Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Iran Builds Mock-up of Nimitz-Class Aircraft Carrier

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the why-not-an-enterprise-class-a-starship? dept.

The Military 298

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?""

cancel ×

298 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I like fake vaginas (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556659)

I highly recommend the japanese ones over the lump-of-fleshlight though.

Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556661)

doncha think!

Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46556741)

No. I predict some sort of staged attack, which will be broadcast as a triumphal attack on the Great Satan.
Because the Iranian people are nearly as daft as Americans, to judge by the election results.

Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556759)

No. I predict some sort of staged attack, which will be broadcast as a triumphal attack on the Great Satan. Because the Iranian people are nearly as daft as Americans, to judge by the election results.

Amazing how daft a people can be when their media and their political parties are all bought and paid for.

Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com (3, Insightful)

graphius (907855) | about 6 months ago | (#46557095)

just to clarify, which side were you talking about?

Re:Mick up is kinda like beta.slashdot.com (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#46557187)

The US, of course. In Iran, you needn't buy any media, the law makes sure already that they stay in Islamic line.

mockup schmockup (1, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 6 months ago | (#46556667)

I had one of those. Don't remember if it was Airfix, Tamiya or Revell...

Re:mockup schmockup (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556779)

I had one of those. Don't remember if it was Airfix, Tamiya or Revell...

Whichever it was, rest assured that nobody cares.

Re:mockup schmockup (2, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | about 6 months ago | (#46556795)

That's no way to talk about a model citizen

Iran. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556671)

Iran is crazier.

F-35 is not just American (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about 6 months ago | (#46556677)

By why cloud a good jab at the US with facts?

Re:F-35 is not just American (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about 6 months ago | (#46557009)

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?).

Correct me if I'm wrong... (3, Informative)

MikeRT (947531) | about 6 months ago | (#46556679)

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.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 6 months ago | (#46556769)

The time for manned fighters is coming to an end. They should concentrate on the X-47B.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556841)

You do realize unmanned fighters are unproven. No manned fighter vs unmanned fighter dog fight between two countries who are near each in technologically terms has ever occurred. Unmanned fighters will probably be easy pickings. They'll likely fall for a predefined attack vector like the windows drone armies. Also, jamming and false imagining will pretty much end any use of drones in the battle field against a country with similar technologically development. Also, given human history of IT security giving machines gun seams like a rather bad idea.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about 6 months ago | (#46556861)

They'll likely fall for a predefined attack vector

Also, jamming and false imagining will pretty much end any use of drones in the battle field

giving machines gun seams like a rather bad idea.

You do realise there's a difference between "unmanned" and "autonomous" don't you?

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (3, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#46556891)

You do realize unmanned fighters are unproven. No manned fighter vs unmanned fighter dog fight between two countries who are near each in technologically terms has ever occurred.

The Garand M1 rifle is unproven. No infantry clash between two countries near each other in technological terms, one with semi-auto rifles, the other with bolt-repeaters has ever occurred.

Unmanned fighters will probably be easy pickings. They'll likely fall for a predefined attack vector like the windows drone armies.

Yes, and those semi-auto rifles will jam a lot and GIs will run through all their ammunition within seconds, which is why no country will be ever willing to reequip their soldiers. We have to prepare for the last war again.

How did you come up with these ridiculous ideas?

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 6 months ago | (#46557037)

That would have been a much more interesting comparison if you could render the Garand rifle unusable by jamming radio frequencies.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#46557049)

I fail to see how jamming radio frequencies has anything to do with autonomous robots. They will kill you anyway.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

JDeane (1402533) | about 6 months ago | (#46557273)

And to add as soon as you start jamming anything you are broadcasting a very strong signal. HARM missiles are designed for just such an occasion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about 6 months ago | (#46556975)

Yes and aircraft will never pose a threat to warships. At least that's what they told General Mitchell. He fought the old military establishment so hard to create a new military capability that they eventually demoted him and then court martialed him. Always people want to fight the next war with the last war's weaponry. We need a new Billy Mitchell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 6 months ago | (#46557137)

But the fight isn't manned fighter vs unmanned drone.

It's manned fighter vs *ten* unmanned drones.

Drones are cheaper, so you can field lots of them. They are also more expendable - expensive, yes, but not so much, and you don't get the political fallout of losing a patriotic hero.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#46557259)

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.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

Shinobi (19308) | about 6 months ago | (#46556957)

Why manned fighters still have a place: Greater situational awareness, no radio link latency, not as sensitive to jamming.

Doesn't matter how many G's your drone can pull if you have 500ms latency, and your sensors are jammed. And if the radio frequencies are jammed, the drone is a sitting duck, following simple pre-defined actions, while a pilot can figure out a solution/act independently.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 6 months ago | (#46557071)

Read up on it. We're not talking about drones here but autonomous fighters. You assign it a mission and then it concludes the mission according to programmed parameters.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 6 months ago | (#46557091)

So you really think it would be hard to program evasive maneuvers into a drone? No human would be able to handle reacting at that speed nor would their physiology be able to handle the movements. And when all else fails it can just be programmed to ram into the other plane.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 6 months ago | (#46557277)

^ This...

All too often people can't see the forest for the trees...

With enough cheap drones (cheap compared to the cost of manned fighters), you can simply ram the enemy fighters. Production lines can produce more drones, but it takes years to replace a trained pilot.

The war of the robots is coming, the first nation to field battle ready drones in huge numbers on land, sea, and air, will walk over everyone else.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (4, Interesting)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 6 months ago | (#46556785)

> 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... [alternet.org]

Or on an aircraft carrier:

        http://theaviationist.com/2012... [theaviationist.com]

Or landing on the $1500/each tires twice in a row:

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... [bloomberg.com]

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.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (2)

BitZtream (692029) | about 6 months ago | (#46556879)

So you apparently no nothing about proving a new aircraft.

Please show me any comparable aircraft in use in the modern world that didn't have the same sort of issues.

You won't find ANY military aircraft in ANY country on the planet that didn't have similar issues in its development, at least not since WWII.

You'll be able to find many commercial aircraft that haven't 'crashed' during development, but blow outs on landing? hahaha Even in commercial airliners, a blow out is 'normal'. Twice in a row? Unusual, but just. And I'm not talking about in development, I'm talking about that if you've flown very many airline flights, you've been on a flight with a blowout on landing, you just didn't know it.

They don't design these aircraft to not blow out tires, they design them to deal with blowouts because smacking rubber onto asphalt at 180mph is a metric fuckton of energy going into one little object. ANY imperfection will show up quickly, and its more or less impossible to not have some sort of imperfection.

I'm picking the tires as one to use as an example here, but the same is true pretty much across the board on other systems.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46557067)

Is that all? Please give us more. When you run out of "we need it for military" reasons, you can begin anew with "we need it for jobs" reasons. Just like our DC DouChebags.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (2)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 6 months ago | (#46557073)

> You won't find ANY military aircraft in ANY country on the planet that didn't have similar issues in its development, at least not since WWII.

Not this late in their development.

The F35 has directly competing design goals, ranging from their supersonic stealth capabilities to their short take-off/landing requirements, which is precisely _why_ the tires cost $1500 and wear out so quickly. The belief that throwing more billions of design to resolve what are fundamentally incompatible needs for power, speed, stealth, aircraft carrier landing, and three different military departments' military needs are what we who do contracting would call a "money trough". The competing design requirements ensure that no design will _ever_ work well enough and it will _always_ require expensive revamping of the entire architecture to serve the conflicting clients' needs.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46557129)

Not this late in their development.

Apparently you weren't around for the F-111's development.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 6 months ago | (#46557165)

I also seem to recall spectacular failures in the media of the F-14, the F16, and the F-18s.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (0)

dbIII (701233) | about 6 months ago | (#46557203)

Considering the last one flying had it's wings cut off last year to ship to Hawaii I'd say there's hardly anyone on this site that was around for the F-111's development - antique or not. It was in service for over 40 years after some years in development, so anyone paying attention during that time would have to be at least 60, probably closer to 65.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46557123)

The carrier variant isn't being fielded till 2019. It's still in testing.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (5, Insightful)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 6 months ago | (#46556837)

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.

The fundamental problem is we seem to have fallen in love with the idea that their is one airplane that can do it all, for all the services. As a result, the plane's performance degrades as it suffers bloat that makes Windows look positively svelte. The best read on this is Coram's book, "Boyd" that details John Boyd's battle agains the Air Force bureaucracy.

The most telling line in TFA is that the F-35 is built in 45 states, thus ensuring it's survival since no Congressman or Senator wants to be accused of killing jobs in their home district or state. Wether or not the plane is what is needed is secondary to that; and woe be tide to any military leader that dares suggest killing it.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (2)

spoot (104183) | about 6 months ago | (#46556969)

I'm old enough to remember we've been down this road before with the boondoggle of the multi-one-plane-to-rule-them-all before. I'm not dissing the f-35, it's just that we've been through this before with similar results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 6 months ago | (#46557285)

I'm old enough to remember we've been down this road before with the boondoggle of the multi-one-plane-to-rule-them-all before. I'm not dissing the f-35, it's just that we've been through this before with similar results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]

Heh. That's the plane Boyd said, when asked what could be done with it, said "Rip the wings off, paint it yellow, and make it the fastest crew delivery bus."

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46557161)

The A, B, and C models really aren't the same plane. The F35 is built in 45 different states because it is 3 different planes with thousands of components for each plane, and most of the components must be sourced from the United States. Go research the components that go into an iPhone or any other smart phone or computer and see how many different states and countries they are produced in.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (4, Informative)

BitZtream (692029) | about 6 months ago | (#46556857)

Its already in use by multiple air forces. The B version I think is the only one not in active duty at this point.

The F-22 and the F-35 fill different roles.

The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, the F-35 is an attack fighter. You send F-22s along with the F-35s on missions, the F-22s protect the F-35 from advanced air targets while they fly in heavily loaded and completely unable to perform any sort of meaningful air combat without dumping their fuel and weapons stores. The F-35 is like an F-16 configured for ground attack, the F-22 is like an F-16 configured for air superiority, though the F-35A in the proper configuration can maintain the same performance as the F-16 in an air superiority configuration, you're more or less unarmed at that point, which is also useless in combat.

The F-22 and F-35 are complimentary aircraft, not competing. You and many in the government could have saved yourselves a fuckload of ignorance if you listened to the people who fight wars when they told you why to make both. It wasn't until the things were in the air and the reality of what happens when you load a fighter aircraft down with a few tons of bombs that people outside the military got the clue.

Theres a reason you have multiple aircraft, just like theres a reason you have multiple types of foot soldier. Some are heavy armed and armored to take a pounding, some are fast as shit and light and are dead if you shoot them with a .22, and together they kick ass, alone, they can be annihilated by a well trained militia

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 6 months ago | (#46556995)

But the F35 is more or less combat ready in its basic form.

Translation: "Not really ready yet...."

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (1)

Saffaya (702234) | about 6 months ago | (#46557289)

Cheaper and better than ... what ?
The F-22 was inferior in almost every important metric to its competitor, the YF-23.
Except for being backed by the side with most corrupt^H^H^H^H lobbying power.

Or it could be used for something else... (1)

Megol (3135005) | about 6 months ago | (#46556689)

Like verifying targeting systems? Or perhaps (I don't know if it is needed) checking radar response to compensate for stealth techniques?

Re:Or it could be used for something else... (2, Interesting)

gtall (79522) | about 6 months ago | (#46556799)

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?

Re:Or it could be used for something else... (2)

dbIII (701233) | about 6 months ago | (#46557243)

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.

The only difference... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556697)

...between a mock up and the real thing is if your planes can actually take off and land.

Re: The only difference... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556831)

Which in the case of the f35 is a resounding "occasionally"!

there's another (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 6 months ago | (#46556699)

Isn't this the 2nd one they've built? The first one is an office building and only looks like a carrier from above. We never figured that one out either. I couldn't find a link because "Iran aircraft carrier building" only brings up this story now. lol Maybe it was china that did it? I can't remember.

Movie props (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556703)

There's probably for a movie in the making. To get some footage of the carrier, the movie company is building their own. It's going to be filmed in that area, so its build near there to avoid shipping (haha) costs. Also, labor is cheap in that region.

Propaganda? (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | about 6 months ago | (#46556711)

I think Iran has computers and 3D artists, and blowing up a CGI USA aircraft carrier would be cheaper and indistinguishable from the real thing on tv screens.

Re:Propaganda? (4, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | about 6 months ago | (#46556885)

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.

Re:Propaganda? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556913)

the only propaganda i see is this article, gotta keep those US stories flowing about how bad and scarey Iran is and which one of their leaders is about to unleash armageddon this week

Re:Propaganda? (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 6 months ago | (#46557055)

It's just not as effective to train your boarding parties with a CGI as it is with a physical mock up. I'm not saying they are actually going to try and board a Carrier, but when some numb-nuts cousin of somebody who can kill or disapear you on a whim says to do something stupid, you just do it.

Don't laugh - worry (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 6 months ago | (#46556717)

It's very likely to be for training purposes.

Re:Don't laugh - worry (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 6 months ago | (#46557083)

Especially to train drone pilots.

Or it could be used for something (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556721)

Like verifying targeting systems?
  HTML co ban [thietkewebsite6886.com]

Go one better than China? (4, Interesting)

auric_dude (610172) | about 6 months ago | (#46556725)

Re:Go one better than China? (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 6 months ago | (#46556777)

I guess this shows how seriously they consider the threat of US Carriers.

Re:Go one better than China? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556823)

i am from Iran , when USA government just talk about table and its ... , what do you want ??? you threat iran , iran react . Israel treat Iran , iran threat back . iran threat israel , Israel threat back . this is all politic , they all is evil , dost make difference Israel politician or Iranian politician or USA politician. please please please understand this . understanding this point will make huge difference in our world

Re:Go one better than China? (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 6 months ago | (#46557041)

All government is evil. That's what the founders of the United States said back when they revolted against the rule of England.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." - Thomas Paine

Sadly most people don't feel this way.

Fake Boat? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#46556737)

Seriously? The best you could do is "fake boat"?

Here's my theory, They've come up with some fancy new weapons system that they think can down a Nimitz-class, and they want something that actually looks like one for the demo.

gotta be certified to build a carrier, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556751)

This doesnt make sense. What do you mean its not a real aircraft carrier and Iran can't build a real aircraft carrier? If you can land a plane on it it's a fuckiing aircraft carrier. It doesn't need nuclear propulsion to be an aircraft carrier. It about the size of the biggest aircraft carriers from WWII.

Of course I don't know anything about it, but a bunch of FUD from the us navy doesnt mean anything either.

radar and tracking test (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556765)

it's to test their radar and tracking systems. the mock ship helps them create a radar signature which will be similiar to the real ship. the painted number is there to test their optical recognition systems.

the article is propaganda to show that "the enemy" is no match to the homeland's capabilities.

Lobbydot's Anti-Iran Policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556773)

Iran here. Once I thought Slashdot is a *neutral* news for nerds site, but now it seems it is just another funny tail of the nonsense emitting propaganda machine.
Granted that life in Iran is super-funny (recently gov. vowed proudly that they are squashing anti-filter softwares) but I wonder don't any Slashdoters ask themselves why the US officials are *exposing* this very FACT(?) now in the middle of the IRAN-5+1 negotiations? Just search 'Iran' in this very site and see for yourself the flood of insolent news about we poor bloody Iranians

Re:Lobbydot's Anti-Iran Policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556871)

Wow, all of Iran got together and made a post to slashdot. This is proof that they are insane, or at least have way too much time on their hands.

Reaction to this story from elsewhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556775)

Love the comments from the crazies out there that Iran is going to use this to con American pilots into landing on their fake carrier so they can capture them, or that they're going to sail it into a naval port to detonate an explosive. It's a freaking mockup that may not even be seaworthy and definitely wouldn't be mistaken for an actual carrier. Idiots.

Busted Down Around O'Connelly Corners (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556783)

When police kicked in the door to his University District apartment on April 19, there, on a couch, lit by a flickering TV, next to several spray-paint cans on the floor, not far from a small stash of cocaine, near two crack pipes on the coffee table, reposed the remains of the rock musician.

Movie prop for Airbus Flight 655 (5, Interesting)

rjejr (921275) | about 6 months ago | (#46556787)

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?

Link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556901)

Google news doesn't give me anything like this? Would you like to share your links, please?

Re:Link? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 6 months ago | (#46557039)

Try www.google.com.

Re:Link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46557077)

I don't trust that URL ...

Re:Movie prop for Airbus Flight 655 (1)

Ly4 (2353328) | about 6 months ago | (#46557135)

As others have noted: citation needed. I can only find other comments making the same claim, no articles.

Also, the ship that shot down 655 was a guided missile cruiser, not a carrier. While there's no requirement that a movie be historically accurate, a cruiser mock-up would be much, much cheaper.

Re:Movie prop for Airbus Flight 655 (1)

careysub (976506) | about 6 months ago | (#46557191)

Here is the source for the "debunking": an Iranian news site - Mashreghnews.ir [mashreghnews.ir] asserting that this is a prop for a movie about the shoot-down of Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988 (hope you have Google translate activated).

However Flight 655 was shot down by the guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes (CG-49), and the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier was not involved. The U.S was not about to deploy an aircraft carrier battle group to the narrow, mine-filled waters of the Straits of Hormuz, nor would that kind of firepower have been any use for the tanker traffic policing mission. So it seems the Iranian news site is probably passing along disinformation (or rank speculation) about the test target ship being built.

Boat anchors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556801)

Well, at least the barge floats, while the F35s are only good as boat anchors.

No nuclear propulsion - My God, how primitive! (2, Interesting)

Archtech (159117) | about 6 months ago | (#46556809)

"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).

Re:No nuclear propulsion - My God, how primitive! (3, Insightful)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 6 months ago | (#46556893)

You're right. Iran projects extreme violence inward at it's own people. Or at anybody foolish enough to be within their borders.

That sort of thing results in a very 'peaceful' nation.

Re:No nuclear propulsion - My God, how primitive! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46557089)

In addition to the missing nuclear propulsion system (or any propulsion system), the ship is also missing catapults, arresting gear, elevators, or anything else that would allow it to function at all. That was silly bit of phrasing in the article.

It's unlikely that Iran wishes to indulge in "force projection"

And that's a bit of silly phrasing as well. Iran isn't even remotely capable of the kind of "force projection" you're worrying about here. Their wishes are immaterial.

Re:No nuclear propulsion - My God, how primitive! (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 6 months ago | (#46557201)

Nuclear propulsion enables you to go fast and each knot of extra speed is considerable less wear and tear on landing aircraft. If Iran were really serious about protecting what legitimate interests they have, Helicopters and STOL aircraft based on more modest carriers would be a better fit.

Any connection between the F-22 and the F-35? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556849)

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?

Re:Any connection between the F-22 and the F-35? (2)

ArcherB (796902) | about 6 months ago | (#46557171)

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.

Who's Crazier? (3, Insightful)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 6 months ago | (#46556899)

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.

Re:Who's Crazier? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 6 months ago | (#46557159)

Relations have indeed improved. They have gone from the brink of war all the way to a simmering mutual hate and loathing. That's still an improvement.

Marcy Wheeler suggests? (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 6 months ago | (#46556945)

America should immediately drop all other programs and start building Barges painted to look like aircraft carriers?

Seriously folks we get it. You fscking HATE America so much that you'll come up with any idiotic comparison you can to make us look bad, even false comparisons that are a fine display of stupidity, inability to think logically, and a dandy non sequitur to boot.

I wonder how a war between these barges and jet fighters would turn out?

Re:Marcy Wheeler suggests? (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 6 months ago | (#46557247)

oh that's rich.

Isn't what's happening here the exact OPPOSITE of what you are claiming. This is US propaganda trying to make Iran look bad because you guys hate them so much.

Or.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556961)

They could simply build it to study tactic on how to better blow it up, should it attack them. You know. Like the US does in its wargame and planning. Heck some US department had plan to blow their own people to start a war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods). It is just that the US is a bit more discreet. In fact speaking of propaganda, when it relatess to the Iran, we see far far more jingoistic propaganda coming from the US (and israel) including murder commited or foreign nationals than from Iran. just sayin'.

Tourism. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46556965)

Star tourist attraction of their new Imperialist theme park with fiscal cliff roller coasters and WMD hunts for the children. It will also be the set of a grand Farsi remake of Steven Seagal's Under Siege, which will be premiered at the Deserted Outdoor Theater in Sinai Desert [weather.com] .

What, what, what? (3, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 6 months ago | (#46556989)

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.

Re:What, what, what? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 6 months ago | (#46557183)

I wonder if those speedboats could disable a carrier more directly? Pack with explosives, kamikaze into target ship. They can go fast and are cheap enough to swarm. Thick as the armor is, a boatload of explosives hitting at seventy miles per hour must be able to do some damage. They can pack a lot more explosives than a conventional torpedo.

India outdoes Iran (3, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 6 months ago | (#46556993)

When it comes to building mock-ups, there is no one to beat India.

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.

Re:India outdoes Iran (5, Informative)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 6 months ago | (#46557255)

When it comes to building mock-ups, there is no one to beat the good ol USA

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.

FTFY

"who is crazier" is not a relevant question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46557047)

But by all means, carry on your entertainment.

training (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46557053)

how else would you train to capture a carrier?

Fuck Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46557057)

I love how this story gets morphed into an anti-F35 rant. The Iranians are probably building the mock aircraft carrier for some type of training range. It's that whole train as you fight thing. As for the F35; the U.S. is probably pretty smart since most of the airplanes in the U.S. inventory are reaching the end of their service life. The F35 is also not a "never-ending" program. The program is supposed to last 55 years. Spending 1 trillion dollars over 55 years means nothing to the United States. Take 1 trillion dollars and divide it by 55. Then take that figure and compare it to U.S. GDP.

On a related note (3, Funny)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 6 months ago | (#46557099)

Satellite imagery has spotted the US recreating famous landmarks, all obviously fake and scaled down, in the middle of the desert.

Who are these silly yanks trying to fool. To what nefarious propagandic purposes will they be used?

More Realistic than China Lake's Sea Site Facility (1)

careysub (976506) | about 6 months ago | (#46557107)

The summary is full of stuff, but I won't say what.

The United States Navy has, as its primary air-delivered weapons test site - also used for training, a facility out in the Mojave Desert called the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station. On that test base (larger than Rhode Island) is a test location called "R-Range" (R is for radar). Out on R-Range is a sort of ship shaped hill called Sea Site that bristles with ship electronics. It is used for testing targeting systems and training -- and it is intended to be a reasonably realistic simulation of a ship equipped with all manner of electronic gear, radar, communications, electronic counter-measures, etc. And it is a hill out in the desert.

This somewhat sub-scale ship is a far more realistic test and training target than that hill out in the desert.

So? (2)

gman003 (1693318) | about 6 months ago | (#46557237)

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.

Oceans Eleven (5, Funny)

Al Al Cool J (234559) | about 6 months ago | (#46557253)

Their plan is to come in at night and steal the real Nimitz, leaving the duplicate in its place

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?