War with Iran.

[NoRailgunner 0]

The Iranian Navy has among other stuff 3 Kilo submarines ( http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kilo/ ) and few frigates - they can temporarily disrupt maritime traffic through the Straight of Hormuz.

Latest sabber rattling from Iran:

Iran has test fired its home-built surface-to-surface Fateh 110 missile

Iran began mass-producing two high-speed variants of missile-launching assault boats

Iranian leaders unveiled a bomber drone with a range of up to 1,000 kilometers (621 miles)

[Akira 0]

The likelihood of a nuclear tipped torpedo being used against a CVBG is remote. It would open up the possibility of retaliatory strikes.

I haven't seen anything regarding the Chinese ASBM's time to launch sequence. How long does it take to gather coordinates, pass targeting to crews, and input and ready the missile to launch?

[BronzeEagle 2]

pop the facilities and be done with it. That would be a righteous move....

Edited August 30, 2010 by BronzeEagle

[Daddl 10]

There's no doubt whatsoever that these new subs, like the German Type 212 (practically undetectable), are able to sink a carrier.

But then these definitely aren't the kind of WW2-style 'old diesel-electric' subs mentioned above. They are among the most modern submarines available today - they just happen not to come with a nuclear powerplant but fuel cells for underwater ops (which actually makes them harder to detect).

[Baff1 0]

The Iranian Navy has among other stuff 3 Kilo submarines ( http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kilo/ ) and few frigates - they can temporarily disrupt maritime traffic through the Straight of Hormuz.

I think the Persian Gulf is perhaps too shallow for submarines to be as big a threat as they could be. (Not to mention restricted by minefields).

---------- Post added at 12:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 PM ----------

The likelihood of a nuclear tipped torpedo being used against a CVBG is remote. It would open up the possibility of retaliatory strikes.

I haven't seen anything regarding the Chinese ASBM's time to launch sequence. How long does it take to gather coordinates, pass targeting to crews, and input and ready the missile to launch?

No idea but with a range of thousands of miles... time is something they have a lot of.

The chances of any war between China and America not being almost exclusively nuclear in nature are extremely remote in my opinion.

Chinses anti-naval technology could more reasonably be expected to be used against Taiwan's navy, which uses American technology but is not actually the American navy itself.

Carrier battlegroups are of no particular threat to China.

North Korea on the otherhand...

Edited August 30, 2010 by Baff1

[Txheat 10]

Going just off actual combat between US and Iran Navy forces in the Iran - Iraq war Iran proved to be able to launch Exorcets and put up a small scale oppostion. However I doubt that a carrier would be sunk. I think for the most part the Iranian Navy and Airforce will be non-existant in a Week. However I dunno Untill war breaks out no one will know what Iran and the Us has. Maybe the Ambassador of Death is actually good. lol anyone see this thing by the way?

[Baff1 0]

I think the anti shipping missiles owned by Iran denies U.S. aircraft carriers the ability to safely operate from inside the Persian gulf.

That as a consequence of them those ships must be deployed at a much greater range which limits the strike capabilities of their planes.

I agree with you about their airforce and navies life expectancies vs the U.S.

[Laqueesha 474]

Carrier strike groups are composed of the carrier itself, and nearly a dozen other ships, ranging from frigates, destroyers, cruisers and fast-attack submarines. Not to mention the helicopters and fixed wing fighter jets carried in the strike group. One ASM is not a huge threat to an entire fleet of ships. Now, if there were dozens of ASMs fired en masse, that's a different story.

[Baff1 0]

I think they have rather a lot more than just one.

As I understand the older anti misslie destroyers are each capable of engaging 2 missiles at a time and the newer up to 70 but neither are capable of engaging missiles that travel above certain supersonic speeds. (I.E. the latest tech ASM's).

Iran recently bought a load of new ASM's not sure which type. They used to have Silkworms.

The problem to my mind with these weapons, is you can't afford for just one to get through. While we think there is very little chance of just a single ASM getting through to a carrier, the damage it is capable of doing should it beat the odds is immense. Too great for us to countenance.

It simply isn't worth the risk when you can park your ships in a stand off position out of range and let the land based air assets do the same job more safely. Iran is surrounded by U.S. airbases. They can do it without the navy.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Baff1

[walker 0]

Hi Baff1

The problem with your suggestion is that it means ceding the Straits of Hormuz, for that is what your suggestion means in tactical terms, moving off shore far enough not to be hit by shore based ASMs means the straits are defacto unusable. That tactic has major strategic implications; the loss of Gulf oil, until major piplines and new ports are opened, loss of influence with Gulf states etc.

Further by cedding that range to the ASM threat you also increase the capability range of Iranian air and naval assets as they are flying under an ASM shield. This can add the Air or sea launched misile range to the land based ASM range.

Part of the threat of a carrier fleet is its capability to project force; if they cannot aproach a coast to closely then their ability to project that force is reduced.

Pretext

We then come to the real crunch, psychology; part of sticking a fleet off the coast of Iran is getting in their face and inviting them to have a go; in order to test their psychological state and will. Even with a serious backer it would take extreme provocation for Iran to have a go at a carrier fleet. That said with Iran, Israel and the US all sabre ratling the posibility of an accedent false flag operation. If Iran has a go then the US has pretext.

Kind Regards walker

[Daniel 0]

Why not remove the risk from ASMs by having US subs take control of Iran's coast and still pose a threat with torpedos and TLAMs? Can US subs fire TLAMs out the torpedo tubes for shallow waters?

[Laqueesha 474]

Can US subs fire TLAMs out the torpedo tubes for shallow waters?

Yup. Just fire 'em out of the torpedo tubes just like a regular ADCAP torpedo. 688i fast-attack subs do this all the time.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Laqueesha

[Daniel 0]

Just checkin you guys could do that too. :D

[Baff1 0]

Shallow waters is the worst possible place for a sub to operate.

I envisage any U.S. operations against Iran not to be too navy heavy myself.

[Laqueesha 474]

I envisage any U.S. operations against Iran not to be too navy heavy myself.

Nonsense, heavy amounts of commercial shipping goes through the Strait of Hormuz every day. The U.S. and allied navies will be trying their best to keep control of that strategic chokepoint. Think of it as the GIUK gap, if you will. ;)

[Baff1 0]

I think in the event of any war with Iran they will lose control of it for a while. Not that they have control of it now, only a very narrow lane in it.

The straight of Hormuz is a bottleneck. All the shipping in the Gulf is in range of Iranians ASM's and all the other weapon systems they have just for that purpose. They could probably use ye olde artillery cannons too.

[HyperU2 11]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39014669/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

Report: Iran pays $1,000 for each U.S. soldier killed by the Taliban

[Devil Dogs SF 13]

Fuckin asshole Iranians...

[TangoRomeo 10]

Israel vs the United States and Iran

The current opinion in some circles, mostly in the United States, is that at some point in the near future , the growing imposition of devastating economic sanctions on Iran will hopefully convince its radical religious leaders to terminate their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Also, there is the growing hope that the CIA- funded Iranisn Green Movement will overthrow, a la the Ukrainian Orange Revolution’ and replace the Muslim fundamentalist regime, or at the very least find the means to modify and secularize the regime’s ideological extremism. It is also possible that disrupting operations now being implemented by the intelligence agencies of Israel, the United States, Great Britain, and other Western powers—programs designed to subvert the Iranian nuclear effort through physical sabotage and, upon occasion, the carefully engineered disappearances of nuclear scientists—will have derailed Iran’s progress towards achieving the capacity to produce nuclear weapons.

It is now planned in Tel Aviv that senior Israeli officials, representing both their political and military establishments, will come to Washington for conferences both with their American counterparts and, eventually, with President Obama. These conversations, which have been carefully planned and scripted, will have the Israelis advising their American counterparts that they are planning an attack, nuclear or non-nuclear as the situation develops, on Iran because a nuclear Iran poses the ‘gravest threat since Hitler’ to the physical survival of the Jewish people. The Israelis will also state that they believe that by launching a preemptive strike at all possible Iranian sites suspected of participation in their nuclear program they have a reasonable chance of delaying the Iranian nuclear program for at least three to five years,. Further, talking-point secret Israeli memos state: Israel will inform their American counterparts that Israel has no other choice than to launch this attack. They will not ask for permission for this attack, because it will soon be too late to ask for permission [...]

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39014669/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

Report: Iran pays $1,000 for each U.S. soldier killed by the Taliban

There was a similar bounty when Afghanistan was occupied by the Soviets.

Some things about the war that are 'business, nothing personal'. I know of whole brigades being 'sold' to the enemy by their COs and their higher-up staff during the first Chechen War of 1994. :icon_frown:

[maturin 12]

Iran was handing out the coordinates of Taliban bunkers and command centers for free nine years ago. How things change.

And, um, "CIA-funded Green Movement?" Really?

There's a very curious sort of anti-Western worldview that is at the same time Eurocentric as all hell. Somehow the actual people of the country in question are always voiceless pawns in a game that is completely controlled by the Imperialistic Zionist countries. The powerful West adeptly manipulates the entire world with its omnipotent intelligence agencies, and no way do all those poor victimized brown people have any motives, beliefs or autonomous political projects of their own. Every secessionist, democrat or so-called-democrat in any country with a GDP smaller than Belgium gets his orders from the Pentagon.

That's my rant for today.

[eble 3]

If you read up on the attack on the Iraqi nuclear plant, you would know that Israel does not have the amount of aricraft required to conduct a mission to take out all of Irans nuclear sites.

They simply do not have the assets, add in a few S300 missiles and it could be a very very bad day for the attackers.

This is the US force to take out the one Iraqi site to the point the site was degraded as to be worthless:

When tensions in the Persian Gulf flared up in August 1990, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi government made efforts to recover components from the site. During the Gulf War several months later, the Iraqi nuclear program was put into high gear in order to create a weapon by using radioactive fuel.[citation needed] The site was then targeted by Coalition forces on January 17, 1991, halting the weapons program. Three days into the Desert Storm air raids, 56 F-16s attacked the facility followed by F-117 raids three days later. The facility, one of Iraq's most fortified targets, was not fully destroyed until another raid, when 48 F-16s targeted the facility 7 more times for over a month along with 17 F-111Fs weeks later. Only 19 days into the strikes did the US Defense Intelligence Agency find the site to be "severely degraded".[citation needed]

Edited September 7, 2010 by Eble

[TangoRomeo 10]

Looks like the article got pulled already. Whoever wrote it was probably referring to "Operation Opera" in 1981, not the aerial campaign of the 1st Persian Gulf War.

[Gmork 10]

well, Iran is a country that has attacked no other country for more than 200 years. In addition their religious leaders have prohibited the use of atomic weapons.

The inspectors of WMDs have found nothing at the moment and all the reports for the CIA and secret agancies have stated that there is no proof that Iran has WMDs.

Now, they are stubborn and US does not like them as they are a country that can defend herself, so its not good for their geostrategic plans, so they are trying to demonize them.

On the other hand they know Iran will defend herself with all their potential if they are attacked, so i hesiste they will dare to attack.

They better disarm their prey dog in the region, Israel, and there will not be Muslim countries planning to desire developing WMDs, since the only cause that can make them choose that option is having a aggresive neighbour who is constantly colonizing other countries and attacking civilians.

If I was you guys I would be more worried about the most dangerous country, which is not Iran, but Pakistan. Where do you think the most of bad guys are hidden while Afghanistan population is being punished by Us UAVs?

So you know, forget worrying about Iran and worry about these other 2 countries.

Regards

Gmork

[Baff1 0]

And, um, "CIA-funded Green Movement?" Really?.

Here in the UK we have special BBC channel that we all pay for. Only it's not available in the UK and it isn't broadcast in English.

Make no mistake, this European country is actively involved in an effort to incite a revolution in Iran, (just as we were in Iraq).

The idea that the CIA is not, seems a little far fetched to me.