Eldorado Posted June 13, 2019 #1 Share Posted June 13, 2019 "Two oil tankers have caught fire after being attacked in the Gulf of Oman. "One of them, the Front Altair, was "suspected of being hit by a torpedo", Taiwan's state oil refiner CPC Corp said. "It was "on fire and adrift", maritime intelligence firm Dryad Global said." Full report at Sky News UK: https://news.sky.com/story/two-oil-tankers-attacked-in-the-gulf-of-oman-11740888 Live Updates at the UK Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/13/oil-tankers-hit-fresh-attack-gulf-oman/ 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoofGardener Posted June 13, 2019 #2 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Uh-oh 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essan Posted June 13, 2019 #3 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Now, who would benefit most from a war in the Gulf, I wonder? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted June 13, 2019 #4 Share Posted June 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, Essan said: Now, who would benefit most from a war in the Gulf, I wonder? Oh, I don't know, let's take a look at the situation, shall we? Iran is powerless against economic sanctions that are literally crippling their economy and causing a rising tide of resentment against the Mullocracy there. They have a history of using proxies to do their bloody-work but their every action is being watched like a hawk so that route isn't as viable. They are faced with very soon having to sit down and do a deal with the U.S. that will set back their nuclear and hegemonic ambitions significantly unless they try some bold new gambit. To answer your question with my opinion... I'd say that NO ONE will "benefit" from such a war in the short term but the crazies in Tehran have the most to lose by FAR and away... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setton Posted June 13, 2019 #5 Share Posted June 13, 2019 29 minutes ago, and then said: Oh, I don't know, let's take a look at the situation, shall we? Iran is powerless against economic sanctions that are literally crippling their economy and causing a rising tide of resentment against the Mullocracy there. They have a history of using proxies to do their bloody-work but their every action is being watched like a hawk so that route isn't as viable. They are faced with very soon having to sit down and do a deal with the U.S. that will set back their nuclear and hegemonic ambitions significantly unless they try some bold new gambit. To answer your question with my opinion... I'd say that NO ONE will "benefit" from such a war in the short term but the crazies in Tehran have the most to lose by FAR and away... So because they have so much to lose from a war, they desperately want to start one? Interesting logic. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted June 13, 2019 #6 Share Posted June 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, Setton said: So because they have so much to lose from a war, they desperately want to start one? Interesting logic. Kind of making it up as you go along, aren't ya? I never said they desperately WANTED to start a war. No need to lie about my words. Sometimes people do irrational things out of seething anger because they have no other way to strike out. Believe what you will, doesn't matter to me. The only power Iran has now is the power to bully the nations of the world by attempting to close the straits of Hormuz and damaging the world economy. Ironically, those that trust them and see them as victims don't believe they'd do exactly the same thing in spades once they are a nuclear weapons state. Maybe it IS a false flag. If so, it seems like a good time for the Ayatollahs to come to the table and begin talks with the world about opening up their facilities for inspection and shutting down and shipping out their nuclear materials and infrastructure, eh? It seems a small price to pay for world peace and economic stability, wouldn't you agree? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the frog Posted June 13, 2019 #7 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Wonder who have a lot of torpedo on their fleet in the gulf region... well wonder who have the biggest fleet active in the gulf region ? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essan Posted June 13, 2019 #8 Share Posted June 13, 2019 1 hour ago, and then said: ....the crazies in Tehran have the most to lose by FAR and away... I agree. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkHunter Posted June 13, 2019 #9 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Seems the oil tankers werent torpedoed but were instead attacked with limpet mines. The USS Bainbridge that went to aid one of the two attacked tankers, Iranian navy got to the other one first and took the sailors to Iran, has reported they found an unexploded limpet mine on the tanker. "The crew of USS Bainbridge reported that they saw an unexploded limpet mine on the side of one of the ships attacked today in the Gulf of Oman, according to a US defense official familiar with the matter." https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/middleeast/live-news/gulf-of-oman-incident-latest-intl/index.html 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted June 13, 2019 #10 Share Posted June 13, 2019 I doubted the torpedo idea from the beginning on as no nation that has that technology, including carriers like submarines and surface vessels, would run such an attack. It is my guess that the events were terrorist attacks, performed with home made naval mines, which can be made on a low-tech level very easy and can be placed with every kind of boat/ship. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatetopa Posted June 13, 2019 #11 Share Posted June 13, 2019 4 hours ago, and then said: I'd hate to be an Iranian submariner just now. Do they have submarines? I did not know that they did. Was it a small surface torpedo boat possibly? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted June 13, 2019 #12 Share Posted June 13, 2019 5 hours ago, Eldorado said: "Two oil tankers have caught fire after being attacked in the Gulf of Oman. "One of them, the Front Altair, was "suspected of being hit by a torpedo", Taiwan's state oil refiner CPC Corp said. "It was "on fire and adrift", maritime intelligence firm Dryad Global said." Full report at Sky News UK: https://news.sky.com/story/two-oil-tankers-attacked-in-the-gulf-of-oman-11740888 Live Updates at the UK Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/13/oil-tankers-hit-fresh-attack-gulf-oman/ The White House is ramping up its rhetoric this evening (their midday). Last time they did that we went into Iraq. Seems Trump is going to get his war and then 2nd term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted June 13, 2019 #13 Share Posted June 13, 2019 1 minute ago, Tatetopa said: Do they have submarines? I did not know that they did. Was it a small surface torpedo boat possibly? Iran has super cavitating torpedo`s. Meaning they can travel at several 100 km/h and are potentially impossible to defend against using current technology (including that of the USA). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted June 13, 2019 #14 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Just now, RabidMongoose said: The White House is ramping up its rhetoric this evening (their midday). Last time they did that we went into Iraq. Seems Trump is going to get his war and then 2nd term. At this point, going to war without real provocation is the only thing that will lose 2020 for him. It isn't in his interest to start a war with Iran. It IS in Iran's short term interests to poke the bear and try to make us back off on sanctions. Not gonna work with Trump or Pompeo. 4 minutes ago, Tatetopa said: Do they have submarines? I did not know that they did. Was it a small surface torpedo boat possibly? Yep. Nothing that has a chance against an active ASW capability, however: https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/iran-submarine-capabilities/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatetopa Posted June 13, 2019 #15 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Just now, and then said: Yep. Nothing that has a chance against an active ASW capability, however: Sort of a bathtub submarine. Did you see RadidMongoose comment about super cavitating torpedoes? I can guess that with even the best torpedoes a submarine like that gets only one mission. If it were me, I would sacrifice it to take a shot at a carrier group Tankers are a lot easier to hit. Now it appears it could be mines. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted June 13, 2019 #16 Share Posted June 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said: Iran has super cavitating torpedo`s. Meaning they can travel at several 100 km/h and are potentially impossible to defend against using current technology (including that of the USA). Source? I'm familiar with the rhetoric on the Shkwal but it's supposed to be notoriously hard to aim and maintain on course. Besides that, any Iranian sub that goes active to target a USN vessel won't live long enough to do much damage. Sinking USN ships or even just killing our sailors will solidify the president's support when he drops the hammer on the mullahs. They have no winning gambit in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted June 13, 2019 #17 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Just now, Tatetopa said: Sort of a bathtub submarine. Did you see RadidMongoose comment about super cavitating torpedoes? I can guess that with even the best torpedoes a submarine like that gets only one mission. If it were me, I would sacrifice it to take a shot at a carrier group Tankers are a lot easier to hit. Now it appears it could be mines. Yeah, the Navy says they saw an unexploded mine on one of the tankers. That approach makes MUCH more sense. The acoustic signature for any existing torpedo would be available to any U.S. ship's sonar personnel. My guess is they snuck in with a midget boat and used their equivalent of SEALs to place the mines. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted June 13, 2019 #18 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Iranian tactics are saturation assault. They have 1000s of speedboats with a few rockets on each. The logic behind their doctrine is that while a destroyer or cruiser or aircraft carrier can knock out a few (maybe even dozens at a time) if there are 100 attacking the vessel they cannot defend against it. They cannot counter 100 rockets incoming at once. On top of that the Iranians have their super cavitating torpedo`s which would hit an American carrier before they could even react. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted June 13, 2019 #19 Share Posted June 13, 2019 1 minute ago, RabidMongoose said: Iranian tactics are saturation assault. They have 1000s of speedboats with a few rockets on each. The logic behind their doctrine is that while a destroyer or cruiser or aircraft carrier can knock out a few (maybe even dozens at a time) if there are 100 attacking the vessel they cannot defend against it. They cannot counter 100 rockets incoming at once. On top of that the Iranians have their super cavitating torpedo`s which would hit an American carrier before they could even react. Which is why there is no carrier in the Gulf. They'd stage attacks from outside. They have plenty of reach. Also, Iran isn't stupid enough to start a war that they know they'll be devastated by. They're just testing boundaries. The LAST thing Iran wants to do is give Trump and Pompeo a reason, dig? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted June 13, 2019 #20 Share Posted June 13, 2019 6 minutes ago, and then said: Source? I'm familiar with the rhetoric on the Shkwal but it's supposed to be notoriously hard to aim and maintain on course. Besides that, any Iranian sub that goes active to target a USN vessel won't live long enough to do much damage. Sinking USN ships or even just killing our sailors will solidify the president's support when he drops the hammer on the mullahs. They have no winning gambit in this situation. First created in 2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoot_(torpedo) and I presume by now well honed and tested seeing as its copied from the Russian VA-111 Shkval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted June 13, 2019 #21 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Just now, RabidMongoose said: First created in 2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoot_(torpedo) and I presume by now well honed and tested seeing as its copied from the Russian VA-111 Shkval. So, you're really questioning whether Iran will poke the U.S. and give Trump a perfect excuse to biotch-slap them and destroy their military? That may sound like arrogance but it's just well-accepted truth. Sure, they can kill U.S. sailors and maybe even sink a ship or two but at what cost to them? In less than a week, they'd have NO NAVY or airforce and most of their IRGC and nuclear infrastructure would be busted up broke down smokin' ruins. Do you believe Russia will risk nuclear war by aiding them? China, maybe? Nah. If they mess with the USN, it's their asses that will be handed to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted June 13, 2019 #22 Share Posted June 13, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, and then said: So, you're really questioning whether Iran will poke the U.S. and give Trump a perfect excuse to biotch-slap them and destroy their military? That may sound like arrogance but it's just well-accepted truth. Sure, they can kill U.S. sailors and maybe even sink a ship or two but at what cost to them? In less than a week, they'd have NO NAVY or airforce and most of their IRGC and nuclear infrastructure would be busted up broke down smokin' ruins. Do you believe Russia will risk nuclear war by aiding them? China, maybe? Nah. If they mess with the USN, it's their asses that will be handed to them. Right now, I think someone is playing games to try and get the USA and Iran to go to war against each other (cough... Saudi Arabia). Iran could currently be defeated but not without significant loss of US Naval assets, air force, and military personal on the ground. Iran`s armed forces haven't been degraded for a couple of decades like with Iraq. Its also a bigger country with a higher population than what Saddam had to fight for him. If the USA go in I predict they are looking at about 100,000 KIAs so it would be foolish. Air attacks would be more sensible to degrade the nations nuclear industry and military capabilities. But there is a danger - Iran might already have the A-Bomb. Edited June 13, 2019 by RabidMongoose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted June 13, 2019 #23 Share Posted June 13, 2019 36 minutes ago, Tatetopa said: Do they have submarines? Yeah, single use ones. They dive one time. Forever. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted June 13, 2019 #24 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Don't buy into the tripe that we'd ever try to subdue Iran through invasion. We'd never do that. no need to try. We'd destroy their airforce, naval assets and worst of all, we'd reduce their multibillion-dollar nuclear assets to smoking ruins and they KNOW it. Their forces are several generations of tech inferior to ours. We'd stand-off kill most of their aircraft and vessels and if they continued to make trouble we'd crush their industries in detail. And they KNOW it. Don't mistake me here. I'm not hoping for such a result. The worst thing we could do is give those old, crazy bassturds political cover with the youth of Iran. But if they kill Americans in an attack, whether there or in the U.S. through terror attacks, we will end them as a regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted June 13, 2019 #25 Share Posted June 13, 2019 6 minutes ago, and then said: Don't buy into the tripe that we'd ever try to subdue Iran through invasion. We'd never do that. no need to try. We'd destroy their airforce, naval assets and worst of all, we'd reduce their multibillion-dollar nuclear assets to smoking ruins and they KNOW it. Their forces are several generations of tech inferior to ours. We'd stand-off kill most of their aircraft and vessels and if they continued to make trouble we'd crush their industries in detail. And they KNOW it. Don't mistake me here. I'm not hoping for such a result. The worst thing we could do is give those old, crazy bassturds political cover with the youth of Iran. But if they kill Americans in an attack, whether there or in the U.S. through terror attacks, we will end them as a regime. The USA would beat them in a war but it wouldnt be a clean victory. And I think they would go for some of their neighbours so it would force the US to commit to a land invasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now