Iranian Navy | News and Discussions

[Hack-Hook]

I

Not an accident.

It could have been underwater drone(s) carrying a micro explosive charge or navy seals using 1-2 person midget submarines to attach charges.

It was a calculated message. The intention wasn’t to destroy the ship or even severely damage it, as that would be severe escalation in brinksmanship. It was to send the message to US, Arab countries, and the world that Iran can cause damage anywhere in PG.

They heard the message loud and clear and As you can see the US is tripping over itself to try to deescalate the conflict.

I like to see somebody try to attach explosives to a moving ship from backside.

 

[TheImmortal]

I
I like to see somebody try to attach explosives to a moving ship from backside.

You don’t know when explosive was attached versus when it was detonated.

 

[Hack-Hook]

You don’t know when explosive was attached versus when it was detonated.

if it was in the port when the explosive attached then goes the theory of underwater drone(s) or navy seals using 1-2 person midget submarines to attach charges. you won't use them in the ports

 

[TheImmortal]

if it was in the port when the explosive attached then goes the theory of underwater drone(s) or navy seals using 1-2 person midget submarines to attach charges. you won't use them in the ports

You do realize tankers can float offshore and wait until their port of call?

Anyone thinking this was an “accident” is not living realm of reality. Multiple ships suffer same accident together and within 24 hours Houthi’s drone attack Saudi pipeline.

 

[skyshadow]

persian gulf missile test

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[skyshadow]

what do you guys think the 'secret weapons' are?



Iran can sink U.S. warships with 'secret weapons', military official says


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-weapons-military-official-says-idUSKCN1SV049

 

[GWXP]

what do you guys think the 'secret weapons' are?



Iran can sink U.S. warships with 'secret weapons', military official says


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-weapons-military-official-says-idUSKCN1SV049

Yakhont anti-ship missile? Iranian ally Syria known to poses some--Iran could get them and reverse engineer....

 

[DoubleYouSee]

no;it's
SS-N-16 Stallion.

 

[skyshadow]

Yakhont anti-ship missile? Iranian ally Syria known to poses some--Iran could get them and reverse engineer....

well maybe because Iran already said they are working on long range supersonic anti-ship missiles, but what ever the weapon is, be it anti-ship cruise missile or anti-ship ballistic missile, its powerful even with 1 or 2 of them being fired at aircraft carrier it will put it at risk.

 

[OldTwilight]

well maybe because Iran already said they are working on long range supersonic anti-ship missiles, but what ever the weapon is, be it anti-ship cruise missile or anti-ship ballistic missile, its powerful even with 1 or 2 of them being fired at aircraft carrier it will put it at risk.

Without nuclear warheads , all is for naught

 

[TheImmortal]

Without nuclear warheads , all is for naught

That’s not true. If you damage a carrier sufficiently, it will have to leave battlefield. Sinking a carrier is overrated. Damage is the best route.

Hence why PG missile is so deadly, while most modern anti ship missiles aim to hit near the waterline of the ship, that will not be sufficent against a carrier. However, PG is BM that impacts from top down strike angle. Thus will completely obliterate the runway, any planes on it, and the commanders tower....thus rendering the carrier useless and inoperable for battlefield missions.

 

[skyshadow]

Without nuclear warheads , all is for naught

well as i said before i agree with you on having nuclear weapons but i do not agree with you on using them first. i think it should be our absolutely absolutely absolutely laaaast option.

 

[sepasgozar]

no;it's
SS-N-16 Stallion.

You mean this bad boy here?View media item 17975

 

[AmirPatriot]

well as i said before i agree with you on having nuclear weapons but i do not agree with you on using them first. i think it should be our absolutely absolutely absolutely laaaast option.

The problem with nukes is that if we get them, our entire long-range missile fleet becomes useless.

 

[skyshadow]

The problem with nukes is that if we get them, our entire long-range missile fleet becomes useless.

i get you bro but that is if we publicly announce it i meant to make these weapons, but keep them a open secret like Israel. but even if we go public then that will have its big warning sign too.