Posted on Dec 29, 2015
Close encounter between U.S. warship and Iranian rocket - CNNPolitics.com
2.38K
5
13
1
1
0
Looks like the Ayatollah is feeling neglected these days.
Close encounter between U.S. warship and Iranian rocket - CNNPolitics.com
Posted from cnn.comPosted in these groups: 
Navy
Navy
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 5
1
1
0
Someone please tell me that the US Navy is prepared to handle this sort of attack. If not, get the hell out of there until they are. Sinking a US carrier would have repercussions beyond description and embolden these idiots to try even more dangerous stunts.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
PO2 Mark Saffell SN Greg Wright SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury - At least that's the plan... How many targets can a Phalanx engage simultaneously? (I suspect you can't answer, but I also suspect that's the object of the Iranian strategy. Flood the battle space with so many targets that all can't be engaged and who cares if many are destroyed. These are warriors more interested in martyrdom and virgins than in victory)
(1)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
CPT Jack Durish - Carriers have 3 or more phalanx guns, and escorts generally have at least two. Add to that jamming capabilities, other kinetic kill vehicles, and decoys....it would probably take more than Iran has. Russia could do it, maybe China. Which isn't to say Iran couldn't damage one ore more ships. I'm sure they can. But I don't think they have the wherewithal to sink a carrier.
The Phalanx shoots 75 rounds per second, creating a curtain of metal in the air on the inbound axis of the vampire. And only one of them have to hit the vehicle. It's a very effective countermeasure.
The Phalanx shoots 75 rounds per second, creating a curtain of metal in the air on the inbound axis of the vampire. And only one of them have to hit the vehicle. It's a very effective countermeasure.
(0)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
PO3 Jason Melito - 'Advertised' is the key word there. The actual rate is higher. Much like the 'advertised' speed of carriers and and subs is significantly lower than reality.
Your point is valid. Saturation is possible. I'm just not convinced (and I can certainly be wrong) that Iran is capable of it. Now, the mining you describe...that's a far more worrisome proposition, in my opinion.
Your point is valid. Saturation is possible. I'm just not convinced (and I can certainly be wrong) that Iran is capable of it. Now, the mining you describe...that's a far more worrisome proposition, in my opinion.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
SN Greg Wright PO3 Jason Melito The Enterprise was the first carrier to get Phalanx back in 1980. You are correct about the angles. The pilots where freaked out about it back then since it was either on or off and wasn't linked to IFF so it didn't care what side you was on. You head towards the carrier and it let lose with a furry that makes hell look like a vacation, However there is a huge screen of escorts including CG's and Destroyers not to mention planes and Helicopters. It would take a very very lucky shot. The concern is the lack of space to maneuver and the speed. No one wants to get caught in a tightly confined area. I'm hoping this was a wake up call and they are extending the non-fly zone around the Task Force to enable more time to react.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
How much you want to bet it was the "Revolutionary Guard" Religious Fanatics in Uniform. I have the Utmost Respect for the IRN Iranian Navy but the Maritime Revolutionary Guard are whack jobs and loved to play chicken. Remember us doing a bit of Freedom of Navigation Ops pretty close to one of their Islands and got them so hopped up they started shooting each other swearing the whole time on their Tactical Voice Circuit that we were landing troops.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google