the early warning station.

AEGIS? what? how are you going to attack that.

I cant even really respond to your post it made that little of sense.

See! now you made the liberal go mad , too. Area 51 would be interesting , but it would be too late or too early to attack it , given the base's purpose is to study enemy aircraft and test their own.(aircraft that won't be released for years to come).

Iran doesn't have enough submarines , and Iranian subs only serve best as a defensive force . Propaganda is a weapon . If you fire in their land , you can't charm them on the internet , as they now believe you're an actual threat which democrats and republicans would unite to fight.

If Area 51 is to reverse engineer alien craft , we shouldn't even bother .

o attack mainland targets or be active in the Middle East if war occurs? I was thinking that the whole Oil crises is merely a joke that major oil corporations use to make larger profits. But Iran could attack off-shore oil drilling ports to cause an oil crises and environmantal disaster with in the United States. Plus Iran could also attack sensitive targets such as underground bases, N.O.R.A.D. and Area 51 targets. This would prevent the U.S. strength of nuclear retaliation.
Iran could also eliminate U.S. AEGIS damaging the American missile theatre system as well which would provide a window for North Korean missiles. If Iran launched cruise missiles at these targets it would create an internal State of Emergency.

This is based on notorious sites , but not strategically picked sites which actually plan the attack . In fact , reports claim that florida was used to chose targets. To gather such information would require intelligence , and let's say Iranian intelligence would probably have more flaws than U.S (in terms of exposure to external intelligence agency) .

Face it , Iran has a bigger dissident population , whilst half of the U.S population simply disprove of the President's actions.

P.s . Can you make a response to AK54's question, the fellow Iranian. God help us all . Mainly Iran , as U.S is doing pretty fine.

View Post
Pfft. Yeah. Right. the US Navy would eat them for lunch.

Considering most pro-Iranian military posters ( about who will win u.s vs Iran in the Persian gulf) base their arguments on Iran being based their and having a good missile force , they would be wrong not to apply it to U.S land , which has a better missile force.

crod

02-21-2007, 09:41 PM

keep there and try use them as defence if(?) the time comes

Xerxes

02-21-2007, 10:10 PM

is this thread suppose to be a joke ... Iran sending its many subs toward US ,,, lol ...

why not mounting a full-scale invasion :roflmao3: . comeon guys be reasonible

Janbaz

02-21-2007, 10:57 PM

This Thread is wasting time. I think this Thread should be LOCKED.

Behrooz Boonabi

02-22-2007, 06:41 AM

There is no real need to send subs anyway. The US is more than vunrable. Could the security be worse? Hard to say but it could drasticly better. Too late anyway.

jawwal

02-22-2007, 09:47 AM

The subs should remain in the area, they are limited in numbers and range, and do as much damage as possible in case of war.

SS_Charlemagne

02-22-2007, 10:53 AM

The subs should remain in the area, they are limited in numbers and range, and do as much damage as possible in case of war.

A little offtopic: which is the total number of subs Iran has? I think between 6 and 9 (3-6 Kilos and 3 of another class I don't know). What about the new subs Iran makes?
Anyway, going on topic, I also think is a joke pretending Iran sends the subs towards US. Another think is if they can lauch sea-to-ground attacks with missiles against US bases in the zone (Gulf, Diego García...). AFAIK iranian subs can launch missiles, cannot? Look at this link:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20060830.aspx

Azarakash

02-22-2007, 01:14 PM

Iran has about 2 Kilos, 1 similia Iranian made one which gives 3. And about 4 miniature submarines. So about 7. Yep, that's why I asked. I agee their submarine fleet is too small but their MAY be critical points that a 1-time sub strike could do to hinder the enemy's strength. But I do agree that Iran's submarine force is small. Yet, If Iran did strikes against Norfolk naval base or NASA then it could cause great hinderence.

Azarakash

02-22-2007, 01:38 PM

24 people have voted in 2 days...............Of course it shouldn't be closed.

If Area 51 is to reverse engineer alien craft , we shouldn't even bother .
HAHA! I understand, but it's for the sole purpose of aliens and nothing to do with reverse-engineering or terrestrial weapons. It's impossible to test aircraft underground so one would have to be silly to think THAT is it's purpose. The F-22 Raptor was one of the most anticipated US weapons and it was tested off of California's coast..........Not underground..in Area-51.
Area-51 is a joint human-alien base but it is like an underground support system for 2 primary species of aliens. For certain Extraterrestrial entities. They actually conflict over their sometimes and the U.S. military last year laid 30,000 tonnes of explosives outside of Las Vegas to deal with the problem. A large cloud of smoke engulfed the City of Sin. It was these UFOs that the Iranian airdefence tried to shoot down over their nuke sites but couldn't.:huh2:

Iran has about 2 Kilos, 1 similia Iranian made one which gives 3. And about 4 miniature submarines. So about 7. Yep, that's why I asked. I agee their submarine fleet is too small but their MAY be critical points that a 1-time sub strike could do to hinder the enemy's strength. But I do agree that Iran's submarine force is small. Yet, If Iran did strikes against Norfolk naval base or NASA then it could cause great hinderence.
Iran has the US military covered in the region times 10. Maybe the submarines are best kept their for support. But then again, Iran could counter-strike U.S. nuclear sites in Surry County which would cause mass contamination, they could also strike docked ships simultaneously, Oit tankers to cause environmental disasters off of California coast, or attack off-shore U.S. oil-drilling ports. CERTAINLY, I am not talking about long-term operations because the sub fleet is TOO small for that but their are things Iran's subs can achieve afar. No one is talking like these foolish westerners that chatter 6,000 miles 9,000 miles. That's NONESENSE. We are not talking transporting troops from point to point. But if Iran acquires or have cruise missiles with an extravagant range or great SLBMs such as RSM-54s, then logically, Iran should do a quick 1-time strike against oil ports, Area-51, N.A.S.A. bases, N.O.R.A.D., Hoover's Dam as well as media outlets. Who ever said Iran should sail the coast of the U.S. ? Who ever said Iran should do a non-stop 1-way trip? No one. Of course they should plan to stop. Ideally in Morocco, refuel again in venezuela and head North. Iran already has the US navy covered with all sorts of gadgets.:smile1:

Hell......................If things really come down to it, Iran should rent a Russian Akula Class submarine and then Iran can fur sure carry out such attacks.

TankHunter

02-22-2007, 01:45 PM

A little offtopic: which is the total number of subs Iran has? I think between 6 and 9 (3-6 Kilos and 3 of another class I don't know). What about the new subs Iran makes?
Anyway, going on topic, I also think is a joke pretending Iran sends the subs towards US. Another think is if they can lauch sea-to-ground attacks with missiles against US bases in the zone (Gulf, Diego García...). AFAIK iranian subs can launch missiles, cannot? Look at this link:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20060830.aspx

You dont know a whole lot about the Klub do you?

AK54

02-22-2007, 02:46 PM

24 people have voted in 2 days...............Of course it shouldn't be closed.
HAHA! I understand, but it's for the sole purpose of aliens and nothing to do with reverse-engineering or terrestrial weapons. It's impossible to test aircraft underground so one would have to be silly to think THAT is it's purpose. The F-22 Raptor was one of the most anticipated US weapons and it was tested off of California's coast..........Not underground..in Area-51.
Area-51 is a joint human-alien base but it is like an underground support system for 2 primary species of aliens. For certain Extraterrestrial entities. They actually conflict over their sometimes and the U.S. military last year laid 30,000 tonnes of explosives outside of Las Vegas to deal with the problem. A large cloud of smoke engulfed the City of Sin. It was these UFOs that the Iranian airdefence tried to shoot down over their nuke sites but couldn't.:huh2:

Iran has about 2 Kilos, 1 similia Iranian made one which gives 3. And about 4 miniature submarines. So about 7. Yep, that's why I asked. I agee their submarine fleet is too small but their MAY be critical points that a 1-time sub strike could do to hinder the enemy's strength. But I do agree that Iran's submarine force is small. Yet, If Iran did strikes against Norfolk naval base or NASA then it could cause great hinderence.
Iran has the US military covered in the region times 10. Maybe the submarines are best kept their for support. But then again, Iran could counter-strike U.S. nuclear sites in Surry County which would cause mass contamination, they could also strike docked ships simultaneously, Oit tankers to cause environmental disasters off of California coast, or attack off-shore U.S. oil-drilling ports. CERTAINLY, I am not talking about long-term operations because the sub fleet is TOO small for that but their are things Iran's subs can achieve afar. No one is talking like these foolish westerners that chatter 6,000 miles 9,000 miles. That's NONESENSE. We are not talking transporting troops from point to point. But if Iran acquires or have cruise missiles with an extravagant range or great SLBMs such as RSM-54s, then logically, Iran should do a quick 1-time strike against oil ports, Area-51, N.A.S.A. bases, N.O.R.A.D., Hoover's Dam as well as media outlets. Who ever said Iran should sail the coast of the U.S. ? Who ever said Iran should do a non-stop 1-way trip? No one. Of course they should plan to stop. Ideally in Morocco, refuel again in venezuela and head North. Iran already has the US navy covered with all sorts of gadgets.:smile1:

Hell......................If things really come down to it, Iran should rent a Russian Akula Class submarine and then Iran can fur sure carry out such attacks.
i am absolutely blown away :roflmao3:

why doesnt iran just destroy NYC and the white house while they're at it? i mean it'd be so easy right?

you are so beyond insane if you truly believe the iranian navy alone could defeat the USN.

KingoftheHill

02-22-2007, 03:26 PM

No...not if they want to come back alive at least.

JEskandari

02-22-2007, 04:41 PM

i am absolutely blown away :roflmao3:

why doesnt iran just destroy NYC and the white house while they're at it? i mean it'd be so easy right?

you are so beyond insane if you truly believe the Iranian navy alone could defeat the USN.
because white house isn't in NYC Its in Washington DC. and why send subs there for the work its to expensive they can send some mortar and then shell white house i think its easier because the subs are bound to be found and they were not designed for ocean they designed to work well inside the environment like Persian Golf every nation go after its need Pakistan went after agosta class subs Iran went after kilo class . and who want destroy USN .

WGREE2

02-22-2007, 05:16 PM

JEskandari

02-22-2007, 06:01 PM

Would never happen. If Iran ever sent subs into US waters, they would be disregarding United States sovereignty and therefore it would be an official declaration of war. I would immagine the public would be pretty pissed if they found out that Iranian subs were sneaking about.
its useless to send subs because you can make the harms to mainland with the cheaper means. but about the sovereignty there is some technical problem you can put them 20 miles from the shore and they are in international water and no one can tell them what are you doing here but they maybe a little irritating for the public but they cant do anything about it. if they do any attack on that subs it means they attacked on iran and started thewar but as i say its useless to send the subs there because giving them supplies are very hard and in case of any war its near impossible to give them any protection.

AK54

02-22-2007, 06:52 PM

because white house isn't in NYC Its in Washington DC. and why send subs there for the work its to expensive they can send some mortar and then shell white house i think its easier because the subs are bound to be found and they were not designed for ocean they designed to work well inside the environment like Persian Golf every nation go after its need Pakistan went after agosta class subs Iran went after kilo class . and who want destroy USN .mortars huh? do these mortars have a 10 000+ km range? :roflmao3:

Azarakash

02-22-2007, 06:53 PM

Iran could still hit the U.S. from Africa's coastline if it acquires the RSM-54. I damn sure wouldn't let it slip. They wouldn't be able to strike oil ports but at the very least space agencies, military structures and underground bases. As a matter of fact, all Iran has to do is use certain missiles from submarines to disable these targets.:)
Their submarines could stay in the region but still attack U.S. mainland targets that have never been struck before. The general idea is to cause insecurity amongst the inner-circles, high-profile agents and top military officials. Iran is capable of THAT from the Middle east.

JEskandari

02-22-2007, 07:09 PM

mortars huh? do these mortars have a 10 000+ km range? :roflmao3:
no these mortars have the range of 3 to 4 km they are excellent to fire from backyards at nights from the border of the cities in fact they can be fired from every where, even from a boat .and you think how hard its to obtain such thing in America or even smuggle them in to US.

AK54

02-22-2007, 07:15 PM

no these mortars have the range of 3 to 4 km they are excellent to fire from backyards at nights from the border of the cities in fact they can be fired from every where, even from a boat .and you think how hard its to obtain such thing in America or even smuggle them in to US.
this isnt a 3rd world country. people would notice.

Azarakash

02-22-2007, 07:20 PM

and you think how hard its to obtain such thing in America or even smuggle them in to US.Considering the difficulty, there should be alternative plans as well.

JEskandari

02-22-2007, 08:29 PM

this isnt a 3rd world country. people would notice.
the problem is its not the 3th world country in 3th world countries people are curious about each other but in countries like USA in many places they even wont know their neighbors name and its not necessary you fire them from a place others saw and believe me it wont take 5 minute to install mortars fire for example 10 shell and collect the mortar then go to another place and do the same and think what you can do against some police they may send to investigate any report if there be any with military grade weapon like let say g3 ,or better than that dragonove or something like that if you have a grenade luncher with you you can toast them with a single shot and before they understand what have happened you are not there even . human mind work strangely when it come to the destruction make anarchy and so be assured of it.

Power_Serj

02-22-2007, 08:54 PM

Your suggesting a sleeper cell in US? Good, then it will be hunting season, every season. I'm already armed.

rabs

02-22-2007, 08:54 PM

If a group of young arab men start launching gernades in American cities, your going to have a man hunt on your hands. With a lot of innocent Muslims in America getting hurt.

JEskandari

02-22-2007, 09:21 PM

Your suggesting a sleeper cell in US? Good, then it will be hunting season, every season. I'm already armed.
Hunting season . start hunting , the point is you start the war then america wont be safe anymore . you think this war be like other wars you played only in the land of others.

JEskandari

02-22-2007, 09:30 PM

If a group of young arab men start launching gernades in American cities, your going to have a man hunt on your hands. With a lot of innocent Muslims in America getting hurt.
the point is you want to hurt innocent people in this part of the world so these people may decide to show your people what it means to live in the war period think that if they only target power planet in us how hard it will be get for American who know no other way of life think how it be that some of the missiles that hamas use hit an oil refinery in America . or simple how you feel that when you are in street a bomb blow in a machine 2 meter away. you may say its terrorism but what difference is between the delivery system you want to use b-2 and b-52 to deliver bombs or use cars and bags and ...
all of them are the same wont you think if you punch others you must be ready to be punched . its part of the newton laws.

VTevaD

02-22-2007, 10:05 PM

Behrooz Boonabi

02-22-2007, 10:27 PM

Ask yourself one question: Iran fought Iraq for 6 or 7 years to a stalemate and could not take out Saddam Hussein. The USA came halfway around the world and did it in 2 weeks. Think about it when you talk of "trading punches"..:wink1:

Iraq's army was disbanded when the US invaded.

Iran's military is far more sophisticated than it was 15 years ago.

Iran did not have much equipment during war with Iraq.

Iran has a massive arsinal now.

JEskandari

02-22-2007, 10:44 PM

Ask yourself one question: Iran fought Iraq for 6 or 7 years to a stalemate and could not take out Saddam Hussein. The USA came halfway around the world and did it in 2 weeks. Think about it when you talk of "trading punches"..:wink1:
please study about the condition of iraq army at the year 1980 and then the year 2003 please study about the condition of iran military at the year 1980 and then the year 2007 please study about the condition of iran and iraq war and after that study about the condition of iraq since 1993 till 2003. then if you like post such childish quotes .

JDAM

02-23-2007, 02:12 AM

I would love to see an Iranian sub try to get close to the US shoreline.

SS_Charlemagne

02-23-2007, 03:26 AM

You dont know a whole lot about the Klub do you?

Yeah, I don't know. That's why I ask. For what I've read, is an anti-ship system. But the link I posted talks also about sea to ground missiles...

TankHunter

02-23-2007, 12:26 PM

Yeah, I don't know. That's why I ask. For what I've read, is an anti-ship system. But the link I posted talks also about sea to ground missiles...

Eek. My mistake. The version that I am used to are the ASUW version. I just found out that there is a land attack version of it. I would assume that Iran has the anti-shipping variant (without first doing a search to see if that is the case). Apparently there is one with a torpedo in the nose of it. So I don’t know very much about the thing…

Native

02-23-2007, 12:48 PM

First off, the Kilo is a good submarine. Modern diesel submarines are hard to detect.

The main problem with an Iranian sub attempting to transit to the U.S. would be supply. Very few countries are good at supplying their naval vessels underway. Even the Soviets ran into this problem.

While accoustically a Kilo may be hard to track, it would have to surface occasionally for navigation and supplies. It would be tracked at a minimum everytime it used electronics and pulled into a port for supplies.

Now tactically/strategically there would be no reason to do it except for Iran to be able to say they did it.

SS_Charlemagne

02-23-2007, 12:50 PM

Eek. My mistake. The version that I am used to are the ASUW version. I just found out that there is a land attack version of it. I would assume that Iran has the anti-shipping variant (without first doing a search to see if that is the case). Apparently there is one with a torpedo in the nose of it. So I don’t know very much about the thing…

Is ok, man. I only pointed an hypothesis. Anyway, if somebody here knows more about Klub or other systems on the iranian subs, please post it... :)

Azarakash

02-23-2007, 04:08 PM

If a group of young arab men start launching gernades in American cities, your going to have a man hunt on your hands. With a lot of innocent Muslims in America getting hurt.

That's not true. This didn't keep Russian KGB agents from walking U.S. soil with nuclear suit-cases. That sort of racial attack did not occur to Arabs after the historic incident of 9/11 and it didn't happen to blacks after the O.J. trial. Both of which could have lead to such vigilante behaviour. But you are considering something to think about. After 9/11 the MSNBC news agency recieved a 'chilling' letter from white supremacists that this is the white race's opportunity to take their country back. That's more in Iran's league right their.

Iran can disable the United States in precise attacks that wouldn't lead to your claims, but instead would throw the United States population into mayhem. In the event of an attack against Iran, Iran certainly has bigger plans that walking into a McDonalds with a suicide bomb. Iran, ideally, will should stimulate angst amongst Americans first through attacks. The white population wouldn't do jack and blacks are in the Arab corner so it's not like America even have friends within.

If Iran could rent a Russian submarine, they could do attacks AFTER their agents attack so as to cause great fear amongst the US citizens. This is what Hazbollah did to israel which caused mass migration southward. Detroying power, even
detroying garbage-truck garages would cause desperation. The only thing important is the size of the explosion. Iran could very well bomb-lace New York's sewer-line with high explosives and detonate around mid-day which would upset transit, cause population fear and near a city-wide shutdown. With 20,000 lbs of explovies Iran could destroy a good portion of the JFK airport as well as LAX. The mayhem caused would anger left-wing whites to take up arms against the government as theyw anted to after 9/11.

JEskandari

02-23-2007, 09:19 PM

I would love to see an Iranian sub try to get close to the US shoreline.
if the sub wont pass the 20 mile line from the shore america cannot do anything about it because its in the international water you attack it and its like you announced war to iran it means that you are aggressor and iran has the right to retaliate as it like. but as i said sending such a sub there has no strategic benefit it would only have psychological effect in USA and Iran and supplying it would be too difficult if the supply sent for it from iran.

Azarakash

02-24-2007, 02:17 PM

have psychological effect in USA and Iran and supplying it would be too difficult if the supply sent for it from iran.
That's my main point! Iran could throw the population into fear with close-range attacks from submarines. The agents are cool but be serious. It's best to cause a stampeding herd and then slaughter them as they flee, knowing they will not identify the operative.
Iran needs not a long-term operation but a good modern submarine carries atleast 75 missiles which is more thamn what Iran need for such attacks.:)

AK54

02-24-2007, 03:34 PM

That's my main point! Iran could throw the population into fear with close-range attacks from submarines. The agents are cool but be serious. It's best to cause a stampeding herd and then slaughter them as they flee, knowing they will not identify the operative.
Iran needs not a long-term operation but a good modern submarine carries atleast 75 missiles which is more thamn what Iran need for such attacks.:)
so...after these subs get past the strongest navy in the world, and attack important targets in the US; sending it into "chaos", then what?

invade the mainland and conquer washington? :wub2:

im beginning to think you're just going along with this joke for the sake of argument.

Divine Light

03-02-2007, 05:17 PM

As the time near, Iranian subs must be practicing for warfare.

Native

03-02-2007, 05:31 PM

As the time near, Iranian subs must be practicing for warfare.

Actually Iranian subs should be practicing for warfare constantly, not just as wartime nears. It's a little late then.

Azaraksh 2(I've Returned)

03-05-2007, 08:24 PM

I tried to post link(s) but I need 30 posts before I can post link(s).

sacred defence

03-06-2007, 06:24 AM

i just want to add my opinion, just for the sake of it, i voted yes, but in reality they have only 3 subs, but wouldnt it be great just for iran to sail up to either the east or west coast in int'l waters mind you, and just for the f**king fun of it piss the pants off america, and let them feel how it feels to be intimidated and unwelcome.

JEskandari

03-07-2007, 09:42 AM

so...after these subs get past the strongest navy in the world, and attack important targets in the US; sending it into "chaos", then what?

invade the mainland and conquer washington? :wub2:

im beginning to think you're just going along with this joke for the sake of argument.

each navy has its weakness and why attack mainland whats the use of it let only make some unrest by let them know they are there but how many times i must say kilo class submarine is designed to work best in environments like persian golf and sea of omman not oceans.

AK54

03-07-2007, 04:18 PM

each navy has its weakness and why attack mainland whats the use of it let only make some unrest by let them know they are there but how many times i must say kilo class submarine is designed to work best in environments like persian golf and sea of omman not oceans.
theres a nuclear bomb sitting at the bottom of the ocean off the coast of where i live...if that doesnt make unrest here, i dont think a couple puny subs will :wub2:

Bella

03-24-2007, 01:49 AM

If you want to! go ahead! they'll be pick off lick flies!!

JEskandari

03-24-2007, 10:30 PM

theres a nuclear bomb sitting at the bottom of the ocean off the coast of where i live...if that doesnt make unrest here, i dont think a couple puny subs will :wub2:

because nuclear bombs wont go off by pass of the time and if its at the bottom of ocean there is nothing to worry water act as shield.

JAWilliams

03-28-2007, 11:39 PM

There will be not war! Guys quit

VTevaD

03-29-2007, 07:37 AM

There will be not war! Guys quit
I hope not - but if Iran DOES attack, it will pull together the USA in a big hurry and Iran will be in BIG trouble at that point.. Stop kidding yourselves(and stop hanging out with the puppet state that is North Korea)..

Iranian Guards

03-29-2007, 09:27 AM

they must stay in the PERSIAN gulf and protect Iran

sacred defence

03-29-2007, 01:10 PM

most definately, just so to put the wind up their sails, and let them see what it feels like to come into their turf.

AK54

03-29-2007, 03:33 PM

most definately, just so to put the wind up their sails, and let them see what it feels like to come into their turf.
what turf? when youre the USN, the world is your turf :laugh4:

JEskandari

03-29-2007, 08:56 PM

I hope not - but if Iran DOES attack, it will pull together the USA in a big hurry and Iran will be in BIG trouble at that point.. Stop kidding yourselves(and stop hanging out with the puppet state that is North Korea)..

Iran attack ,its new to me the problem is if USA does attack it will be in deeper swamp than Vietnam .

JEskandari

03-29-2007, 08:58 PM

what turf? when youre the USN, the world is your turf :laugh4:

but sometimes this turf may have some reef .

JAWilliams

03-31-2007, 02:55 PM

Do you have any idea how good US ASW is, when Russian Brass wanted to know where there subs are they would ask Where are the P-3s ?

Bella

04-01-2007, 12:11 AM

Iran could rent atleast 2 Russian submarines. That's very cheap and would be almost immediate. The Indians do it. They rent Russian equipment until they purchase things in there place. My argument isn't Iran should have massive submarine forces fighting abroad, but that Iran needs 2-3 submarines to damage the United States secret support systems. Iran has the Middle east covered and it honestly appears that the Iran has the United States in a position of over-kill if war breaks out.

Iran could set back the United States all-around strength by attacking certain support and tech centers as well as Naval bases. If Iran destroys San Diego Naval base, Norfolk Naval base(world's largest) much would be be accomplished militarily and psychologically to the U.S. military and citizens. Also, much underground politicians reside in Boston, San Diego, Norfolk & New York.

If Iran rents around 2 Akula Class submarines then they could destroy N.O.R.A.D., Naval bases, Langley Airforce base, N.A.S.A. bases, propaganda outlets such as MSNBC, FOX as well, Hoover's Dam, H.A.A.R.P., U.S off-shore Mexican Gulf oil sites, Nuclear-weapons storage sites which would release mists of poisonous winds, The U.S. Supreme Court, JFK Airport/LAX Airport as well as Dulce Airport (to hinder International tourist visits), The Empire State Building, Statue of Liberty, the Senate Building and the North-East/Mid-West power-grids and probably even the place were dollar bills are produced.

All of the listed targets are great actually achievable from just one submarine! And are certainly power-points of the nation. If Iran could attack these areas the U.S. would be set back the U.S. military stability as an effective Pearl Harbor would have, it would damage America's own dollar strength, attacking prapaganda-outlets and historical sites before a nation-wide power-outage would chill Americans and an attack on Nuclear weapons storage sites would have the best effect of radioactive contamination and mass migration for fear of radiation which would spread nation-wide.

The power-outages obviously would work as darkness provides the best cover for Iranian agents rather than have those brave/bold agents do all of the destruction with no aid. No cover. The submarines could wipe them out so that it cause a Domino-effect amongst the citizens.

The United States have a very complex E.T./human space program which is at the core of it all. It is this which helped spring the board for plasma-stealth technology. U.F.Os travel by riding gravity-lines instead of air. When a U.F.O. rides gravity lines it generates a stream of plasma and the plasma dissolves radiation causing UFOs to appear and dissapear as 'blips.' ETs were at 1st reluctant to share their propulsion tech but were easier with sharing a simulated generation of plasma. The N.A.S.A. program is NOT IN VAIN! They don't spend hundreds of Billions of Dollars a year on N.A.S.A. just to star gaze. E.T./human bases in Arizona, New Mexico(one buing built now next to Las Cruces) are inter-species research centers which empowers U.S. military-weapons research. If this can be distabilized, pretty much the tower will roll tumbling down. N.A.S.A. even generate anti-matter which is so powerful, that one tablespoon is equal to 1,000 Atom Bombs. But the Anti-matter is used to generate aerial vehicles for the entities at the secret bases.

Iranian submarines could destroy a large part of United States power-structure in every aspect with a properly planned BM & CM strike against much valued U.S. power-plants, military sites and E.T./human military/research bases. They must be destroyed at the core for them to unravel. Destroying the Empire State Building and the Statue of Liberty would send the message deep. At the same time the U.S. would not be able to do anything about it.

sounds like you got it all figured out! go for it!

VTevaD

04-01-2007, 08:29 AM

Oriellien

04-01-2007, 07:45 PM

JEskandari

04-01-2007, 07:46 PM

:roflmao3: HAHA HOHO HEEHEE - you have GOT to big kidding!!! "Rent Russian subs and take out San Diego and the Statue if Liberty"?? What fantasy-land DO you people live in?? Personally I hope Iran DOES attack us, I really do - the partisan squabbling will stop IMMEDIATELY as the entire country pulls together. You will be crushed then. Saddam kicked the crap out of you for 8 years, we took his entire infrastructure out in TWO WEEKS. Does that not tell you something? "Rent Subs" :roflmao3: What will you do, rent a DVD that tells you how to operate them? :laugh4: How do you expect all that other North Korean military hardware crap you bought from the chia head will work? (Thats the guy who starves his own people while he drinks cognac and drives Mercedes fleets - and IRAN helps support him!) (Memo to moderator: before you "discipline" me for this, consider that fact that my country is being threatened here without ANY provocation- right to respond, ThankYouVeryMuch:) )
HAHAhohoHOHOheeheeHaHAHAhohoHOHOheeHAHAhohoHOHOheeHAHAhohoHO HOheeHAHAhohoHOHOheeHAHAhohoHOHOheeHAHAhohoHOHOheeHAHAhohoHO HOheeHAHAhohoHOHOhee
wont you think being so furious is not good for your health , as its so obvious that Russia wont rent its sub to attack anywhere .
and whats the use of such attack on liberty statue because there are many terrorist round the world that can easily;y be manipulated to do such attack at lower costs .
and about kicking the crap out of somebody we fought eight year against Saddam which had all the support of east and west all the financial support of Arab world all the intelligence support of us even Europe and us gave him the must deadly of chemical weapon and the best of their weapon to him and we only could weapon from where , Libya . but where it got him he was so broke after the war that for not paying its dept and gather more money he had to attack Kuwait
and you destroyed its infrastructure after getting all of his weapon from him. the useless weapon he couldn't use without your technicians.
HAHAhohoHOHOheeheeHaHAHAhohoHOHOheeHAHAhohoHOHOheeHAHAhohoHO HOheeHAHAhohoHOHOheeHAHAhohoHOHOheeHAHAhohoHOHOheeHAHAhohoHO HOheeHAHAhohoHOHOhee

JEskandari

04-01-2007, 08:08 PM

Iran would be a glowing wasteland for a few hundred years if they did anything like that Mr. Dragon, no matter what retaliation the rest of the world might do. Unless they magicially destroy every single ICMB too.

Akula's arent very advanced nowadays either, id be suprised if they got close enough.
as it seems you wont know much about acula class submarines its a little help.
Project 971 Shuka-B
Akula class
Attack Submarine (Nuclear Powered)

The Project 971 Shuka-B attack submarine multi-purpose submarine is capable of strikes against groups of hostile ships and against coastal installations. Designated the "Akula" class by the West, the submarine is officially designated Project 971 Shuka B (shuka is an aggressive breed of fresh water pike). Some 110 meters long, the Akula is double-hulled with considerable distance between the outer and inner hulls to reduce the possible damage to the inner hull. The hull is constructed of low magnetic steel, and divided into eight compartments, and features a distinctive high aft fin. The Project 971, using a steel hull, was initiated in 1976 when it became evident that existing industrial infrastructure was inadequate to mass produce the expensive titanium hulls of the Project 945 Sierra class. The performance of the Project 971 boats was a close approximation to that of the Project 945 design, though the later was significantly more expensive to build and maintain. It has 650 mm and 533 mm torpedo tubes which can use mines as well as Granat cruise missiles, antisubmarine missiles, and torpedoes. The submarines feature double hull construction, dramatically increasing the reserve buoyancy of the submarine by as much as three times over that of a single hull craft. Ballast tanks and other gear are located between the inner and outer hulls, and limber holes are provided for the free-flooding sections between the hulls. Akula class submarines incorporate limber hole covers that can be closed to reduce or eliminate this source of unwanted noise.
Built to engage surface task forces and coastal facilities, the Akula submarine design was under constant upgrade. NATO designated the Project 971 boats as Akula I, and the Project 971U as "Improved Akula I" while Project 971A was designated Akula II. According to some reports the 'Akula-II' class has a 3.7 meter longer hull to accomdate a quieter propulsion system. There is some non-trivial disagreement between authoritative sources as to launch and commission dates for all units, as well as which units are 'Improved Akula' vs. 'Akuka-II'.
The Akula is the quietest Russian nuclear submarine ever designed, and the low noise levels came as a surprise to Western intelligence. Russia claims the Akula is the quietest of its domestically built submarines and is fitted with acoustic countermeasure equipment. Noise reduction efforts include rafting the propulsion plant, anechoic tiles on the outside and inside of the hulls and possibly other measures such as active noise cancellation. Nonetheless, the American Improved Los Angeles class retained a decisive edge in silencing compared to the Akuka I. The Project 971A Akula II incorporated an improved double layer silencing system for the power train. According to Russian sources, this variant had noise emissions that were roughly the level of a basic Los Angeles and that of the Improved Los Angeles at slow speeds. At medium or high speeds the Improved Los Angeles design retains an acoustic advantage according to Russian sources. The Project 971 uses advanced sound insulation techniques that may not withstand Russian service conditions, and it may actually be noiser than earlier designs using more basic quieting technologies if poorly built or improperly maintained. The Project 971 is said by Russian sources to be at a distinct disadvantage in sensors, with a sonar suite that is roughly one-third as sensitive as the Los Angeles, able to track only two targets simultaneously (as opposed to the multiple target tracking capabilities of the American system).
The Akula can launch a range of anti-submarine and anti-surface vessel torpedoes. The submarine has eight torpedo launch tubes, four 650 millimetre and four 533 millimetre tubes. The Improved Akula and Akula II have ten, with six 533 mm tubes. The four 650 mm tubes can be fitted with liners to provide additional 533 mm weapon launch capacity. The torpedo tubes can be used to launch mines instead of torpedoes. The Akula Class carry up to twelve Granat submarine launched cruise missiles. The missiles are fired from four 533 mm torpedo launch tubes. The submarine's anti-ship missiles are the Novator SS-N-15 Starfish and the Novator SS-N-16 Stallion and an air defence capability is provided by the Strela SA-N-5/8 portable missile launcher with 18 missiles.
The main propulsion machinery consists of a VM-5 pressure water reactor with a model OK-650 b high-density reactor core rated at 190 MW with a GT3A turbine developing 35 MW. Some sources credit Akula with two reactors, but it appears that the Akula has only one reactor, as opposed to older Russian subs, which had two. Two auxiliary diesels rated at 750 hp provide emergency power. The propulsion system drives a seven bladed fixed pitch propeller. The propulsion system provides a maximum submerged speed of 33 knots and a surface speed of 10 knots. A reserve propeller system, powered by two motors rated at 370 kw, provides a speed of 3 to 4 knots. The submarine is rated for a diving depth to 600 meters. The submarine carries sufficient supplies for an endurance of 100 days and is operated by a complement of 73 crew.
The submarines were built by the Amur Shipbuilding Plant Joint Stock Company at Komsomolsk-on-Amur and at the Severodvinsk shipbuilding yard. Output of Akula submarines remained steady at one-to-two a year until 1995. Eight Akula class submarines were built in Komsomolsk until activities there ceased in 1993. All sources are in agreement that a total of seven Akula I submarines were built [though there is some dispute as to whether K-461 Volk or K-480 Bars is an Akula I or an Improved Akula I]. These boats were all commissioned between 1985-86 and 1992. The prototype K-284 was decommissioned in 1995 to avoid the expense of a reactor refueling, and is generally not expected to return to service. According to some sources, at least one and perhaps as many as three Akula-Is were placed in reserve status in the late 1990s.
At least two and perhaps as many as four Improved Akulas entered service between 1992 and 1995. An additional Improved Akula I [K.267 Drakon] was launched in 1994 and delivered to the Russian Navy in 1995, though subsequently repossessed by the shipyard due to lack of payment. The boat reportedly remained in the possession of the Komsomolosk yard, which was said to be trying to sell her. According to some sources at least one [and probably two] additional Akula-Is remained undelivered [and almost certainly largely unfinished] at Komsomol'sk-na-Amur.
The status of the Akula II program is less certain, with at least one authoritative source maintaining that this class has yet to put to sea. The Vepr [which is probably an Akula II] was launched in December 1994 and according to some sources was commissioned in 1995. The Gepard was laid down in 1991, with the sub scheduled to enter active service in 1996. In fact, Gepard is still in the yard, and has been renamed Belgograd. The sub's crew was scheduled to arrive on board in early 1998 while the boat was still under construction. At least two and perhaps as many as four more Akula II units are being built. As of early-1999 there were at least two unfinished Project 971A Akula-IIs in the building halls at Severodvinsk [probably the ex-Gepard Belgograd and the Kuguar]. No completion date is projected, but they appeared unlikely to be completed before 2001.
The active submarines of this class are in restricted service to conserve their remaining reactor core lives. There are at least eight Akula submarines currently operational, and by some estimates the number of Akulas in active service may be as great as eleven. At least three more units [and possibly as many as five] remain under construction, and their completion could bring the total inventory to as many as fifteen boats by the end of the decade.
Specifications

Classification: Podvodnaya Lodka Atomnaya (PLA)
Nuclear Powered Submarine Designer: G.N. Chernyshev at Malakhit Builders: Zavod imeni Leninskiy Komsomol, Komsolol'sk-na-Amur
Sevmashpredpriyatiye, Severodvinshk
Displacement (tons): 5,700-7,500 tons Surfaced
7,900-9,100 tons Submerged
7,900-9,500 tons Submerged - Akula II
Speed (kts): 20 knots surfaced
28-35 knots submerged Operating Depth 1,475 feet Maximum Safe Depth
1,804 feet Never-Exceed Depth
1,970-2,160 feet Crush depth Dimensions (m): 108.0 meters long
111.7 meters long
13.5 meters beam
9.6 meters draft Propulsion: 1 190 MW OK-650B pressurized water nuclear reactor
1 OK-7 steam turbine 43,000 shp
2 OK-2 Turbogenerators rated at 2,000kw
1 7 bladed propeller Endurance 4,500 full power hours
80 days stores edurance Crew: 51-62 [25 officers / 26 enlisted] Armament: Missiles: 21 /81R (SS-N-15) or Vodopad (SS-N-16)
Torpedoes: total of 40 weapons 4 21-in (533-mm) torpedo tubes
4 26-in (650-mm) torpedo tubes (bow)
6 external tubes
Systems: Chiblis Surface Search Radar
Medvyedista-945 Navigation system
Molniya-M Satellite communications
MGK-80 (?) Underwater communications
Tsunami, Kiparis, Anis, Sintez and Kora Communications antennas
Paravan Towed VLF Antenna
Vspletsk Combat direction system
Sonars MGK-503-M Skat active/passive suite
Akula flank arrays
Pelamida towed array
MG-70 mine detection sonar
Countermeasures Bukhta ESM/ECM
2 MG-74 Korund noise simulation decoys (torpedo-sized)
MT-70 Sonar intercept receiver
Nikhrom-M IFF

and for the missiles.

Intermediate range cruise missile. Year: 1987. IOC: 1987. Family: Soviet Strategic Cruise Missiles (http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/sovsiles.htm). Country: Russia. The Granat SLCM was designed for use with Project 671 submarines. The RK-55 was a land-based version. Full deployment of the land-based version was cancelled as a result of the INF Treaty. According to treaty declarations, 84 missiles and 6 launchers had been completed by 1987. All were destroyed at Yelgav under the treaty by 1989. The original naval missile was developed by SKB Novator under designer L V Lyulyev and was known in the west as the SS-C-4 Shipwreck. Flight trials were conducted in 1982-1986. Guidance was by inertial navigation with terminal homing. The INS was designed by A S Abramov at NIIP. Cruise speed at 200 m altitude was between Mach 0.7 and Mach 0.9.

[I]Model: Granat. Intermediate range cruise missile. IOC: 1987. Country: Russia. Department of Defence Designation: SS-N-21. ASCC Reporting Name: Sampson. Article Number: 3K10. Launch System: Granat. Complex: 3K10. Missile: 3M10. SLCM. Naval-launched version.

Manufacturer: Novator NPO. Location: Ekaterinburg, Russian Federation. Total Mass: 1,700 kg (3,700 lb). Core Diameter: 0.44 m (1.44 ft). Total Length: 8.05 m (26.41 ft). Span: 3.11 m (10.20 ft). Maximum range: 3,000 km (1,800 mi). Boost Propulsion: Solid rocket. Cruise Propulsion: Turbojet. Guidance: Inertial. Maximum speed: 810 kph (500 mph).
Model: RK-55. Intermediate range cruise missile. IOC: 1987. Country: Russia. Department of Defence Designation: SSC-4. ASCC Reporting Name: Slingshot. Article Number: 3M10. Manufacturer's Designation: RK-55. Complex: RK-55. Missile: 3M10. Land-based version. Banned under INF.

Total Mass: 1,700 kg (3,700 lb). Core Diameter: 0.51 m (1.67 ft). Total Length: 8.09 m (26.54 ft). Span: 0.51 m (1.67 ft). Maximum range: 2,900 km (1,800 mi). Number Standard Warheads: 1. Standard warhead yield: 200 KT. Boost Propulsion: Solid rocket. Cruise Propulsion: Turbofan. Guidance: Inertial + Terrain Correlation. Maximum speed: 970 kph (600 mph).

Oriellien

04-01-2007, 08:12 PM

And they would have to deal with equally advanced Los Angelas class (which are sub-hunters, Akula's are not) to get past, your point? Iran would still be nuked if they attacked targets like that.

JAWilliams

04-02-2007, 07:12 PM

Dragon how much sea time do you have? Maybe study a little Naval History, the USN is the ultimate power on the oceans of the world. In a blue water engagement two subs v. The USN and USCG give me a break. Once a sub fires it is located and destroyed! Maybe you should read Hunt for Red October.

rabs

04-02-2007, 07:22 PM

No dragon is delusional.

SuperSixOne

04-02-2007, 09:54 PM

Iran should acquire the world's most advanced submarine the Akulas Class submarine to handle the problematic U.S. rather than deal with them on a regional bases. That is very limited. The Akulas would DEVASTATE the U.S. completely. Liek in 24hrs.

The Akula turned out to be a big load of crap, their reactor was so loud we could detect them over a thousand miles away. ASW S-3Vikings do the honors,

Lets take a review of the U.S. navy, Many people here obviously have NO IDEA how big it really is.

USS kittyhawk
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/USS_Kitty_Hawk_CV-63.jpg

USS Enterprise
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/TaskForce_One.jpg

USS Nimitz
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/USS_Nimitz_in_Victoria_Canada_036.jpg/800px-USS_Nimitz_in_Victoria_Canada_036.jpg

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/Uss_dwight_d_eisenhower_cvn-69.jpg

USS Carl Vinson
http://faculty.washington.edu/neelyd/NSCI%20113/Pictures/USS%20Carl%20Vinson.jpg

USS Theodore Roosevelt
http://www.sweb.cz/muhlicek/carriersNATO/pictures/CVN%20-%2071_02S.jpg

USS Abraham Lincoln
http://navysite.de/navy/fleet10.jpg

USS George Washington
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2c/Uss_george_washington_cvn-73.jpg

USS John C. Stennis
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/52/USS_John_C_Stennis.jpg

USS Harry S. Truman
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Carrier.750pix.jpg

USS Ronald Reagan
http://www.bevetes.hu/files/9/461/24-1a.n.jpg

USS Tarawa
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/62/Tarawalha1.jpg/800px-Tarawalha1.jpg

USS Saipan
http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/4/43/433/433256/saipan4_stor.jpg

USS Belleau Wood
http://www.pacom.mil/imagery/archive/0209photos/9-11ship-h.jpg

USS Nassau
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Facility/3092/graphics/marines/nassau.jpg

USS Peleliu
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Peleliu2.jpg

USS Wasp
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Lhd1_uss_wasp209.jpg

USS Essex
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/USS_Essex_%28LHD-2%29%3B10080203.jpg

USS Kearsarge
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/83/USS_Kearsarge_LHD-3.jpg

USS Boxer
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f1/USS_Boxer_LHD-4.jpg

USS Bataan
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/USS_Bataan_%28LHD-5%29%3B10080504.jpg

USS Bonhomme Richard
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/USS_Bonhomme_Richard_LHD-6.jpg

USS Iwo Jima
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/USS_Iwo_Jima%3B10080709.jpg

USS Makin Island
http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/worldwideaircraftcarriers/wasp7.jpg

Plus 4 more carriers under construction

Cruisers;

USS Antietam
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/USSAntietamCG-54.jpg

USS Anzio
http://www.thedeckplate.com/images/photogallery/USS%20Anzio%20CG-68.jpg

USS Bunker Hill
http://www.mediacen.navy.mil/pubs/allhands/jan01/cg52.jpg

USS Cape St. George
http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1048354537237_2003/03/24/dayfive07.jpg

USS Chancellorsville
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/USSChancellorsvilleCG-62.jpg

USS Chosin
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/USSChosinCG-65.jpg

USS Cowpens
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/USSCowpensCG-63.jpg

USS Gettysburg
http://www.mediacen.navy.mil/pubs/allhands/jan01/cg64.jpg

USS Hué City
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/USSHueCityCG-66.jpg

USS Lake Champlain
http://navysite.de/cg/Image474.jpg

USS Lake Erie
http://www.mediacen.navy.mil/pubs/allhands/jan01/cg64.jpg

USS Leyte Gulf
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/56/USSLeyteGulfCG-55.jpg

USS Mobile Bay
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a1/USSMobileBayCG-53.jpg

USS Monterey
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/USSMontereyCG-61.jpg

USS Normandy
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/USSNormandyCG-60.jpg

USS Philippine Sea
http://www.oknapc.org/Photos%20Ships%20Of%20The%20Fleet/GuidedMissileCruiserPhilippineSea.jpg

USS Port Royal
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/USS_Port_Royal_CG-73.jpg

USS Princeton
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/USSPrincetonCG-59.jpg

USS San Jacinto
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/USSSanJacintoCG-56.jpg

USS Shiloh
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/USS_Shiloh_launch.jpg

USS Vella Gulf
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/USS_Vella_Gulf_CG-72_01.jpg/800px-USS_Vella_Gulf_CG-72_01.jpg

USS Vicksburg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/USSVicksburgCG-69.jpg

USS Thomas S. Gates
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/USSThomasSGatesCG-51.jpg

USS Ticonderoga
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/USSTiconderogaCG-47.jpg

USS Vincennes
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/aa/USSVincennesCG-49.jpg

USS Yorktown
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/USS_Yorktown_%28CG-48%29%3B04014806.jpg/800px-USS_Yorktown_%28CG-48%29%3B04014806.jpg

BTW Each ship is equipped with the Aegis Combat System.

These are the names of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer's in service, too many to list.

FLIGHT I
Arleigh Burke DDG 51 Bath Norfolk DESRON 2 1985 04 Jul 1991 2026
Barry DDG 52 Ingalls Norfolk DESRON 26 1987 12 Dec 1992 2027
John Paul Jones DDG 53 Bath San Diego DESRON 7 1987 18 Dec 1993 2028
Curtis Wilbur DDG 54 Bath Yokosuka DESRON 15 1989 19 Mar 1994 2029
Stout DDG 55 Ingalls Norfolk DESRON 18 1989 13 Aug 1994 2029
John S. McCain DDG 56 Bath Yokosuka DESRON 15 1989 02 Jul 1994 2029
Mitscher DDG 57 Ingalls Norfolk DESRON 2 1989 10 Dec 1994 2029
Laboon DDG 58 Bath Norfolk DESRON 26 1989 18 Mar 1995 2029
Russell DDG 59 Ingalls Pearl Harbor DESRON 31 1990 20 May 1995 2030
Paul Hamilton DDG 60 Bath Pearl Harbor DESRON 31 1990 27 May 1995 2030
Ramage DDG 61 Ingalls Norfolk DESRON 28 1990 22 Jul 1995 2030
Fitzgerald DDG 62 Bath Yokosuka DESRON 15 1990 14 Oct 1995 2030
Stethem DDG 63 Ingalls San Diego DESRON 21 1990 21 Oct 1995 2030
Carney DDG 64 Bath Mayport DESRON 24 1991 13 Apr 1996 2031
Benfold DDG 65 Ingalls San Diego DESRON 7 1991 30 Mar 1996 2031
Gonzalez DDG 66 Bath Norfolk DESRON 18 1991 12 Oct 1996 2031
Cole DDG 67 Ingalls Norfolk DESRON 22 1991 08 Jun 1996 2031
The Sullivans DDG 68 Bath Mayport DESRON 24 1992 19 Apr 1997 2032
Milius DDG 69 Ingalls San Diego DESRON 7 1992 23 Nov 1996 2032
Hopper DDG 70 Bath Pearl Harbor DESRON 31 1992 06 Sep 1997 2032
Ross DDG 71 Ingalls Norfolk DESRON 28 1992 28 Jun 1997 2032
FLIGHT II
Mahan DDG 72 Bath Norfolk DESRON 26 1992 14 Feb 1998 2033
Decatur DDG 73 Bath San Diego DESRON 21 1993 29 Aug 1998 2033
McFaul DDG 74 Ingalls Norfolk DESRON 18 1993 25 Apr 1998 2033
Donald Cook DDG 75 Bath Norfolk DESRON 22 1993 04 Dec 1998 2033
Higgins DDG 76 Bath San Diego DESRON 21 1993 24 Apr 1999 2034
O'Kane DDG 77 Bath Pearl Harbor DESRON 31 1994 23 Oct 1999 2034
Porter DDG 78 Ingalls Norfolk DESRON 2 1994 10 Mar 1999 2034
FLIGHT IIA
Oscar Austin DDG 79 Bath Norfolk DESRON 22 1994 19 Aug 2000 2035
Roosevelt DDG 80 Ingalls Mayport DESRON 24 1995 14 Oct 2000 2035
Winston Churchill DDG 81 Bath Norfolk DESRON 28 1995 10 Mar 2001 2036
Lassen DDG 82 Ingalls San Diego DESRON 23 1996 21 Apr 2001 2036
Howard DDG 83 Bath San Diego DESRON 21 1996 20 Oct 2001 2036
Bulkeley DDG 84 Ingalls Norfolk DESRON 22 1996 08 Dec 2001 2036
McCampbell DDG 85 Ingalls San Diego DESRON 1 1996 17 Aug 2002 2037
Shoup DDG-86 Ingalls Everett DESRON 9 1997 22 June 2002 2037
Mason DDG-87 Bath Norfolk DESRON 26 1997 12 Apr 2003 2037
Preble DDG-88 Ingalls San Diego DESRON 21 1997 9 Nov 2002 2037
Mustin DDG-89 Ingalls San Diego DESRON 1 1998 26 Jul 2003 2037
Chaffee DDG-90 Bath Pearl Harbor DESRON 31 1998 18 Oct 2003 2038
Pinckney DDG-91 Ingalls San Diego DESRON 23 1998 29 May 2004 2038
Momsen DDG-92 Bath Everett DESRON 9 1998 28 Aug 2004 2038
Chung-Hoon DDG-93 Ingalls Pearl Harbor DESRON 31 1999 18 Sep 2004 2039
Nitze DDG-94 Bath Norfolk DESRON 28 1999 5 Mar 2005 2039
James E. Williams DDG-95 Ingalls authorized 1999 11 Dec 2004 2039
Bainbridge DDG-96 Bath authorized 2000 12 Nov 2005 2040
Halsey DDG-97 Ingalls San Diego 2000 30 Jul 2005 2040
Forrest Sherman DDG-98 Ingalls authorized 2000 28 Jan 2006 2040
Farragut DDG-99 Bath 2001 10 Jun 2006 2041
Kidd DDG-100 Ingalls authorized 2001 Feb 2006 2041
Gridley DDG-101 Bath authorized 2001 Aug 2006 2041
Sampson DDG-102 Bath authorized 2002 Mar 2007 2042
Truxtun DDG-103 Ingalls award Sep 2002 2002 June 2007 2042
Sterett DDG-104 Bath award Sep 2002 2002 Nov 2007 2042
Dewey DDG-105 Ingalls award Sep 2002 2003 May 2008 2043
Stockdale DDG-106 Bath award Sep 2002 2003 June 2008 2043
Gravely DDG-107 Ingalls award Sep 2002 2004 Mar 2009 2044
Wayne E. Meyer DDG-108 Bath award Sep 2002 2004 Jan 2009 2044
DDG-109 Bath award Sep 2002 2004 Aug 2009 2044
DDG-110 Ingalls award Sep 2002 2005 June 2010 2045
DDG-111 Bath award Sep 2002 2005 May 2010 2045
DDG-112 Bath award Sep 2002 2005 Dec 2010 2045

Subs are also too numerous to list,

Los Angeles class -

USS Philadelphia (SSN 690)
USS Memphis (SSN 691)
USS Dallas (SSN 700)
USS Albuquerque (SSN 706)
USS Augusta (SSN 710)
USS Providence (SSN 719)
USS Pittsburgh (SSN 720)
USS San Juan (SSN 751)
USS Miami (SSN 755)
USS Alexandria (SSN 757)
USS Annapolis (SSN 760)
USS Springfield (SSN 761)
USS Hartford (SSN 768)
USS Toledo (SSN 769)
USS Jacksonville (SSN 699)
USS Minneapolis–Saint Paul (SSN 708)
USS Hyman G. Rickover (SSN 709)
USS Norfolk (SSN 714)
USS Oklahoma City (SSN 723)
USS Newport News (SSN 750)
USS Albany (SSN 753)
USS Scranton (SSN 756)
USS Boise (SSN 764)
USS Montpelier (SSN 765)
USS Hampton (SSN 767)
USS Los Angeles (SSN 688)
USS Bremerton (SSN 698)
USS La Jolla (SSN 701)
USS Buffalo (SSN 715)
USS Olympia (SSN 717)
USS Honolulu (SSN 718)
USS Chicago (SSN 721)
USS Key West (SSN 722)
USS Louisville (SSN 724)
USS Pasadena (SSN 752)
USS Columbus (SSN 762)
USS Santa Fe (SSN 763)
USS Charlotte (SSN 766)
USS Tucson (SSN 770)
USS Columbia (SSN 771)
USS Greeneville (SSN 772)
USS Cheyenne (SSN 773)
USS Helena (SSN 725)
USS Topeka (SSN 754)
USS Asheville (SSN 758)
USS Jefferson City (SSN 759)
USS Houston (SSN 713)
USS City of Corpus Christi (SSN 705)

Ohio class -

USS Ohio,
USS Michigan,
USS Florida,
USS Georgia,
USS Henry M. Jackson,
USS Alabama,
USS Alaska,
USS Nevada,
USS Tennessee,
USS Pennsylvania,
USS West Virginia,
USS Kentucky,
USS Maryland,
USS Nebraska,
USS Rhode Island,
USS Maine,
USS Wyoming,
USS Louisiana

Virginia class -

Virginia (SSN-774), commissioned and in service
Texas (SSN-775), commissioned and in service
Hawaii (SSN-776), delivered in 2006.
North Carolina (SSN-777), named December 11, 2000; scheduled delivery in 2008; this is the last ship of the First Block or "Flight"
New Hampshire (SSN-778) has been ordered for delivery in 2010
New Mexico (SSN-779) has been ordered for delivery in 2011
SSN-780 was ordered in 2005 and is expected to be delivered in April, 2011
SSN-781 was ordered in 2006 and is expected to be delivered in 2013
SSN-782 was ordered in 2006 and is expected to be delivered in 2013[1]
SSN-783 is expected to be ordered in 2008; this is the last ship of the Second Block or "Flight"
SSN-784 through approximately SSN-791 are planned to make up the Third Block or "Flight" and should begin construction in 2009

Seawolf class -

Seawolf (SSN-21), commissioned and in service
Connecticut (SSN-22), commissioned and in service
Jimmy Carter (SSN-23), commissioned and in service

Other surface ship are just too numerous to even mention.

Iran has what 6 submarines and 3 destroyers 3 frigates and a few missle boats? Attacking The United States would be outright suicide. Would you like to see the Army? Airforce? If Iran got the U.S. to attack it first then they might have a chance. But it's still unlikly.

SepahKhodah

04-02-2007, 10:13 PM

SepahKhodah

04-02-2007, 11:22 PM

America spend about 700 billion (US dollar a year).

Eeeyyy baba...ina cheghat badbakht hastan.

JEskandari

04-02-2007, 11:27 PM

The Akula turned out to be a big load of crap, their reactor was so loud we could detect them over a thousand miles away. ASW S-3Vikings do the honors,

Lets take a review of the U.S. navy, Many people here obviously have NO IDEA how big it really is.

USS kittyhawk
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/USS_Kitty_Hawk_CV-63.jpg

USS Enterprise
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/TaskForce_One.jpg

USS Nimitz
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/USS_Nimitz_in_Victoria_Canada_036.jpg/800px-USS_Nimitz_in_Victoria_Canada_036.jpg

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/Uss_dwight_d_eisenhower_cvn-69.jpg

USS Carl Vinson
http://faculty.washington.edu/neelyd/NSCI%20113/Pictures/USS%20Carl%20Vinson.jpg

USS Theodore Roosevelt
http://www.sweb.cz/muhlicek/carriersNATO/pictures/CVN%20-%2071_02S.jpg

USS Abraham Lincoln
http://navysite.de/navy/fleet10.jpg

USS George Washington
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2c/Uss_george_washington_cvn-73.jpg

USS John C. Stennis
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/52/USS_John_C_Stennis.jpg

USS Harry S. Truman
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Carrier.750pix.jpg

USS Ronald Reagan
http://www.bevetes.hu/files/9/461/24-1a.n.jpg

USS Tarawa
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/62/Tarawalha1.jpg/800px-Tarawalha1.jpg

USS Saipan
http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/4/43/433/433256/saipan4_stor.jpg

USS Belleau Wood
http://www.pacom.mil/imagery/archive/0209photos/9-11ship-h.jpg

USS Nassau
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Facility/3092/graphics/marines/nassau.jpg

USS Peleliu
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Peleliu2.jpg

USS Wasp
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Lhd1_uss_wasp209.jpg

USS Essex
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/USS_Essex_%28LHD-2%29%3B10080203.jpg

USS Kearsarge
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/83/USS_Kearsarge_LHD-3.jpg

USS Boxer
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f1/USS_Boxer_LHD-4.jpg

USS Bataan
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/USS_Bataan_%28LHD-5%29%3B10080504.jpg

USS Bonhomme Richard
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/USS_Bonhomme_Richard_LHD-6.jpg

USS Iwo Jima
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/USS_Iwo_Jima%3B10080709.jpg

USS Makin Island
http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/worldwideaircraftcarriers/wasp7.jpg

Plus 4 more carriers under construction

Cruisers;

USS Antietam
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/USSAntietamCG-54.jpg

USS Anzio
http://www.thedeckplate.com/images/photogallery/USS%20Anzio%20CG-68.jpg

USS Bunker Hill
http://www.mediacen.navy.mil/pubs/allhands/jan01/cg52.jpg

USS Cape St. George
http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1048354537237_2003/03/24/dayfive07.jpg

USS Chancellorsville
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/USSChancellorsvilleCG-62.jpg

USS Chosin
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/USSChosinCG-65.jpg

USS Cowpens
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/USSCowpensCG-63.jpg

USS Gettysburg
http://www.mediacen.navy.mil/pubs/allhands/jan01/cg64.jpg

USS Hué City
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/USSHueCityCG-66.jpg

USS Lake Champlain
http://navysite.de/cg/Image474.jpg

USS Lake Erie
http://www.mediacen.navy.mil/pubs/allhands/jan01/cg64.jpg

USS Leyte Gulf
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/56/USSLeyteGulfCG-55.jpg

USS Mobile Bay
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a1/USSMobileBayCG-53.jpg

USS Monterey
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/USSMontereyCG-61.jpg

USS Normandy
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/USSNormandyCG-60.jpg

USS Philippine Sea
http://www.oknapc.org/Photos%20Ships%20Of%20The%20Fleet/GuidedMissileCruiserPhilippineSea.jpg

USS Port Royal
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/USS_Port_Royal_CG-73.jpg

USS Princeton
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/USSPrincetonCG-59.jpg

USS San Jacinto
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/USSSanJacintoCG-56.jpg

USS Shiloh
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/USS_Shiloh_launch.jpg

USS Vella Gulf
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/USS_Vella_Gulf_CG-72_01.jpg/800px-USS_Vella_Gulf_CG-72_01.jpg

USS Vicksburg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/USSVicksburgCG-69.jpg

USS Thomas S. Gates
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/USSThomasSGatesCG-51.jpg

USS Ticonderoga
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/USSTiconderogaCG-47.jpg

USS Vincennes
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/aa/USSVincennesCG-49.jpg

USS Yorktown
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/USS_Yorktown_%28CG-48%29%3B04014806.jpg/800px-USS_Yorktown_%28CG-48%29%3B04014806.jpg

BTW Each ship is equipped with the Aegis Combat System.

These are the names of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer's in service, too many to list.

FLIGHT I
Arleigh Burke DDG 51 Bath Norfolk DESRON 2 1985 04 Jul 1991 2026
Barry DDG 52 Ingalls Norfolk DESRON 26 1987 12 Dec 1992 2027
John Paul Jones DDG 53 Bath San Diego DESRON 7 1987 18 Dec 1993 2028
Curtis Wilbur DDG 54 Bath Yokosuka DESRON 15 1989 19 Mar 1994 2029
Stout DDG 55 Ingalls Norfolk DESRON 18 1989 13 Aug 1994 2029
John S. McCain DDG 56 Bath Yokosuka DESRON 15 1989 02 Jul 1994 2029
Mitscher DDG 57 Ingalls Norfolk DESRON 2 1989 10 Dec 1994 2029
Laboon DDG 58 Bath Norfolk DESRON 26 1989 18 Mar 1995 2029
Russell DDG 59 Ingalls Pearl Harbor DESRON 31 1990 20 May 1995 2030
Paul Hamilton DDG 60 Bath Pearl Harbor DESRON 31 1990 27 May 1995 2030
Ramage DDG 61 Ingalls Norfolk DESRON 28 1990 22 Jul 1995 2030
Fitzgerald DDG 62 Bath Yokosuka DESRON 15 1990 14 Oct 1995 2030
Stethem DDG 63 Ingalls San Diego DESRON 21 1990 21 Oct 1995 2030
Carney DDG 64 Bath Mayport DESRON 24 1991 13 Apr 1996 2031
Benfold DDG 65 Ingalls San Diego DESRON 7 1991 30 Mar 1996 2031
Gonzalez DDG 66 Bath Norfolk DESRON 18 1991 12 Oct 1996 2031
Cole DDG 67 Ingalls Norfolk DESRON 22 1991 08 Jun 1996 2031
The Sullivans DDG 68 Bath Mayport DESRON 24 1992 19 Apr 1997 2032
Milius DDG 69 Ingalls San Diego DESRON 7 1992 23 Nov 1996 2032
Hopper DDG 70 Bath Pearl Harbor DESRON 31 1992 06 Sep 1997 2032
Ross DDG 71 Ingalls Norfolk DESRON 28 1992 28 Jun 1997 2032
FLIGHT II
Mahan DDG 72 Bath Norfolk DESRON 26 1992 14 Feb 1998 2033
Decatur DDG 73 Bath San Diego DESRON 21 1993 29 Aug 1998 2033
McFaul DDG 74 Ingalls Norfolk DESRON 18 1993 25 Apr 1998 2033
Donald Cook DDG 75 Bath Norfolk DESRON 22 1993 04 Dec 1998 2033
Higgins DDG 76 Bath San Diego DESRON 21 1993 24 Apr 1999 2034
O'Kane DDG 77 Bath Pearl Harbor DESRON 31 1994 23 Oct 1999 2034
Porter DDG 78 Ingalls Norfolk DESRON 2 1994 10 Mar 1999 2034
FLIGHT IIA
Oscar Austin DDG 79 Bath Norfolk DESRON 22 1994 19 Aug 2000 2035
Roosevelt DDG 80 Ingalls Mayport DESRON 24 1995 14 Oct 2000 2035
Winston Churchill DDG 81 Bath Norfolk DESRON 28 1995 10 Mar 2001 2036
Lassen DDG 82 Ingalls San Diego DESRON 23 1996 21 Apr 2001 2036
Howard DDG 83 Bath San Diego DESRON 21 1996 20 Oct 2001 2036
Bulkeley DDG 84 Ingalls Norfolk DESRON 22 1996 08 Dec 2001 2036
McCampbell DDG 85 Ingalls San Diego DESRON 1 1996 17 Aug 2002 2037
Shoup DDG-86 Ingalls Everett DESRON 9 1997 22 June 2002 2037
Mason DDG-87 Bath Norfolk DESRON 26 1997 12 Apr 2003 2037
Preble DDG-88 Ingalls San Diego DESRON 21 1997 9 Nov 2002 2037
Mustin DDG-89 Ingalls San Diego DESRON 1 1998 26 Jul 2003 2037
Chaffee DDG-90 Bath Pearl Harbor DESRON 31 1998 18 Oct 2003 2038
Pinckney DDG-91 Ingalls San Diego DESRON 23 1998 29 May 2004 2038
Momsen DDG-92 Bath Everett DESRON 9 1998 28 Aug 2004 2038
Chung-Hoon DDG-93 Ingalls Pearl Harbor DESRON 31 1999 18 Sep 2004 2039
Nitze DDG-94 Bath Norfolk DESRON 28 1999 5 Mar 2005 2039
James E. Williams DDG-95 Ingalls authorized 1999 11 Dec 2004 2039
Bainbridge DDG-96 Bath authorized 2000 12 Nov 2005 2040
Halsey DDG-97 Ingalls San Diego 2000 30 Jul 2005 2040
Forrest Sherman DDG-98 Ingalls authorized 2000 28 Jan 2006 2040
Farragut DDG-99 Bath 2001 10 Jun 2006 2041
Kidd DDG-100 Ingalls authorized 2001 Feb 2006 2041
Gridley DDG-101 Bath authorized 2001 Aug 2006 2041
Sampson DDG-102 Bath authorized 2002 Mar 2007 2042
Truxtun DDG-103 Ingalls award Sep 2002 2002 June 2007 2042
Sterett DDG-104 Bath award Sep 2002 2002 Nov 2007 2042
Dewey DDG-105 Ingalls award Sep 2002 2003 May 2008 2043
Stockdale DDG-106 Bath award Sep 2002 2003 June 2008 2043
Gravely DDG-107 Ingalls award Sep 2002 2004 Mar 2009 2044
Wayne E. Meyer DDG-108 Bath award Sep 2002 2004 Jan 2009 2044
DDG-109 Bath award Sep 2002 2004 Aug 2009 2044
DDG-110 Ingalls award Sep 2002 2005 June 2010 2045
DDG-111 Bath award Sep 2002 2005 May 2010 2045
DDG-112 Bath award Sep 2002 2005 Dec 2010 2045

Subs are also too numerous to list,

Los Angeles class -

USS Philadelphia (SSN 690)
USS Memphis (SSN 691)
USS Dallas (SSN 700)
USS Albuquerque (SSN 706)
USS Augusta (SSN 710)
USS Providence (SSN 719)
USS Pittsburgh (SSN 720)
USS San Juan (SSN 751)
USS Miami (SSN 755)
USS Alexandria (SSN 757)
USS Annapolis (SSN 760)
USS Springfield (SSN 761)
USS Hartford (SSN 768)
USS Toledo (SSN 769)
USS Jacksonville (SSN 699)
USS Minneapolis–Saint Paul (SSN 708)
USS Hyman G. Rickover (SSN 709)
USS Norfolk (SSN 714)
USS Oklahoma City (SSN 723)
USS Newport News (SSN 750)
USS Albany (SSN 753)
USS Scranton (SSN 756)
USS Boise (SSN 764)
USS Montpelier (SSN 765)
USS Hampton (SSN 767)
USS Los Angeles (SSN 688)
USS Bremerton (SSN 698)
USS La Jolla (SSN 701)
USS Buffalo (SSN 715)
USS Olympia (SSN 717)
USS Honolulu (SSN 718)
USS Chicago (SSN 721)
USS Key West (SSN 722)
USS Louisville (SSN 724)
USS Pasadena (SSN 752)
USS Columbus (SSN 762)
USS Santa Fe (SSN 763)
USS Charlotte (SSN 766)
USS Tucson (SSN 770)
USS Columbia (SSN 771)
USS Greeneville (SSN 772)
USS Cheyenne (SSN 773)
USS Helena (SSN 725)
USS Topeka (SSN 754)
USS Asheville (SSN 758)
USS Jefferson City (SSN 759)
USS Houston (SSN 713)
USS City of Corpus Christi (SSN 705)

Ohio class -

USS Ohio,
USS Michigan,
USS Florida,
USS Georgia,
USS Henry M. Jackson,
USS Alabama,
USS Alaska,
USS Nevada,
USS Tennessee,
USS Pennsylvania,
USS West Virginia,
USS Kentucky,
USS Maryland,
USS Nebraska,
USS Rhode Island,
USS Maine,
USS Wyoming,
USS Louisiana

Virginia class -

Virginia (SSN-774), commissioned and in service
Texas (SSN-775), commissioned and in service
Hawaii (SSN-776), delivered in 2006.
North Carolina (SSN-777), named December 11, 2000; scheduled delivery in 2008; this is the last ship of the First Block or "Flight"
New Hampshire (SSN-778) has been ordered for delivery in 2010
New Mexico (SSN-779) has been ordered for delivery in 2011
SSN-780 was ordered in 2005 and is expected to be delivered in April, 2011
SSN-781 was ordered in 2006 and is expected to be delivered in 2013
SSN-782 was ordered in 2006 and is expected to be delivered in 2013[1]
SSN-783 is expected to be ordered in 2008; this is the last ship of the Second Block or "Flight"
SSN-784 through approximately SSN-791 are planned to make up the Third Block or "Flight" and should begin construction in 2009

Seawolf class -

Seawolf (SSN-21), commissioned and in service
Connecticut (SSN-22), commissioned and in service
Jimmy Carter (SSN-23), commissioned and in service

Other surface ship are just too numerous to even mention.

Iran has what 6 submarines and 3 destroyers 3 frigates and a few missle boats? Attacking The United States would be outright suicide. Would you like to see the Army? Airforce? If Iran got the U.S. to attack it first then they might have a chance. But it's still unlikly.
don't you think 1000 mile is a little exaggerated and as i know american expertise surprised of how silent akula class were

Tbagger

04-03-2007, 02:09 AM

SuperSixOne,

Thanks for taking the time to research and post that information. It certainly is a formidable armada.

Do you have any information on what the financial costs of building and maintaining such an armada? How much of it does the US taxpayer pay for?
The USN must be maintained regardless of costs. It is absolutely necessary to have a large, well-equiped, and well-trained navy, since 90% of all commercial shipping is by sea. The Navy guarantees freedom of the seas to the US and her allies and it.

SepahKhodah

04-03-2007, 02:22 AM

The USN must be maintained regardless of costs. It is absolutely necessary to have a large, well-equiped, and well-trained navy, since 90% of all commercial shipping is by sea. The Navy guarantees freedom of the seas to the US and her allies and it.

I don't quite see it that way. The commercial traffic on the high seas are used by the international community, thus the responsibility for the keeping the routes safe belongs to the international community, not just one hyperpower.

It is not beneficial for Americans or the rest of the world for the US to play the role of this hyperpower.

The reasons for this are twofold. One, it puts an unfair burden of the liability on one country and its inhabitants who eventually have to pay for it through their taxes, ultimately lowering their standard of living. Two, it creates a situation where a frightening abuse of power can take place such as what is happening today.

The burden of keeping the commercial routes on the high seas is something that can be shared between nations. Obviously this is not the case and this in itself is very telling of the US government's objectives for having such a large armada: the aggressive expansion of influence...not free markets.

Tbagger

04-03-2007, 02:27 AM

SepahKhodah

04-03-2007, 02:36 AM

And what other country has a navy (and funds) capable of providing this umbrella of protection?

The Royal Navy is hopelessly outdated and a good majority of the Russian Navy is rusting away in port.

No one else can do it.

Just because the US has the funds doesn't mean we need to spend it on being the international police force, our own infrastructure and society is very much in need of those funds.

I think you missed my point in my earlier post. I'm saying it should NOT be the responsibility of any ONE navy but a shared responsibility according to spheres of influence. For instance, if France wanted to have protection for its commerce she would have to either contribute to this international sea force or pay dues.

Look what happened to the UK, it's been reduced to a insignificant military power, and at great cost to its people.

bandit1715

04-03-2007, 03:16 PM

The U.s. Has More Subs In Mothballs Than Iran Ever Thought Of, And That Is Counting The Older Nuclear Subs That Were Already Replaced By The New Ones. The U.s. Mothball Fleet Could Handle Iran's Navy.

s-300

04-03-2007, 05:35 PM

Oriellien

04-03-2007, 08:29 PM

if kilos are at sea at time of war and if the got ssn-27club i bet the wil make damage to usa navy in recent drills some diesel subs of uastralia were not detected by usa navy and one time in a natio drill the navy of my country portugal the sub barracuda with 60 years satyed hours bellow a carrier .Not mention what the russian crews could do in time of war they just nedd too be in 100-40km of carrier lol usa navy its not invincible.

Whoever strikes first has the advantage, but the thing with the USN is that if you strike first you will have the rest of the USN alerted. I dont think those subs were in firing range when they werent detected though.

SuperSixOne

04-03-2007, 09:01 PM

To answer a few of your questions,

Here's the U.S's spending compared with the rest of the world, I would estimate that about 1/4th to 1/5t of it goes towards the navy it'self.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Worldwide_military_spending_2005.svg/300px-Worldwide_military_spending_2005.svg.png

Here are the top 50 nations and their millitary spending as far as their Gross Domestic Product goes.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f104/Fix4RSO/AFAChart_GDPtoDefBudget_0306_Lrg.jpg

if kilos are at sea at time of war and if the got ssn-27club i bet the wil make damage to usa navy in recent drills some diesel subs of uastralia were not detected by usa navy and one time in a natio drill the navy of my country portugal the sub barracuda with 60 years satyed hours bellow a carrier .Not mention what the russian crews could do in time of war they just nedd too be in 100-40km of carrier lol usa navy its not invincible.

Your obviously not very well informed so I won't bother.

Why don't some one force that character to minimize his post of bullcrap?!

My point was that Iran should just acquire the world's most advanced submarine to weaken and break down the U.S. strength. That could be done overnight with no threat to face

The most advanced submarine would probably be our SeaWolf Class, it was too expensive even for us so I doubt anyone else could afford to build one. We had to tone it back down and cut back to the Virginia class.

I think you missed my point in my earlier post. I'm saying it should NOT be the responsibility of any ONE navy but a shared responsibility according to spheres of influence. For instance, if France wanted to have protection for its commerce she would have to either contribute to this international sea force or pay dues.

We have tried this, it's called the U.N. and it has been the biggest Joke of recent times, very uneffective becuase it requires everyones agreement and consent which is very difficult like allways...

don't you think 1000 mile is a little exaggerated and as i know american expertise surprised of how silent akula class were

I'm sorry, I got the Akula and Alfa submarines confused, the Akula is very quiet, allmost as quiet as the los angeles class subs but has the disadvantage that it must shut down it's sensors and move slowly (less than 15knots) when operating in this "Quiet mode" Which only allows it to track 2 targets at once as opposed to 10+ by the L.A.+ subs.

The Alfa sub on the other hand is the one that dives deeper than 1000meters and does like 45knots or some rediculously stupid fast speed like that. It gets all this power from an Exotic Liquid metal reactor that is very loud and can never be shut down (coolent pipes will turn into solid steel).

Both submarines are very expensive and iran would be best off building it's own as the abilitys would be secret for awhile (Until we observe it enough), it would be cheaper and they would have that key ability to be self sufficiant which is key to winning a war.

Tbagger

04-03-2007, 11:47 PM

Just because the US has the funds doesn't mean we need to spend it on being the international police force, our own infrastructure and society is very much in need of those funds.
It is our responsibility as the world's only superpower to "police" the world, as you so gleefully put it.

I think you missed my point in my earlier post. I'm saying it should NOT be the responsibility of any ONE navy but a shared responsibility according to spheres of influence. For instance, if France wanted to have protection for its commerce she would have to either contribute to this international sea force or pay dues.
Yeah, most navies in the world protect their own spheres. The thing is -- who's going to patrol International waters?

Unless you're suggesting that other countries poor funds into the USN; it's a great idea and all, but no one would do it.

Oriellien

04-04-2007, 12:16 AM

It is our responsibility as the world's only superpower to "police" the world, as you so gleefully put it.

Yeah, most navies in the world protect their own spheres. The thing is -- who's going to patrol International waters?

Unless you're suggesting that other countries poor funds into the USN; it's a great idea and all, but no one would do it.

That is a point, if there was no one to keep pirates in check they would be out in full swing all over the world. Pirates are not creatures of the 17th century they are very real, just look at Vietnam and Somalia.

If the rest of the world could patrol the entire world I might have a different view, but in todays world fact is the USN keeps global piracy in check. Unfortatly they are also a dangerous tool to be exploited by radicals when they are in power.

shasnahn

04-04-2007, 01:17 AM

Iran's diesel electric Kilo's are capable subs, but not transatlantic machines. They will need regular refueling and resupplying just to get to the US coast or Europe, and then supplies back. That is why if you want a "blue water" navy, you get nuclear power. Otherwise with diesel-electric's, the Iranian, Pakistan and Indian area of operation is limited to the Indian Ocean.

JEskandari

04-04-2007, 08:29 PM

Whoever strikes first has the advantage, but the thing with the USN is that if you strike first you will have the rest of the USN alerted. I dont think those subs were in firing range when they werent detected though.
firing range for kilo torpido launcher is more than 40 km

JEskandari

04-04-2007, 08:40 PM

That is a point, if there was no one to keep pirates in check they would be out in full swing all over the world. Pirates are not creatures of the 17th century they are very real, just look at Vietnam and Somalia.

If the rest of the world could patrol the entire world I might have a different view, but in todays world fact is the USN keeps global piracy in check. Unfortatly they are also a dangerous tool to be exploited by radicals when they are in power.
but usually pirate activity is not at oceans but near shores and islands so us navy cant do much.

rabs

04-04-2007, 11:48 PM

firing range for kilo torpido launcher is more than 40 km

If your target is sitting nice and still, yes, but that range is cut dramatically realistically cause the ship is going to run away, and with US warships top speed being 30 knots plus, subs have to get significantly closer.

Dont start with the SHVKAL thing or whatever, its useless.

Tbagger

04-05-2007, 12:45 AM

Cedric

04-05-2007, 01:12 AM

imtiaz82

04-05-2007, 02:39 AM

US not doubt has the single most powerful Navy in the world. But as the world's only superpower it should act responsibly in world affairs and not show unnecessary strength unless needed to be.

I have been staying in US for the last 6-7years, and there is a lot other countries can learn from the system in place- starting from world class educational and research centers to mass industrialization. US boasts the most number of Noble lauretes as well as the best scientific institutes in the world. Nobody gave it to them, the people here earned it through their hardwork and dedication.

But at the same time, the US government should respect the rest of the world and not turn into an international bully. I still remember when I was back home(Bangladesh) in early 80s, 90s people used to love and respect US for being the beacon of hope against the communist world, but nowadays due to events in IRaq, Afghanistan it is loosing world support.

Tbagger

04-05-2007, 03:19 AM

Behrooz Boonabi

04-05-2007, 03:27 AM

In the eighties, every single Soviet submarine that was at sea was shadowed by a US attack submarine. Even today, the US navy knows the exact location of every Russian, Chinese and Iranian submarine.

How would you know for sure? You can only track the ones you can find.

BTW, how many subs do the Iranians have?

Nobody knows for sure. There is almost zero intelegence on Iran and Iran will never disclose that kind of information.

Nationstates

04-05-2007, 05:08 PM

How would you know for sure?

Interesting story relating to that. My father served in the navy from 1981 to 1985 on the USS Trepang, a Sturgeon class nuclear attack submarine.Among the more interesting stories I have heard is that when at the North Pole, they were able to track a Typhoon class sub over a several day period due to the completely outrageous noise generated by Soviet turbines (A feature plaguing Soviet era subs since the 1950's), while going totally unnoticed by the Soviet crew, while reporting the location as projected path of said sub to the United States navy. Not sure as to the actual sub, it was either TK-208 or TK-202, but regardless, what Tbagger said is correct.

Behrooz Boonabi

04-05-2007, 05:29 PM

rabs

04-05-2007, 06:28 PM

Most countries are not like the US on their intellegence. For instance, my buddy works at Precision Castparts Corp programming numerical control machines. He takes his work home with him on his laptop. I couldnt even tell you how many times he has left it at my house. If I was a different type of person without a care for my freind, I could sell critical information on F-22 engine parts very easily. In eastern coutries, this kind of intellegence is much more secure and you would never be able to take this data home from work. Most things are seldom in the open.

Sounds to me your friend needs to be fired, immediately.

I just completed an e-mail to PCC with a link to this forum and a complete copy of your post, hopefully if what you say is true the situation can be corrected.

Behrooz Boonabi

04-05-2007, 06:56 PM

Sounds to me your friend needs to be fired, immediately.

I think that is what you get for having inferior securty forces and inferior personel training. The same place also hires mostly temp workers. These companies are a good example of what you get when you privatize deffence. Also corruption as well.

Thats not the only company. Workers at Boeing take work home often as well.

I also know another Iranian engineer who worked on some chemical battery pack that is used on the F-22. He is home in Tehran right now. It doesnt mean he is divulging information but it is definately possable.

JEskandari

04-05-2007, 07:43 PM

If your target is sitting nice and still, yes, but that range is cut dramatically realistically cause the ship is going to run away, and with US warships top speed being 30 knots plus, subs have to get significantly closer.

Dont start with the SHVKAL thing or whatever, its useless.
but shkval range is 7.5 km not 40 km and with the speed of 300 km no ship can outmaneuver it , its speed work for its lack of maneuverability .
and wont you think torpedoes are faster and more agile than ships .
and you say 40km is far away i agree with you because no one wit a little sanity fire a weapon at maximum range , maximum range is for stopping the scape now i say 5 km from the ship and i tell you those ship cant detect a kilo sub at that distance if the sub rig for silence . do you think those ship again can scape the torpedoes and think if the sub fire more than one torpedo then what .

JEskandari

04-05-2007, 07:46 PM

In the eighties, every single Soviet submarine that was at sea was shadowed by a US attack submarine. Even today, the US navy knows the exact location of every Russian, Chinese and Iranian submarine.

I will bet my house that if open war starts between Iran and the US, every Iranian submarine in the Persian Gulf will be destroyed in the first three minutes.

BTW, how many subs do the Iranians have?
us submarines are big, in fact too big they are ideal for ocean not for Persian gulf when you engage the enemy in water as shallow as 30 meter they even cant submerge there .

JEskandari

04-05-2007, 08:13 PM

Interesting story relating to that. My father served in the navy from 1981 to 1985 on the USS Trepang, a Sturgeon class nuclear attack submarine.Among the more interesting stories I have heard is that when at the North Pole, they were able to track a Typhoon class sub over a several day period due to the completely outrageous noise generated by Soviet turbines (A feature plaguing Soviet era subs since the 1950's), while going totally unnoticed by the Soviet crew, while reporting the location as projected path of said sub to the United States navy. Not sure as to the actual sub, it was either TK-208 or TK-202, but regardless, what Tbagger said is correct.

you mean they could communicate with us navy from under more than hundreds meter of ice i congratulate them you made me to have faith on American technology . :laugh4:
and a little fact about typhon class submarine the largest submarines ever made.

Typhoon class submarine

Typhoon class submarine at sea Career
Soviet naval pennant

Ensign of the Russian Navy
Ordered:?Laid down:March 3, 1977Launched:September 23, 1980Commissioned:December 12 1981 General CharacteristicsLength:
Beam:
Draft:
Displacement:Surfaced:
23,200-24,500 tonnes
Submerged:
33,800-48,000 tonnesPropulsion:2×OK-650 pressurized-water nuclear reactors
→ each
2×VV-type steam turbines
→ each
2 propellersComplement:163 menArmament:1×9K38 Igla SAM
4×650 mm torpedo tubes
→RPK-7 Vodopad AShMs
→Type 65K torpedoes
2×533 mm torpedo tubes
→RPK-2 Viyoga cruise missiles
→Type 53 torpedoes
D-19 launch system
→20×RSM-52 SLBMsSpeed:Surfaced:
Submerged: Maximum depth:
The Typhoon class submarine is a type of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine deployed by the Soviet Navy in the 1980s. With a maximum displacement of 48,000 tonnes, Typhoons are the largest class of submarine ever built. The NATO reporting name stems from the use of the word "typhoon" (Ñ‚Ð°Ð¹Ñ„ÑƒÐ½) by Leonid Brezhnev in a 1974 speech while describing a new type of nuclear ballistic missile submarine. The Typhoon class was developed under Project 941 as the Russian Akula class (ÐÐºÑƒÐ»Ð°), meaning shark. It is sometimed mixed up with other submarines, as Akula is the name NATO uses to designate the Russian Project 971 Shooka-B (Ð©ÑƒÐºÐ°-Ð‘) class attack submarines.

Typhoon submarines are one of the quietest sea vessels in operation, being quieter and yet more maneuverable than their predecessors. This is partly due to the vessels' large size, which allows them to minimize noise caused by water. Besides their missile armament, the Typhoon class features six torpedo tubes; two are designed to handle RPK-2 (SS-N-15) missiles or Type 53 torpedoes, and the other four are designed to launch RPK-7 (SS-N-16) missiles, Type 65 torpedoes, or mines. A Typhoon class submarine can stay submerged for periods up to 180 days in normal conditions, and potentially more if necessity arises (e.g. nuclear war).
file:///C:/Users/DR3DE1%7E1.JAL/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpgfile:///C:/Users/DR3DE1%7E1.JAL/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.jpg
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/k19/images/sov5_large.jpg

Typhoon class submarines feature multiple pressure hulls that simplify internal design while making the vessel much wider than a normal submarine. In the main body of the sub, two Delta class titanium pressure hulls lie parallel with a third, smaller pressure hull above them (which protrudes just below the sail), and two other pressure hulls for torpedoes and steering gear. This also greatly increases their survivability - even if one pressure hull is breached, the crew members in the other are safe and there is less potential for flooding. High internal volume also allows Typhoon class submarines to provide good conditions for their crews, including sport facilities, sauna, swimming pool and a smoking room.

Six Typhoon class submarines were built, with each carrying 20 R-39 missiles (SS-N-20) with a maximum of 10 MIRV nuclear warheads each. Originally, the submarines were designated by hull numbers only. Names were later assigned to the four vessels retained by the Russian Navy, which were sponsored by either a city or company. The construction of an additional vessel (hull number TK-210) was cancelled and never completed. Only the first of these submarines to be constructed, the Dmitry Donskoi, is still in service with the Russian Navy, serving as a test platform for the Bulava (SS-NX-30) missile currently under development. All the R-39 missiles have been retired. The Typhoons are slated to be replaced with the Borei class starting in 2007.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Dmitri_Donskoi_%28TK-208%29.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dmitri_Donskoi_%28TK-208%29.jpg)
Vessels

Typhoon class — significant dates#Laid downLaunchedCommissionedTK-208March 3, 1977September 23, 1980December 12, 1981TK-202October 1, 1980>April 26, 1982December 28, 1983TK-12April 27, 1982December 17, 1983December 27, 1984TK-13January 5, 1984February 21, 1985December 29, 1985TK-17February 24, 1985August 1986November 6, 1987TK-20January 6, 1987June 1988September 1989TK-210CancelledTyphoon-based cargo vessel

The Submarine Cargo Vessel is a proposed idea by the Rubin Design Bureau where a Typhoo