Slashdot Mirror
Iran Builds Mock-up of Nimitz-Class Aircraft Carrier
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "The NYT reports that US intelligence analysts studying satellite photos of Iranian military installations say that Iran is building a mock-up of an American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with the same distinctive shape and style of the Navy's Nimitz-class carriers, as well as the Nimitz's number 68 neatly painted in white near the bow. Mock aircraft can be seen on the flight deck. The mock-up, which American officials described as more like a barge than a warship, has no nuclear propulsion system and is only about two-thirds the length of a typical 1,100-foot-long Navy carrier. Intelligence officials do not believe that Iran is capable of building an actual aircraft carrier. "Based on our observations, this is not a functioning aircraft carrier; it's a large barge built to look like an aircraft carrier," says Cmdr. Jason Salata. "We're not sure what Iran hopes to gain by building this. If it is a big propaganda piece, to what end?" Navy intelligence analysts surmise that the vessel, which Fifth Fleet wags have nicknamed the Target Barge, is something that Iran could tow to sea, anchor and blow up — while filming the whole thing to make a propaganda point, if, say, the talks with the Western powers over Iran's nuclear program go south. "It is not surprising that Iranian military forces might use a variety of tactics — including military deception tactics — to strategically communicate and possibly demonstrate their resolve in the region," said an American official who has closely followed the construction of the mock-up. The story has set off chatter about how weird and dumb Iran is for building this giant toy boat but according to Marcy Wheeler if you compare Iran's barge with America's troubled F-35 program you end up with an even bigger propaganda prop. "I'm not all that sure what distinguishes the F-35 except the cost: Surely Iran hasn't spent the equivalent of a trillion dollars — which is what we'll spend on the F-35 when it's all said and done — to build its fake boat," writes Wheeler. "So which country is crazier: Iran, for building a fake boat, or the US for funding a never-ending jet program?""
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/... & http://defensetech.org/2011/08...
> But the F35 is more or less combat ready in its basic form
As long as you don't try to land it in cloudy weather.
http://www.alternet.org/fail-4...
Or on an aircraft carrier:
http://theaviationist.com/2012...
Or landing on the $1500/each tires twice in a row:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
Oh, and if the landing gear fails and the pilot has to eject, they can't safely eject over water. (See the first article.)
If we needed to build supersonic "launch-only" aircraft, we could have done so _much_ more cheaply.
This was debunked days ago, its a movie prop about the US shooting down an Iranian commercial fight in 1988. Don't the Slashdot editors have access to Google?
Stealth techniques? For an air craft carrier? I give up, what would those be? The U.S. Navy's stealthiest surface ships are low to the water, and have very few sharp edges. I presume you've seen an air craft carrier up close, yes?
"The mock-up, which American officials described as more like a barge than a warship, has no nuclear propulsion system..."
Duh, how could it have nuclear propulsion when two-thirds of the world's diplomats and spooks (the USA's own plus its faithful servants, that is) spend most of their time ensuring that Iran never gets any nuclear technology, no matter how simple and peaceful?
OTOH, a moment's thought reveals that it doesn't need nuclear propulsion, whose main advantage is the ability to sail around the world several times without refuelling. It's unlikely that Iran wishes to indulge in "force projection" in the Gulf of Mexico or the Pacific, since it's actually a very peaceable nation. (Please check the history books before violently disagreeing).
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
What is the summary on about? These seem pretty easy:
"So which country is crazier: Iran, for building a fake boat, or the US for funding a never-ending jet program?""
Crazy? The never-ending transfer of wealth from the American people to the military-industrial complex is exactly what the F35 is designed to do. I mean, hello, duplicate engine contracts? Stop trying to pretend this is primarily a weapons platform - it makes you look naive.
Cmdr. Jason Salata. "We're not sure what Iran hopes to gain by building this. If it is a big propaganda piece, to what end?"
Seriously? This is military intelligence?
Let's play this out. You go and attack Iran with a bunch of battleships and you expect them to come out and counter-attack with their battleships and aircraft? Of course not - they don't have the resources and so they need to have an asymmetrical counter-attack plan. Here's one: get some small boats out to the aircraft carrier under dark of night and board it. Have your men know the layout of the ship like the back of their hands, and kill all the sailors aboard, except for the ones you need to keep alive to extract any command codes that may be required to operate the free battleship. Start with your 'special forces' to disable the counter-attack resources and then overwhelm it with manpower. Make your enemy either destroy their own asset or lose it.
Propaganda piece? Come on.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Talk about asymmetric warfare...
First, unmanned is not equal to autonomous, not man controlled. It's quite possible to control those drones, we're not talking Hitler's V1s here.
Second, price. Drones are dirt cheap compared to fighter jets. But that's not even important, I'll get to the reason why in a minute.
Because finally, and that's the real advantage drones have over manned jets, pilot safety. It is impossible for the pilot to go KIA or MIA, in other words your experienced pilots remain available for duty no matter how long the war drags out. You need not replace your downed veterans with green recruits, something a conventional army will have to eventually. And that's also pretty much the only thing that could stop an US army. When you look at its "inner workings", tactically, strategically and politically, you'll notice that the ONLY thing that could stop the US military from rolling over an enemy today is the loss of manpower.
If the past decade has taught us one thing then that the US congress, and in turn the US population, will accept near limitless military spending when they feel attacked. We're looking at a military budget where the amount of money blown DAILY could easily balance the foreign trade debt of smaller nations that they racked up in the past few decades. So whether a war that is deemed justified by congress and population needs 10 or 10 million drones, I guess it won't matter much.
OTOH, the US is very sensitive to the loss of their manpower. If too many US soldiers die in a war half a globe away, the general sentiment towards the war can very quickly change. This ain't WW2 anymore where something like that could work. Vietnam already showed that it's easy to lose support at home if too many of our boys die in what is then deemed a "pointless war". Drones work beautifully here because nobody gets hurt. Ok, nobody that matters to the average US news station, that is.
That's what makes drones so popular with military strategists. You can send them on suicide missions and nobody gives a shit.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Which costs more, a HARM missile or an open running microwave with a stick jammed into the door interlock?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Helicopters have suffered for a long time from a lack of R&D, but some has been done...
The RAH-66 Comanche would have been wonderful, if it hadn't been killed, it was semi-stealthy and had a superior rotor system that allowed it to do things nothing else the military has can do. But it simply fell victim to budget cuts and a military that loves fast fancy airplanes rather than flingwings...
Want to see a cool advance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
That uses some new technology that has been developed into this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Will it enter service? Hopefully, it really is pretty cool.
What you think of as limits to airplane performance is true only because of the old thinking of manned airplanes. I am a commercial airplane and helicopter pilot, flight instructor in both, and I see the future is dim for pilots in the air of any kind. Yes, a pilot is superior to programming, but 1 pilot isn't superior to 10 super cheap and super maneuverable drones.
That is the future, like it or not.