Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Then you know first hand the insanity of war, and perhaps fully illustrate the point of its abject madness. To embolden either side is in itself madness.

I am beginning to believe this oil meltdown will have a very positive effect on this world as a whole. No money no conflicts...no war. 

 

Iran may end this period not being an oil exporter. 

That does not mean that it will be any less belligerent.  It may put it into desperate actions to distract popular opinion and strike Saudi. We shall see if they manage to maintain support for the Yemen war. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2020 at 8:46 PM, RSD said:

It depends on your knowledge of Iran's naval strength and how they can use it -

  • currently the U.S. Navy has two carrier battle groups in the Arabian Sea / Persian Gulf area
  • they would be acutely aware that they are very vulnerable to Iran's swarm missile tactics (launch 700 anti-ship missiles at once and if 5% get through the defences then...)
  • at the moment the U.S. has eight of its eleven carriers available at any one time - but the Roosevelt is effectively out of action due to its COVID-19 outbreak so it is down to seven carriers
  • of those seven carriers, as mentioned two are in the Arabian Sea area, another carrier is always needed in the China Sea area
  • for each carrier deployed another carrier is docked (carriers do six months on/six months off deployments)
  • so if Iran sinks or badly damages the two carriers in the Arabian Sea with a swarm missile strike that leaves one carrier in the China Sea, four carriers currently stateside - but one of those will be needed for the China Sea, so a total of three operational carriers available - how many carriers are you going to send to the Arabian Sea to have a war with Iran and possibly suffer another swarm missile strike?

Aren’t you making the assumption that the US would not launch a pre-emptive first strike at the Iranian anti-missile sites if a threat was deemed immenent?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Aren’t you making the assumption that the US would not launch a pre-emptive first strike at the Iranian anti-missile sites if a threat was deemed immenent?

A preemptive strike in Iran would make Iraqi Freedom look like total genius.  I say you should stand in the door of the first helicopter in, if there is a preemptive strike.  That way you can take the first bullets.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, nsdp said:

A preemptive strike in Iran would make Iraqi Freedom look like total genius.  I say you should stand in the door of the first helicopter in, if there is a preemptive strike.  That way you can take the first bullets.

Being the idiot that you appear to be, let me ask why you would even consider ‘boots on the ground’ or the use of helicopters/troops in a pre-emptive first strike against anti-ship missiles? You do remember ‘shock & awe’ don’t you? Or were you too busy playing Call of Duty in your mother’s basement?🤔

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Being the idiot that you appear to be, let me ask why you would even consider ‘boots on the ground’ or the use of helicopters/troops in a pre-emptive first strike against anti-ship missiles? You do remember ‘shock & awe’ don’t you? Or were you too busy playing Call of Duty in your mother’s basement?🤔

You're the idiot.who is totally ignorant of military hardware. Th SA 400's(antimissle missles) are ground launched not sea launched.  You can look up my MOS 4808(N). That was 50 years ago so Call of Duty didn't exist as a game. Call of Duty  was a letter to you  from your draft board.  You would qualify for special training as one of  McNamara's morons.

"T'is better to remain silent and thought a fool than speak out and remove all doubt." A Lincoln

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, nsdp said:

You're the idiot.who is totally ignorant of military hardware. Th SA 400's(antimissle missles) are ground launched not sea launched.  You can look up my MOS 4808(N). That was 50 years ago so Call of Duty didn't exist as a game. Call of Duty  was a letter to you  from your draft board.  You would qualify for special training as one of  McNamara's morons.

"T'is better to remain silent and thought a fool than speak out and remove all doubt." A Lincoln

There is an S-400 anti-aircraft missile system, but I can’t find a listing for an SA-400 ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM. Are you sure about this system?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system

Regardless, we were discussing a pre-emptive first strike against anti-shipping missiles.

You would think that a 4808(N) would recognize the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2020 at 12:43 AM, RSD said:

blind freddy could find carriers while they are passing through the strait

While a small detail in this overall discussion, I would mention that no carrier will ever pass through that Strait. 

When in that close to land, the carrier is vulnerable.  A carrier is heavily compartmentalized and is made immune by its own aircraft contingent, plus the screening ships and two attack subs that are part of the battle group.  But remember that a carrier also has quite a lot of jetfuel and bombs on board, so you don't want it getting shelled.  The major Iranian threat to carriers is the WIG boat, a tiny mosquito craft that can "fly" up to 1200 feet high in spurts, and travels with an air propeller, so you have this three-dimensional "swarm" attack that the Iranians have developed.  The carrier avoids exposure by staying well out to sea.  Those WIG machines do not have the range to get out there, and even if they did, they would be picked off by carrier aircraft  plus the frigates screening the group.

The Americans are not likely to get involved in some shooting war with Iran.  It is much simpler to keep the oil price low and starve the Iranian regime (as the US does with Maduro)  and watch the Saudis and Russians flood Iran's customers with competing product.  If anything, I can see the US and others covertly aiming to overthrow the Mullahs, a project that I would support as richly deserving. 

  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nsdp said:

You would qualify for special training as one of  McNamara's morons.

Play nice, now.   That is a bit harsh. 😀

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

While a small detail in this overall discussion, I would mention that no carrier will ever pass through that Strait. 

When in that close to land, the carrier is vulnerable.  A carrier is heavily compartmentalized and is made immune by its own aircraft contingent, plus the screening ships and two attack subs that are part of the battle group.  But remember that a carrier also has quite a lot of jetfuel and bombs on board, so you don't want it getting shelled.  The major Iranian threat to carriers is the WIG boat, a tiny mosquito craft that can "fly" up to 1200 feet high in spurts, and travels with an air propeller, so you have this three-dimensional "swarm" attack that the Iranians have developed.  The carrier avoids exposure by staying well out to sea.  Those WIG machines do not have the range to get out there, and even if they did, they would be picked off by carrier aircraft  plus the frigates screening the group.

The Americans are not likely to get involved in some shooting war with Iran.  It is much simpler to keep the oil price low and starve the Iranian regime (as the US does with Maduro)  and watch the Saudis and Russians flood Iran's customers with competing product.  If anything, I can see the US and others covertly aiming to overthrow the Mullahs, a project that I would support as richly deserving. 

No carrier captain worth his salt would sail his ship or battle group into the Persian Gulf and possibly getting hemmed in with limited maneuverability.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Play nice, now.   That is a bit harsh. 😀

Macnamara was a complete idiot and should have gone to jail. That said, even he probably wouldn’t suggest flying a chopper into Iran as a pre-emptive strike...

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Aren’t you making the assumption that the US would not launch a pre-emptive first strike at the Iranian anti-missile sites if a threat was deemed immenent?

How do you determine that a threat is imminent when they are all sitting there manned 24/7 and don't need to move anywhere before launching their anti-ship missiles?  Moving from normal posture to firing is just lift the cover and press the button...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

While a small detail in this overall discussion, I would mention that no carrier will ever pass through that Strait. 

 

6 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

No carrier captain worth his salt would sail his ship or battle group into the Persian Gulf and possibly getting hemmed in with limited maneuverability.

Really?  You two need to pay a bit more attention... https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-navy-carrier-transits-strait-hormuz-deployment-67155596

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 0R0 said:

Iraq the country was 2/3 Shia and aligned with Iran, which was why Saddam had to be a murderous dictator. Iraq the government, and the Baghdad region were Suni and  opposed to Iran.

The analysis you are putting forward is ignoring the reality. 

The moment you took the top off the power structure of Iraq you see that it does not really hold together on any grounds. It was an artificial construct, it is unified only by external imposition and avarice of both sides for the oil riches produced there. Otherwise the area is unstable unless ruled by external empire and divided up into provinces and administrative cities. As it was under Ottoman or British or French rule. The alternative is division into 3 small countries, One of which may be in constant threat of Iranian takeover. The Kurdish remnant state up North would be a destabilizing issue from there up to Turkey.  

Saddam Hussein could not have fought a eight year brutal all out total war with Iran, if he did not have the support of the majority of Iraqi Shia.  Saddam was a Stalinist, he would brutally crush any opposition, and promoted secularism and socialism and his person version of Shia Islam, he made all Shia clerics employees of the state so as to control them. Saddam made all the Shia Mosques Iraqi state property and then spent vast sums of money resorting and improving them.  Under Saddam most of  the Iraqi Shia thought of themselves as Iraqi nationals.     This is why the Iranian theocracy was such a threat to his rule and he launch a war in 1980.       Here is a declassified 1984 CIA briefing about all this.... https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85T00314R000300110003-5.pdf            

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, RSD said:

How do you determine that a threat is imminent when they are all sitting there manned 24/7 and don't need to move anywhere before launching their anti-ship missiles?  Moving from normal posture to firing is just lift the cover and press the button...

Signals intelligence, for one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Signals intelligence, for one.

Possible - but wouldn't the Iranians be awake to that possibly giving them away?  And the signals could be

  • "e are expecting the carrier battle group to transit the strait inbound in the next 48 hours so everyone be ready..."
  • and then... "Everyone fire everything you have - NOW!"

SigInt might save them but...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, RSD said:

Really?  You two need to pay a bit more attention..

OK, I stand corrected:   in a totally reckless move, Trump "ordered" that carrier to transit the Strait last Fall.  Keep in mind that nobody was shooting at the Americans at that point.  

Sinking a big US carrier is considered the ultimate prize by the Iranians, and don't think for a minute that they do not salivate at the prospect.  When the metal-flying starts, any carrier in range is going to face a massive attack, by WIG craft and speedboats with bombs and rockets aboard.  The carrier will take a lot of pounding.  The Navy brass has the heeebie-jeebies thinking about those WIG boats. 

Trump is a military idiot, I don't mind saying.  Risking a 13.5-billion-dollar carrier and the crew of what?, 3,500?, just to be in-your-face to the Iranians is flat-out stupid.  Unfortunately, Trump does stupid things.  He does not pay for those errors; others do. You might want to keep that in mind. 

And I will go out on a limb here and state that the Navy commanders will not be risking their carriers in close to shore when the metal starts flying.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I stand corrected!👍🏻

I'm not sure of how smart an idea it is - for the reasons you gave earlier - especially as two of the three separation zones are in Iranian waters and so the Iranians can play around there as much as they want within reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

OK, I stand corrected:   in a totally reckless move, Trump "ordered" that carrier to transit the Strait last Fall.  Keep in mind that nobody was shooting at the Americans at that point.  

Sinking a big US carrier is considered the ultimate prize by the Iranians, and don't think for a minute that they do not salivate at the prospect.  When the metal-flying starts, any carrier in range is going to face a massive attack, by WIG craft and speedboats with bombs and rockets aboard.  The carrier will take a lot of pounding.  The Navy brass has the heeebie-jeebies thinking about those WIG boats. 

Trump is a military idiot, I don't mind saying.  Risking a 13.5-billion-dollar carrier and the crew of what?, 3,500?, just to be in-your-face to the Iranians is flat-out stupid.  Unfortunately, Trump does stupid things.  He does not pay for those errors; others do. You might want to keep that in mind. 

And I will go out on a limb here and state that the Navy commanders will not be risking their carriers in close to shore when the metal starts flying.  

I suspect that the Iranians will wait until the carrier is close in (i.e. transiting the strait) before they launch an attack.  

I actually know one of the fathers of WIG (Hanno Fischer) but didn't know that the Iranians were now using them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Aren’t you making the assumption that the US would not launch a pre-emptive first strike at the Iranian anti-missile sites if a threat was deemed immenent?

We came close to doing that in 2007 and the US Navy refused the order.  " Admiral William Fallon, then President George W. Bush’s nominee to head the Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM. "  He said there would be no attack on Iran during his watch.   https://thinkprogress.org/centcom-commander-fallon-attack-on-iran-will-not-happen-on-my-watch-921d57aeb703/

Iran is a mountain fortress overlooking the most important maritime chock point in the world, it's air defense and land based anti-ship missiles and most of it ballistic missiles are all very mobile on trucks, they are very easily hidden in caves, so just clearing the straits of mines  is impossible until those defenses has been hunted down. 

We are not going to launch a war with Iran, because Lockheed Martin doesn't want to put the Patriot Missile system to the test.   The System did not defend the Saudi oil refinery and I very much doubt it would have much success defending US bases in the UAE Bahrain and all over the region.  At this point Iran has escalation dominance because we are over extended and can not protect our supply lines in the region.   

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gregory Purcell said:

Iran is a mountain fortress overlooking the most important maritime chock point in the world, it's air defense and land based anti-ship missiles and most of it ballistic missiles are all very mobile on trucks, they are very easily hidden in caves, so just clearing the straits of mines  is impossible until those defenses has been hunted down. 

Iran is basically the mountains like Afghanistan - overlooking probably the most strategic piece of water on the planet

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, RSD said:

I actually know one of the fathers of WIG (Hanno Fischer) but didn't know that the Iranians were now using them

The Iranians have built thousands, as two-man open-cockpit airboats with a big Florida swamp-boat propeller on the back,manned by those hothead Revolutionary Guard types.  Toss in a bomb and you have a neat kamikaze machine, built on the cheap. Small and fast, as James Bond one said at the car-rental counter. 

The WIG is a fabulous machine, I have been studying the engineering of them for the last decade.  My personal wet dream is to set up a factory and build them, perfect for fast commuting from Boston to Bar Harbor, Maine, for the weekend........Maybe in some other lifetime. Oh, well. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

OK, I stand corrected:   in a totally reckless move, Trump "ordered" that carrier to transit the Strait last Fall.

He could probably use a good distraction right about now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gregory Purcell said:

Saddam Hussein could not have fought a eight year brutal all out total war with Iran, if he did not have the support of the majority of Iraqi Shia.  Saddam was a Stalinist, he would brutally crush any opposition, and promoted secularism and socialism and his person version of Shia Islam, he made all Shia clerics employees of the state so as to control them. Saddam made all the Shia Mosques Iraqi state property and then spent vast sums of money resorting and improving them.  Under Saddam most of  the Iraqi Shia thought of themselves as Iraqi nationals.     This is why the Iranian theocracy was such a threat to his rule and he launch a war in 1980.       Here is a declassified 1984 CIA briefing about all this.... https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85T00314R000300110003-5.pdf            

Yes, but his government was highly concentrated in the top ranks with his ethnic group and Sunni. 

Again, as you are pointing out yourself, there is no natural stability for Iraq unless as a secular state with power being mostly regionalized, the opposite of how it was structured since it was carved off of the Ottoman Empire. It still is structured that way. Iraq is Iraqi, it does have its own history just as the Persians do. They don't have to be divided by religious affiliation. It is the Iranian theocratic model that has to go. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy, they have their own plans too.

I think we should pull all of our troops out, remove our battle groups from the area of conflict and turn Iran and Iraq into a glass parking lot. After the dust settles so to speak, let the rest of them finish the civil wars that have been going on there forever.

Maybe after they get through killing each other off the rest of the world will be able help them establish a workable plan for peace and prosperity. 

We as a nation need to learn to mind our own business and stop interfering like we did in Korea and Viet Nam. We all know how well worked out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.