But since the Naval High Command does not learn from the past, they will go exclusively with these, and the SC will fade away, until it hits the fan again, and the USN finds these pocket carriers lack what it takes.

and turning while at speed (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

*shrugs*I can post links to inherent dangers of salt water and sulfuric acid ie from the batteries or the inherent dangers of nuclear powered reactors?
Again your point is? that is was too dangerous to develop? It was not developed due to nuclear power offered less refueling times. dangerous/hazardous never matters much to military minds.

WMS

Also don't forget some vintage US tech that the Iranians still have from the 70's. F14's might not be top of the line anymore but they still pack a punch.

I need to verify, but I'm pretty sure the US sold Tomcats to Iraq, not Iran. And it wasn't long before they were all grounded because they didn't have to tech/know-how to keep them operational.

The article ignores two keys facts.

1. The Navy has freely admitted since the early days of nuclear warfare that carriers aren't really expected to surive beyond the initial conflict in a high-intensity war and were never meant to. When you go high intensity on both sides, survivability becomes a quaint term.

2. Van Riper earned his victory by cheating as much, if not more so, as the admirals who "refloated" the lost ships. Van Riper did this by ruthlessly abusing the system before the game ever began. He took advantage of the fact that the battle was a computer simulation where the orders were executed flawlessly. If someone had used Van Ripper's system in real life, the odds of it working as well are very low. If nothign else, the sheer scope of the network would have risked singal to noise confusion and also exposure of the orders to intelligence assets on the ground. Likewise, the computer literaly gave Ripper an unlimited number of personnel for kamakazie missions. While there are obviously some zealots who will sacrifice themselves, the number is relatively low. In Palenstine, the radicals couldn't even maintain a one suicide bomber a day rate, and Iran has less than 15 times the population of Palenstine. Thus the odds of them being able to call upon thousands of kamakazies at any one time are virtually nil.

That's not to say Van Riper was utterly wrong. What his cheating did was to highlight something the Navy already knew and was addressing, namely that blue water ships are less than ideal for what amount to littoral combat. There's scads of new ships and weapons systems being designed to address this; however, under the current administration those programs had suffered cutbacks as emphasis was placed elsewhere. That leaves one to conclude that Van Riper's true strategy was to embarass the administration enough to refocus on the programs it already had in palce.

-Nr

But what is interesting is you can see the Iranian navy doing something similar to Van Riper when they 'buzz' US ships in the straits of Hormuz. They've gotten to within a few hundred meters of US navel assets while some yahoo on the radio is threatening the US sailors, thrown crates off the sides and gotten away with nothing more than a warning shot. The theory is sound, especially if you factor in a 'martyrs are cheap' attitude. As far as being able to call on thousands of kamikazes, it's not too far fetched. 30 or 40 PT boats with a exorcet each could saturate the defenses of a carrier pretty quickly and it only takes one good hit to cripple a ship.

Also the Palestinians may not be able to turn out a suicide bomber every day but don't forget they're also using them almost as quickly as they become available. I could see Iran training willing candidates then holding them in reserve until the time is right. That's the beauty of a PT boat, they don't need much in the way of crew. Even with a hundred or so willing martyrs you could probably crew enough boats to do some real damage.

Also don't forget some vintage US tech that the Iranians still have from the 70's. F14's might not be top of the line anymore but they still pack a punch.

They've gotten away with it because they know our military planners are (thankfully) unwilling to go to war with them over a couple of idiotic stunts.

30-40 PT boats against a carrier would in fact be a bad day. Against a couple of destroyers and cruisers with their main guns and harpoons and what not... not so effective I'd think. Knowing what we know now it'd take a fantastic act of willful idiocy to march an uncovered carrier into a situation without support.

And like I said, that's why we're developing LCS's, 60 knots will let it chase down any of those small boats.

Well i misspoke, a harpoon is a bit excessive for a 20ft cigarette boat.

They haven't licked that seeker head problem?
<Edit> According to wiki Block IE harpoons have been upgraded to be able to attack ships in port or near large land masses.

I'm actually fairly certain they /have/ implemented TDT (if TDT means manual aiming for force protection) for CIWS guns. I've also been told that the deck guns on destroyers and cruisers are incredibly accurate and could "Shoot a traditional battleship artillery shell out of the sky".

I'm not seeing anything that says the CIWS is being upgraded to perform this role. Which would be nice because it's evidently useless against modern missiles

Modern phalanx mounts have TV/Thermal sights. Block 1B Phalanx Surface Mode (PSUM)

I was of the understanding that Chinese sub squadrons, while the most advanced part of their navy, were still a good pace behind us in terms of both stealth and detection technology. I know they have a lot of money coming in, but I find it hard to believe that they've gone from Soviet surplus to U.S.-equivalent technology in.. ten years? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/question.gif)

30 or 40 PT boats with a exorcet each could saturate the defenses of a carrier pretty quickly and it only takes one good hit to cripple a ship.