War in 4 days?

[Dane S]

I see... are you aware of the reasons Iran gave for declining? I'm curious.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any attack would HAVE to be preceded with a massive air strike to eliminate these coastal defence positions/air units otherwise the results would include CNN/BBC pix of a sinking aircraft carrier in the Gulf.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Iranians do not have the military capability of sinking one of our modern aircraft carriers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they do.

Yep.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I see... are you aware of the reasons Iran gave for declining? I'm curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Their simple version was that while it would be great for Russia to build 4 or 5 plants, in the long run it would be cost prohibitive. And although France was making the case that they could build multiple plants cheaper than Iran could, Iran still feels they need to have access and be in control of the technology for their future.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any attack would HAVE to be preceded with a massive air strike to eliminate these coastal defence positions/air units otherwise the results would include CNN/BBC pix of a sinking aircraft carrier in the Gulf.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Iranians do not have the military capability of sinking one of our modern aircraft carriers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they do.

Yep.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellet Links that prove even in inclassified terms why The Us Fleets are highly vulnerable in any restricted waters, especially The Persian Gulf which the entirety of is well within range of The Iranianian coastal positions.

Additionally, Iran has 3 Russian Kilo Class subs, which on their own would have fair difficulty effecting much active attacks on The US Fleet but are ideal for passive measures such as covert mining of The Straits of Hormuz which could take weeks to clear essentially bottlig up The US Ships in the gulf allowing Iran plenty of time to plan and execute a low tech attack.

Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups derive their greatest strength through speed and maneuverability in open ocean. They surrender both of these strengths when they enter and patrol a restricted waterway in plain sight of an enemy's coastline.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reports come as the Iranian chief of staff, Hassan Fayrouz Abadi, was quoted on Saturday by Iran's Fars news agency warning leaders of Arab countries that Israel plans to open a "suicidal attack" on its neighbors this summer, to "prevent the withdrawal of the US troops from Iraq and the area."

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense. Israel would never start a war without an authorization from US today. it's not 1967 anymore when USS Liberty tragedy happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize Israel has US authorization for their recent invasion of Lebanon.

[/ QUOTE ]

can't help you if you don't see the difference between fighting a guerilla in their doorstep and fighting iran.

btw, you might google for some info about that invasion. you might find out that US administration was closely involved in the planning of israel's retaliatory attacks against hizbullah.

question: do you really believe israel would preemtively attack iran without US help? i'd say never unless they are first attacked from iran directly.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, Iran has 3 Russian Kilo Class subs, which on their own would have fair difficulty effecting much active attacks on The US Fleet but are ideal for passive measures such as covert mining of The Straits of Hormuz which could take weeks to clear essentially bottlig up The US Ships in the gulf allowing Iran plenty of time to plan and execute a low tech attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, for argument's sake, let's say the entire Persian Gulf is a giant oil slick, and let's put Iran's petroleum reserves at 180 days - then what?

I'm not sure the Iranian Navy could put up much of a fight over there, but on the off chance they could - all they've done is commit suicide. They need the Gulf far more than we do. In fact, if they can't export out of the Gulf, they're dead within a year.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, Iran has 3 Russian Kilo Class subs, which on their own would have fair difficulty effecting much active attacks on The US Fleet but are ideal for passive measures such as covert mining of The Straits of Hormuz which could take weeks to clear essentially bottlig up The US Ships in the gulf allowing Iran plenty of time to plan and execute a low tech attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, for argument's sake, let's say the entire Persian Gulf is a giant oil slick, and let's put Iran's petroleum reserves at 180 days - then what?

I'm not sure the Iranian Navy could put up much of a fight over there, but on the off chance they could - all they've done is commit suicide. They need the Gulf far more than we do. In fact, if they can't export out of the Gulf, they're dead within a year.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point several of us are ttrying to express is: Iran doesn't need to directly compete with US Naval power ship vs ship and tech vs tech. They also don't need to maintain the fight very long. All they have to do is get through via any means ONCE and sink a carrier or two along with a few of the escort cruisers/destroyers. This would cripple US Naval power in the region, cause horrific death tolls and likely cause a massive backlash fom The US Public.

The mining of the SOH also wouldn't close the gulf for Iranian trafffic either in that they would know the minefield locations and could safely navigate tankers in and out whilst denying right of passage passively to their enemies.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
The point several of us are ttrying to express is: Iran doesn't need to directly compete with US Naval power ship vs ship and tech vs tech. They also don't need to maintain the fight very long. All they have to do is get through via any means ONCE and sink a carrier or two along with a few of the escort cruisers/destroyers. This would cripple US Naval power in the region, cause horrific death tolls and likely cause a massive backlash fom The US Public.

The mining of the SOH also wouldn't close the gulf for Iranian trafffic either in that they would know the minefield locations and could safely navigate tankers in and out whilst denying right of passage passively to their enemies.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no military strategist, but given all that's been discussed here, why would carriers even be involved in an attack on Iran? Don't we have bases in Iraq? If I were the general in charge, based on my understanding, I'd move carriers to the Gulf as a threat, but I'd move them out, at least temporarily, before the fight started. Let land-based aircraft deal with the Iranian navy and airforce.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point several of us are ttrying to express is: Iran doesn't need to directly compete with US Naval power ship vs ship and tech vs tech. They also don't need to maintain the fight very long. All they have to do is get through via any means ONCE and sink a carrier or two along with a few of the escort cruisers/destroyers. This would cripple US Naval power in the region, cause horrific death tolls and likely cause a massive backlash fom The US Public.

The mining of the SOH also wouldn't close the gulf for Iranian trafffic either in that they would know the minefield locations and could safely navigate tankers in and out whilst denying right of passage passively to their enemies.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no military strategist, but given all that's been discussed here, why would carriers even be involved in an attack on Iran? Don't we have bases in Iraq? If I were the general in charge, based on my understanding, I'd move carriers to the Gulf as a threat, but I'd move them out, at least temporarily, before the fight started. Let land-based aircraft deal with the Iranian navy and airforce.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least one US Carrier Battle Group has maintained a prescence in The Persian GUlf since Iraq War one. IOW for the last 16 or so years. Each BG carries up to 4 fighter bomber squadrons which are totally self suffienct power projection units. They would aid quite enormously in any attack on Iran.

I do agree, however that their vulnerability would possibly lead to their repositioning outside the SOH. Of course that has some serious implications in that F18s (aside from the newest versions) have VERY short ranges and any extended transit to the gulf followed by a combat mission inside Iran would seriously reduce their effectiveness without heavy tanker support usually reserved for the Air Force's fuel hogging planes.

Anothr drawback to removing The US Fleet from the gulf would be to essentially cede control of the vital SLOCS (sea lines of communication) to the relatively small Iranian Navy. This would make resupply of both Coaliton forces in Iraq and any invasion/air force very difficult.

[BigSoonerFan]

When's this going to start? We're already four days past due!