Now Iran?!?!

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...and the US would struggle mightily to find local bases from which to launch an attack against Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are aware that the US military has bases on both sides of Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan? How can you get more local than both of Iran's neighbors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm misreading the situation, but I was working on the assumption that using Iraqi bases against Iran wouldn't be practical. Iraq is after all mostly Shiite, and a lot of its leaders have ties with Iran.

Afghanistan presents fewer political issues, but most of the action in a conflict with Iran would be centered on the Persian Gulf, 500 or so hostile miles from Afghanistan.

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't political. There are a whole lot of reasons bombing Iran is probably a terrible idea. I was just mocking the notion that the Iranian defense forces stopping us was one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This might not be entirely true. Iran has a much more dangerous military than Iraq did, and the US would struggle mightily to find local bases from which to launch an attack against Iran. If the US has to fight the entire Iranian armed forces from a few carriers in the Persian Gulf, expect it to be pretty bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to bombing Iran, not invading. Iran cannot stop the US from immediately controlling their airspace, and seaspace for that matter.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't political. There are a whole lot of reasons bombing Iran is probably a terrible idea. I was just mocking the notion that the Iranian defense forces stopping us was one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

food

for thought

[Leaky Eye]

Thanks I wasn't aware that bombing China was dangerous, that carrier battle groups are primarily offensive weapons platforms, or that the Persian Gulf is a terrible place for them.

[Dr. Strangelove]

So your view remains "lolz iranistan: we can bomb them whenever--what are they gonna do about it?"

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't political. There are a whole lot of reasons bombing Iran is probably a terrible idea. I was just mocking the notion that the Iranian defense forces stopping us was one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This might not be entirely true. Iran has a much more dangerous military than Iraq did, and the US would struggle mightily to find local bases from which to launch an attack against Iran. If the US has to fight the entire Iranian armed forces from a few carriers in the Persian Gulf, expect it to be pretty bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to bombing Iran, not invading. Iran cannot stop the US from immediately controlling their airspace, and seaspace for that matter.

[/ QUOTE ]


OK. I managed to overcome my searchtardedness.
Here is a reply of mine in a previous "war would be easy against the Iranians" thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ QUOTE ]
Also remember that it only takes ONE battery to survive and ONE missile to get through the barriers to hit and destroy/permanently disable a Capital warship/Aircraft carrier.

This is often said by many, but completely incorrect. Modern aircraft carriers are 100,000 tons of steel with literally hundreds of watertight bulkheads. A ship of that size could probably take on 20,000 tons of sea water without sinking, but the bulkheads stop that from happening. You are looking at probably 10 or more cruise missiles hitting a carrier to essentially "destroy" it, and even then, the missiles will probably not penetrate the topside all the way down to the waterline or below. One missile, if lucky in placement, could put a large hole in the deck and cause chaos a level or two below over a limited area, but probably wont put a carrier out of action for long periods. Im not sure, but I believe there was good precedent set for this aboard a carrier in vietnam that cooked off a bunch of its bombs accidentally (anyone else recall this?) and still stayed afloat.

It has also been said that carriers are highly vulnerable to conventional torpedos, which they are not, once again due to compartmentalization. A hole 30ft wide on a ship a thousand feet long and 150 ft wide with a hundred+ armored compartments wont ruin its day by any means. Even if a sub got off a full spread before being neutralised, the carrier would be only moderately damaged and still able to launch and retrieve aircraft. Precedence for this is the U.S.S. Cole bombing. Even though torpedos are shaped to do much more damage on a per weight basis, they also contain much less explosive than what was used against the cole, so it more or less equates. Remember also, that the Cole is only 1/12 the size of a carrier and thinner armored.

One of the reasons our carriers are so large is to take a pounding and stay afloat. Theres no way a one-ton conventional warhead is going to put a 100,000 ton compartmented warship out of business. When you hear the contrary, its typically just rhetoric from people who dont realize the true scale of these structures and the thought that went into their design, which obviously accounted for missiles and torpedos getting through.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I reply to this let me give a quick synopsis of my background. I served in The US Navy for 13 years. 6 years as a submarine officer and 2 years as a Battle Group Submarine Liason Officer (embarcked on a carrier) including a deployment through the Pacific and The Persian Gulf. I also sepnt 4 years assigned as an exchange Officer to the British Military for Submarine Operations. I am extremely well versed in Anti-Sub, Anti-Surface, Anti-Air, and missile strike combat principles and planning. That ought to cover the

[ QUOTE ]
...rhetoric from people who dont realize the true scale of these structures and the thought that went into their design...

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct in that modern aircraft carriers are massive ships with significant robustness and an extensive defensive screen. That said they are still highly vulnerable to even individual torpedo or missile attacks.

It would take several missile hits in vital locations (perhaps 2-5) to set off a chain of events leading to the sinking/complete loss of a carrier.

It would take 2-3 well placed advanced torpedos to sink/cripple beynd repair a carrier.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if a sub got off a full spread before being neutralised, the carrier would be only moderately damaged and still able to launch and retrieve aircraft.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is widely inaccurate. There is no ship, ever built, in the history of mankind that will survive 4 modern torpedo hits. I sugest you do a bit of research on torpedo technology and their specific method of destruction. The only semi recent example would be The General Belgrano, and Argentinian BattleCruiser sent to the bottom of the Ocean with ALL HANDS lost after being hit by 2, YES just 2 torpedos from HMS Conqueror during the Falklands war.


It only tales ONE well placed missile or ONE wellplaced torpedo to cripple/take out of action a carrier.

Size and compartmentalization are only two factors in the equation. FIRE is a huge factor. Given a missile strike, even assuming it hit in a semi non essential area of the carrier, flight ops would be curtailed immediately and for at least days as the fire and resultant damage was put down.

The Vietnam era carrier you are refferring to was The Forrestal and they suffered a jet crash which lead to a fire which lead to a bomb cooking off sympathetically which lead to an even greater fire and more damage. That ship didn't sink but it was combat ineffective until LONG after it was returned to port and repaired over a period of months. (As an interesting side note, the future SEN John McCain was the pilot of the plane that had the bomb cook off on deck)

Combat effectiveness. In order for a carrier to be combat effective it needs to be able to conduct flight ops (which entails numerous things including: near full propulsion capabilities, effective combat control center. effective flight control, a clear sea area to conduct one way steaming during flight ops, an effective (not dead defensive screen of cruisers/destroyers, oiler support). Cripple any one of these requirements and you limit or curtail a carrier's comat effectiveness. Hit the carrier directly with a missile and it is near guaranteed that at least several of these RQMTS will be degraded significantly.
Hit a carrier in the propulsion spaces or directly in one of it's main engine shafts and you immediately limit its propulsion ergo limit or curtail flight ops. Hit a carrier with a modern torpedo in the propulsion spaces and that ship is at best limping home not to conduct any flight ops for quite some time.

There is an old saying about why cariers are the best defended ships in the Naval arsenal. It's because they HAVE to be. They are mighty ships and hard to sink, no doubt, but you don't have to sink them to end there mission/threat.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...and the US would struggle mightily to find local bases from which to launch an attack against Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are aware that the US military has bases on both sides of Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan? How can you get more local than both of Iran's neighbors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm misreading the situation, but I was working on the assumption that using Iraqi bases against Iran wouldn't be practical. Iraq is after all mostly Shiite, and a lot of its leaders have ties with Iran.

Afghanistan presents fewer political issues, but most of the action in a conflict with Iran would be centered on the Persian Gulf, 500 or so hostile miles from Afghanistan.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if we attack Iran from Qatar, we won't offend Iraqi shiites? How does this make sense -- we are occupying Iraq, no? And if you move the goalposts and talk just the Gulf, not Iran proper, well we ring the Gulf with bases and carriers, so what's your point?

Edit: Here, let me help you with this map. Would you still like to contend that we have no local bases to attack Iran or the Persian Gulf? And these are just the ones with active USAF air bases, I'm not even including the number of carrier air wings which could easily join the fight.



And I'm sure I'm missing some, these are just the ones I know off the top of my head. I believe the US has many more operating locations in Iraq. And if you include Army attack helicopters, the number of air bases in the region grows even more.

[morphball]

Kaj

[ QUOTE ]
So if we attack Iran from Qatar, we won't offend Iraqi shiites?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would probably say when we attack. How often do two countries get engaged in what Iran, Israel and the USA are in currently and not get war? I think the simple fact is that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, and it doesn't matter which party is in office. Ten of thousands of people will most likely die before Iran is allowed to go nuclear.

I am also sceptical that US cares about shiite support. The US cares about 1) protecting its interests in the Middle East; and 2) but only after 1 is obtained, getting some sort of stability in Iraq.

At the moment, Iranian shiites are working with Iraqi shiites and endangering both goals, so it seems rather unlikely the US will be overly worred about pissing off the Iraqi shiites when the time comes. The US is playing the democracy game now, but they have been building an Iraqi police force and army too. If we can't get a democracy going, we'll just return to our former standard of installing ruthless dictators.

[monkeyfightclub]

[ QUOTE ]

The American public has a short memory for pain

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not implying that the American public had a short memory for pain when it came to Vietnam. I'd disagree with you there.

[bobman0330]

Kaj,

I'm aware that the bases exist, I was just questioning whether the host countries would let us use them for the purpose of bombing Iran. Even in Iraq, an open break with the present government probably wouldn't be acceptable, especially if a war with Iran was also going on.