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?""
But the F35 is more or less combat ready in its basic form, it's mainly extended feature sets like the USMC's VTOL variant that are holding it back from being in use now.
Moral of the story, though... the people who mocked the F22 as the boondoggle to the F35 should have been fired from the DoD and run out of Congress. The F22 ended up being cheaper and still better (IIRC). There's no excuse for being naive enough to believe "oh yeah, we'll be much cheaper" when building something like the F35.
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/... & http://defensetech.org/2011/08...
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?
That's no way to talk about a model citizen
rewriting history since 2109
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.
Could be just a movie in general, doesn't have to be propaganda.
Hollywood used to do stuff like this all the time, it wasn't because we were actually going to blow up a russian sub.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Government leadership on both sides could use an extended stay in a psychiatric facility. I thought US/Iran relations were supposed to be warming? With active gestures from both sides? In regards to that, I can think of stupider moves Iran could have made but this is dumb and disappointing all the same. When things progressed so far that President Obama and President Rouhani spoke by phone - a major accomplishment on both sides - I hoped things would keep getting better from there. That they would open up their nuclear efforts and that we could then lift sanctions with a real friendship on the horizon. What happened to all that? It was recent and a major news story for sometime. I guess I was naive. If the nations of the world could only humble themselves before one another... In most cases I suppose religion is the big barrier there. The planet is (figuratively) shrinking at an exponential rate and if we don't learn to actually truly get along as a planet of independent nations, we will see a mass thinning of the population at some point, under unfavorable circumstances.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
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)
It seems to have built a complete mock-up of a democracy, complete with a mock-up judiciary, a mock up legislature and even a mock up of a functioning economy.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Persuading some other countries to spend money on it doesn't make it un-American.
It's America's idea, they're footing 90-odd percent of the bill and it's fast becoming a trillion-dollar white elephant (Drones! Who could have predicted those?).
No sig today...
just to clarify, which side were you talking about?
Who are these silly yanks trying to fool. To what nefarious propagandic purposes will they be used?
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Any connection between the F-22 and the F-35?
The F-22 seems finished enough, or so is my impression anyway. :) Could they possibly have shared the same budget somehow?
The F-22 is American only. It is by far the top air superiority fighter in the world on paper, although, it is too new to have been challenged by anyone or prove itself in combat. However, one did sneak up on some Iranian fighters unnoticed and send them scurrying home (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/19/us-pilot-scares-iranians-top-gun-worthy-stunt-you-/). The F-22 is complete and operational as an air superiority fighter. A ground attack version is either on the way or functional.
The F-35 is a multinational effort. It is meant to come in various configurations and provide a variety of roles. It is meant to replace the F-18 for the Navy (aircraft carrier landing, air superiority/attack), the F-15 for the Air Force (air superiority, ground attack), and the Harrier for the Marine Core (vertical take off and landing, ground support). It is over budget and non-operational.
Obama has cancelled the superior, completed, and operational F-22 and directed some of the funds toward the incomplete, problem plagued F-35.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Even if it is a military training aid*, it's not like this isn't completely standard practice. America's own 11th Armored Cavalry is an entire regiment of troops using equipment modified to look and act like enemy equipment (still Soviet, both because most of our enemies are still using Soviet or Soviet-derived equipment, and because it seems like Russia wants to start WW3 again). They're used for training - every other army unit cycles through, "fighting" against them in a really, really advanced version of laser tag, with the 11th acting as the "opposing force", mimicking as best they can the enemy's tactics and capabilities.
Iran and US are currently enemies. We're not at war yet, and I hope it doesn't come to that, but expecting neither side to train for that war is preposterous.
* Given that it's size is wrong, it seems ill-designed for military training. If they were training for an air or sea assault, they would need a properly-sized target, and if they were training to try to capture it, they'd need more detailed internals. It seems more likely to be prop for a propaganda film.
There was a Tom Clancy novel about that sort of thing. It had a premise of flawless execution of tasks by thousands of people on the US side and a combination of stone age technology (despite having satellites!) plus utter incompetence on the other.
Sometimes I just wish Clancy would read Conrad's "The Secret Agent" from around a century ago and either give up in despair or take it as inspiration to improve.
Their plan is to come in at night and steal the real Nimitz, leaving the duplicate in its place
Sometimes I just wish Clancy would read Conrad's "The Secret Agent" from around a century ago and either give up in despair or take it as inspiration to improve.
That would be quite a feat. Guess you missed the the news of Clancy's death last year.
Yes, both the Germans and Japanese used bolt-repeaters, and both were at technological (though not industrial) parity with the USA.
The Western Allies had the Germans and Japanese beat in electronics (primitive electronic computers, widespread employment of mechanical computers for fire control machines, proximity fuses, and radar), aerospace design (particularly by war's end), and practical nuclear fission.
The Germans had the Allies beat in a select few technological areas, rocketry and chemical weapons come to mind. The former of course came too late to affect the result and the latter was never used for fear of retaliation. The Japanese didn't beat the Allies in any technological realm, theoretical or practical, though they did have a few bits of engineering (the Type 93 torpedo) that came as a very rude surprise for the Allies.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Apart from the parts which were not designed in the US, sure... Your definition of "American" seems to be based on feeling, not some sort of solid definition...
I'll walk you through my thought process...
Per Wikipedia: "It is being designed and built by an aerospace industry team led by Lockheed Martin." Now correct me if I'm wrong, but Lockheed Martin is an American company. Therefore it must be American.
I'll use another industry as an example. If Samsung produces 75% of the technology inside a television, and then sources the plastics from say China, it's still a South Korean product, not a South Korean & Chinese product. Or a car manufacturer, say Lotus, that sources an engine from Toyota, don't start saying their vehicle is British & Japanese. It's just British.
I'm not saying that the JSF project is only American, but in design and manufacturing and the majority of the funding was in fact, American.
How is what I'm saying based on feeling? It seems to me, you're trying to argue a point you can't substantiate either...