Would the Ghadir class submarine actually be effective against the United States Navy or are these just Iranian shills doing there usual shilling?
>>27921159
>ranian shills doing there usual shilling?
That.
>>27921159
It's based on North Korean technology, so I wouldn't be optimistic.
Of course! We'd be doomed!!
You know militaries keep secrets and true capabilities of submarines are almost always classified.
Look! It only has 6 sailors! It's obviously a highly advanced submarine with mostly automated systems.
>>27921159
the super-caviitating torpedo it carries could one-shot a carrier
>>27921159
against the United States Navy? Not likely. USN is far too large and capable
against some other possible enemy, like Saudi Arabia? Most likely
If WW2 proved anything it was the limitation of relying on submarines to project naval power.
>>27922001
The United States' use of subs in early '42 while the Pacific Fleet was still licking it's wounds says so too
>>27922001
The only thing it proved was Hitler didn't build enough subs. He didn't even give the Kriegsmarine half the submarines and resources they wanted IIRC.
>>27922001
The soviets tried the very same thing during the cold war. Whether they were capable of overcoming NATO surface fleets is still a matter of debate
>>27921458
idk man, don't scoff at it at first glance.
Don't get me wrong the old U-boats of ww2 are more complex then these guys
but.... the region they operate in is very shallow and narrow, basically completely in the littorals. as can be seen by war games like the millennium, any large surface fleet is vulnerable to multi direction attacks in confined water and the fact that these are TINY subs operating in the shallows means there close to undetectable while underwater and there torpedo's are full sized honest to go keel splitting torpedos found on any sub. even if it only has 2 of them.
>>27922522
>Millennium
Are we gonna have another thread where we show how that whole thing was the actions of one butthurt Admiral who got passed over for promotion?
Unless silkworm missiles can be carried and fired by motorcycles and fishing trawlers now.
>>27922539
Indeed that may be the case but it does appear you have missed the point of my post, replace the fishing trawlers with submarines and the missiles with torpedo's, and the tactic still stands.
>>27921159
>>27921159
does that thing even have weapons? it's so small
>>27923102
it carries two 533 mm torpedo's without any reloads.
Which means it can carry any standard heavy torpedo cavitating or not.
They literally run though half the length of the subs.
>>27922582
They don't have anywhere near the number of subs that they had missile platforms in that scenario (even if they had 100% availability, which I doubt they do). They also don't have the omniscient coordination and instant communication that admiral gave himself.
>>27923102
It has an attached weapons bow that gives it 2 533mm tubes for launching.
>>27923156
i cannot find a source for how many missile platforms were used by the red team in that wargame so i will assume your comment is correct, following the rule of 3 for these mini subs, they would have at least 7 submarines active and, unlike missile systems, torpedo's cannot reliably be shot down so i propose the conjecture that you wouldn't need any where near the number of torpedo platforms as you would need for a missile spam, particularly if the sub has supercavitating torpedoes. hell there's a good chance of just a single sub sitting in ambush somewhere could have a good chance at crippling or at least mission killing a surface ship.
You seem to be stuck on my comment on the Millennium wargames, ignoring the fact that it is NOT the basis of my argument, was but a historical point to the potential vulnerability of a surface fleet in shallow confined regions.
Takes a lot of balls to serve on those death traps.
>>27921917
Sure, if they can close to within 10km without the CBG's ASW helo's and escort subs picking up the engine noise and leaving a new Iranian coral reef
>>27923374
I don't think you get how primitive these submarines are. They don't even have a sonar, and only some of them have a surface search radar (which would require them to surface to use). They'll also only be able to operate in the top layers of the water, meaning they can't hide through changing thermal layers. Periscope detection will tear them apart.
>>27921159
Why the fuck are we worried about it. Just don't go into Iran, none of you fuckers learned from recent history its a bad idea to get involved in mid eastern affairs? We may have to do something about ISIS, which Iran is already fighting, but why the hell would we attack a nation just because they stomp on our flag? So does 2/3 of the world.
>>27923507
the best that i can find on sonar is a diagram that indicates that it has a depth sonar and a attack sonar, plz cite something that it has no sonar.
the persian gulf on average is only 50m deep, the only source i can find on the mini subs max depth is 100m, meaning its more then capable of bottoming out on the sea floor. again if you can cite something different.
i do agree these subs are primitive as fuck though. once they are detected they are fucked, but if there only detected after they shoot then they have been effective.
>>27921159
Might work against the merchant marine during peace time
>>27923641
Remember this thing is loud as fuck as well and its detection systems are trash despite the debate on its existence or not.
The torpedo is just a torpedo and can be intercepted by ciws if they even get close enough to fire it which would be miraculous. The supercavitating torpedo is pretty cool but i doubt that their homegrown system has a proper guidance module at all.
And if you do not believe that in a wartime situation barring a complete sneak attack for no reason whatsoever that they would be hounded by American subs you are insane. It's a neat design that would work well against regional powers whose navy amounts to rowboats and slings. Alternatively i feel that this would completely fuck up Saudi Arabian naval ships, as they are fairly obsolete without sub escort and they are crewed by fucking monkeys.
It's not meant to be a weapon for use against the united states, but a weapon to be used against the Saudis for boxing them completely into the red sea and Persian gulf.
A few near Djibouti and a few near the entrance to the gulf, and saudi arabia ceases to be able to project its navy anywhere meaningful.
I'm not the only one that sees that this is clearly for that purpose and not for carriers, right?
>>27923507
>implying their regional enemies would ever fuck them apart
These subs would wreck the Saudis and the Egyptians. Any regional enemy that wants to start shit or fuck with Iran and its allies will have to basically play operation.
And they're fucking monkeys so there is no winning. Besides, we are lifting the embargoes and shit, so the last thing on their mind is to destroy their now growing and soon to be prosperous economy and country by their own hand.
>>27923990
Yeah, I've figured that's why we're bothering to repurpose our nukes into lower yield but smarter bombs. NPT breakage would just fuck us up diplomatically but we need a way to fuck up an underground complex
>>27923990
The majority of American subs, and all the expensive ones, can't work in the Gulf. Why? because most of the gulf is less than 25 meters deep. Virginia class submarines have a 10 meter draft surfaced. This is not a strike on your oblivious bait BTW, just thought was interesting. Only small submarines in shallow waters.
>>27923641
>the persian gulf on average is only 50m deep,
Average is misleading.
>>27926662
do you see the general problem however?
Can't you easily spot them from the air?
