More Gunboatd diplomacy for Iran

[LegendKiller]

The carriers would have no problems defending themselves against the whole Iranian "navy". Two carrier air-wings. Land-based support. 9 ships, of which 5 will probably be Arleigh Burkes and/or Ticonderogas. Probably a couple Frigates for ASW. Not to mention there'll probably be 2-3 688's within spitting distance hunting out subs.

If Iran even took a serious sneeze towards the carrier group we'd hammer them instantly. Don't forget that I am sure some of the munitions in the two groups are nukes.

That nutball would have to really have an instant death wish to get close.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ironwing
This show is basically another waste of US tax dollars on the part of the Bushies, trying to look tough and divert public attention from their failures in Iraq, Afganistan, and at home. The Iranians aren't going to do anything to the US Navy and the US Navy isn't going to do anything to Iran. The ships will hang out until the media gets bored with the story then the ships will go hang out somewhere else.

ummm, the carriers cost roughly the same to operate, regardless of where they're floating. so what was your point again?

The bigger story is the announced intentions of the US to double the size of the Iraqi military. More money for US arms manufacturers and more guns for the insurgents. We have to keep the other side well armed or there wouldn't be a war.

sooo... ok... let me get this straight: improving the ability for the Iraqi military to defend and protect their own country is a bad thing? well damn!! All this time I thought that training the Iraqi military was half the point!???!

what a goof!

You'd be wrong about carriers. They are much cheaper to keep in home port where the sailors can live off ship.

It seems you haven't been paying attention. Guys join the Iraqi military, get trained, get guns, and then quit. They take the guns with them and then use them to kill Americans. Get it? We are arming all sides in this conflict.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: Aimster
U.S Navy is excellent in the open seas.
Iran can strike the U.S navy right now by air/sea/land.

There is nothing the U.S can do to stop an Iranian attack... unless the U.S knows the location of every land-sea missile stations, Iranian boats, and aircraft drones.

If the U.S attacks Iran the U.S Navy has to move in to protect the oil ships. The reach of the U.S Navy will be in reach of every Iranian naval defense system.

There is a reason the U.S has never attacked Iran and the above reasons are why. If Iran was not in a key location where it could have power over the oil, the U.S would have attacked Iran long ago

You definitely sounded like you are a grad of Naval War College and a long time Naval Strategist. I've no doubt you are a very wide reader except it's all from yellow journalism. And you know what is really sad? Others in this forum actually believe what you postulated and hypothesized to be true.

After more than dozens of tour in the Persian Gulf, I can tell you the closer we are on the shores of Iran the less likely Iran will even be able to launch anything in the air. Not a missile, not a rocket and most of all not an airplane. The small boat attacks will probably more effective than anything in the air from Iran. But we've also countered that with a newer littoral war technology.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ironwing
You'd be wrong about carriers. They are much cheaper to keep in home port where the sailors can live off ship.

oh, i get it. you want to keep our largest projection of force at home, where it will do the most good....?!? Maybe we could turn them all into museums and give tours...?

You apparently do not understand the purpose, mission, or function of a carrier battle group.

It seems you haven't been paying attention. Guys join the Iraqi military, get trained, get guns, and then quit. They take the guns with them and then use them to kill Americans. Get it? We are arming all sides in this conflict.

do you happen to know the exact stats involved? I do.

And you're wrong.

Establishing a standing army and effective military in Iraq is one of the most important missions we have. The sooner we do so, the faster we get out. And, contrary to popular belief and fantasy, the new Dems in Congress won't make it happen any sooner. Don't you get that?

probably not...

 

[Lemon law]

To palehorse74---who correctly points out the carriers cost the same to operate wherever they float.

As OP on this thread, my main fear is not an Iranian unprovoked assault against the carriers but rather it gives any rag tag terrorists group motive and opportunity to try to damage US naval assets in the restricted waters of the Persian Gulf. Nor do I think that GWB saber rattling is going to be anything but counterproductive in any negotiations with Iran. There is diplomacy and then there is GWB---never think they are not contradictions in terms. Add in the ego of Ahmadinejhad, and we are talking mass stupidity added to unrealistic delusions of grandeur.

And even if anyone is a blatant war monger who hopes for a US strike on Iran, such a strike would place any carrier located in the Persian Gulf in far greater danger than if that same carrier was located in the open Ocean with more room to maneuver.

As for any myths about Iraq, save that for another thread. I am just asking why place a US carrier inside the Persian Gulf---why---will it do any good? But I sure can see it doing much harm.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To palehorse74---who correctly points out the carriers cost the same to operate wherever they float.

As OP on this thread, my main fear is not an Iranian unprovoked assault against the carriers but rather it gives any rag tag terrorists group motive and opportunity to try to damage US naval assets in the restricted waters of the Persian Gulf. Nor do I think that GWB saber rattling is going to be anything but counterproductive in any negotiations with Iran. There is diplomacy and then there is GWB---never think they are not contradictions in terms. Add in the ego of Ahmadinejhad, and we are talking mass stupidity added to unrealistic delusions of grandeur.

And even if anyone is a blatant war monger who hopes for a US strike on Iran, such a strike would place any carrier located in the Persian Gulf in far greater danger than if that same carrier was located in the open Ocean with more room to maneuver.

As for any myths about Iraq, save that for another thread. I am just asking why place a US carrier inside the Persian Gulf---why---will it do any good? But I sure can see it doing much harm.

I would be VERY surprised by any successful attack on two US carrier groups floating at full alert 24/7. Their true capabilities go wayyyy beyond what you read in Janes...

And can also assure you that the Admirals on the JCOS know full well just how maneuverable our ships can be in the Gulf.

Let's face reality here: a show of force is necessary to bring Iran back down to earth... nothing else has worked!! We have the entire UN security council on board with warnings and sanctions, and yet, Iran still flips the bird to the entire civilized world with each new "strongly worded letter" we send their way!

What do you propose we do instead? How else can we show Iran that we (the entire civilized world) mean business? Nothing else is working, so a show of forces is certainly worth trying!

I'm not advocating an offensive strike. Hopefully, showing Iran what it feels like to have two full battle groups parked outside their front door may do the trick. If not, sadly, I don't know what options are left...

 

[ProfJohn]

Aimster you always forget about the cost of retaliation.

Let?s say the following happens:
The US with British support launched a pinpoint bombing strike on many of Iran?s nuclear facilities.
Following this Bush comes on TV and says our only aim was to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and that no further attacks are expected to be needed.

Iran responds by sending their targets? I mean ships after the US fleet in the gulf.

At this point the US and England can declare ANY Iranian military facility an open target and we decimate their little fleet, all their ports and airfields etc etc.
And if they really piss us off we go after their oil and more importantly refineries. Plus we blockade their ports preventing ANY type of shipping into Iran.

Any attempt by Iran to escalate any conflict with the US can be dealt with via our own escalation. We could remove our navy from the gulf and use long range bombers if we wanted.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Jiggz

Originally posted by: Aimster
U.S Navy is excellent in the open seas.
Iran can strike the U.S navy right now by air/sea/land.

There is nothing the U.S can do to stop an Iranian attack... unless the U.S knows the location of every land-sea missile stations, Iranian boats, and aircraft drones.

If the U.S attacks Iran the U.S Navy has to move in to protect the oil ships. The reach of the U.S Navy will be in reach of every Iranian naval defense system.

There is a reason the U.S has never attacked Iran and the above reasons are why. If Iran was not in a key location where it could have power over the oil, the U.S would have attacked Iran long ago

You definitely sounded like you are a grad of Naval War College and a long time Naval Strategist. I've no doubt you are a very wide reader except it's all from yellow journalism. And you know what is really sad? Others in this forum actually believe what you postulated and hypothesized to be true.

After more than dozens of tour in the Persian Gulf, I can tell you the closer we are on the shores of Iran the less likely Iran will even be able to launch anything in the air. Not a missile, not a rocket and most of all not an airplane. The small boat attacks will probably more effective than anything in the air from Iran. But we've also countered that with a newer littoral war technology.

Do you have any knowledge of the Iranian naval power or not? Unless you have any evidence to go against what I have said please don't respond to my posts with "I".

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TS-MHvDylUo
Yep. Looks like Iran can't get anything close enough to an aircraft carrier.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Aimster you always forget about the cost of retaliation.

Let?s say the following happens:
The US with British support launched a pinpoint bombing strike on many of Iran?s nuclear facilities.
Following this Bush comes on TV and says our only aim was to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and that no further attacks are expected to be needed.

Iran responds by sending their targets? I mean ships after the US fleet in the gulf.

At this point the US and England can declare ANY Iranian military facility an open target and we decimate their little fleet, all their ports and airfields etc etc.
And if they really piss us off we go after their oil and more importantly refineries. Plus we blockade their ports preventing ANY type of shipping into Iran.

Any attempt by Iran to escalate any conflict with the US can be dealt with via our own escalation. We could remove our navy from the gulf and use long range bombers if we wanted.

PJ's right about one thing, Iran wouldnt stand a chance in a conventional confrontation. Their entire navy would cease to exist in 72 hours.

But God I hope none of that ever happens...

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Aimster you always forget about the cost of retaliation.

Let?s say the following happens:
The US with British support launched a pinpoint bombing strike on many of Iran?s nuclear facilities.
Following this Bush comes on TV and says our only aim was to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and that no further attacks are expected to be needed.

Iran responds by sending their targets? I mean ships after the US fleet in the gulf.

At this point the US and England can declare ANY Iranian military facility an open target and we decimate their little fleet, all their ports and airfields etc etc.
And if they really piss us off we go after their oil and more importantly refineries. Plus we blockade their ports preventing ANY type of shipping into Iran.

Any attempt by Iran to escalate any conflict with the US can be dealt with via our own escalation. We could remove our navy from the gulf and use long range bombers if we wanted.

U.S and Britain can do whatever they want. Are the U.S and British barbaric states that go around targeting random sites in heavy populated areas? They could nuke Iran and destroy it right now. Zero deaths on the U.S side. We win without losing a single man!

Iran is not going to attack the U.S unless the U.S attacks Iran. When a U.S attack does happen most of Iran's main military sites will be taken out. However, you cannot eliminate all of Iran's capabilities and that is when Iran will go after any ship in the Strait of Hormouz.

Whatever the U.S does, it is impossible for the U.S to control the Strait of Hormouz without a serious mess first. Iran will shutdown that path for a good year and oil prices will skyrocket beyond anything we have seen.

Therefore, you are not going to see any conflict with Iran unless the U.S figures out a way to deal with oil prices.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To palehorse74---who correctly points out the carriers cost the same to operate wherever they float.

As OP on this thread, my main fear is not an Iranian unprovoked assault against the carriers but rather it gives any rag tag terrorists group motive and opportunity to try to damage US naval assets in the restricted waters of the Persian Gulf. Nor do I think that GWB saber rattling is going to be anything but counterproductive in any negotiations with Iran. There is diplomacy and then there is GWB---never think they are not contradictions in terms. Add in the ego of Ahmadinejhad, and we are talking mass stupidity added to unrealistic delusions of grandeur.

And even if anyone is a blatant war monger who hopes for a US strike on Iran, such a strike would place any carrier located in the Persian Gulf in far greater danger than if that same carrier was located in the open Ocean with more room to maneuver.

As for any myths about Iraq, save that for another thread. I am just asking why place a US carrier inside the Persian Gulf---why---will it do any good? But I sure can see it doing much harm.

I would be VERY surprised by any successful attack on two US carrier groups floating at full alert 24/7. Their true capabilities go wayyyy beyond what you read in Janes...

And can also assure you that the Admirals on the JCOS know full well just how maneuverable our ships can be in the Gulf.

Let's face reality here: a show of force is necessary to bring Iran back down to earth... nothing else has worked!! We have the entire UN security council on board with warnings and sanctions, and yet, Iran still flips the bird to the entire civilized world with each new "strongly worded letter" we send their way!

What do you propose we do instead? How else can we show Iran that we (the entire civilized world) mean business? Nothing else is working, so a show of forces is certainly worth trying!

I'm not advocating an offensive strike. Hopefully, showing Iran what it feels like to have two full battle groups parked outside their front door may do the trick. If not, sadly, I don't know what options are left...

Don't count on "the whole civilized world" to back military action against Iran. The IAEC has found zero evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons (yes I know it is obvious that they are but that doesn't count for beans in the world of diplomacy) so there isn't much interest in starting yet another conflict. Lots of folks are making lots of money in Iran and don't want to kill the goose. The gunboat diplomacy isn't for Iranian consumption; it is for US domestic consumption.

There are all sorts of options left to address Iran. How do you see military action against Iran being consistant with US interests?

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Do you have any knowledge of the Iranian naval power or not? Unless you have any evidence to go against what I have said please don't respond to my posts with "I".

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TS-MHvDylUo
Yep. Looks like Iran can't get anything close enough to an aircraft carrier.

Is that supposed to prove anything? You're talking about a tiny drone that couldn't carry significant armament being allowed to stay in that location and not get shot down. The US carrier was certainly tracking the drone and would have shot it down if it went lower in altitude and looked like it was about to crash into the US carrier. Iran's only real naval threat would be its three Kilo Class Submarines, which would have a hard time locating a US carrier even in the Persian Gulf during wartime.

One thing you seem to be missing is that if Iran actually attacked a US carrier out of the blue tomorrow, that would actually hurt them. The US has plenty of other naval assets, combined with US Air Force assets of course, which they could use to effectively launch an air campaign against Iran. After an attack that was a clear act of war by Iran, world opinion would be on the US's side as the US launches a systematic air bombing campaign against Iranian military targets as well as targets related to the Iranian nuclear program. This would not help those currently in charge of Iran's regime, especially given world that Iran was dumb enough to clearly strike first would clearly leak to the general Iranian populace even if Iran does try to control its media. (Plenty of Iranianians have illegal satellite dishes and the like.)

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Aimster
Do you have any knowledge of the Iranian naval power or not? Unless you have any evidence to go against what I have said please don't respond to my posts with "I".

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TS-MHvDylUo
Yep. Looks like Iran can't get anything close enough to an aircraft carrier.

Is that supposed to prove anything? You're talking about a tiny drone that couldn't carry significant armament being allowed to stay in that location and not get shot down. The US carrier was certainly tracking the drone and would have shot it down if it went lower in altitude and looked like it was about to crash into the US carrier. Iran's only real naval threat would be its three Kilo Class Submarines, which would have a hard time locating a US carrier even in the Persian Gulf during wartime.

One thing you seem to be missing is that if Iran actually attacked a US carrier out of the blue tomorrow, that would actually hurt them. The US has plenty of other naval assets, combined with US Air Force assets of course, which they could use to effectively launch an air campaign against Iran. After an attack that was a clear act of war by Iran, world opinion would be on the US's side as the US launches a systematic air bombing campaign against Iranian military targets as well as targets related to the Iranian nuclear program. This would not help those currently in charge of Iran's regime, especially given world that Iran was dumb enough to clearly strike first would clearly leak to the general Iranian populace even if Iran does try to control its media. (Plenty of Iranianians have illegal satellite dishes and the like.)

Iran has drones that have missiles. In fact it has a lot of them.

I never said an Iranian attack first
People need to learn to read.

If U.S attacked Iran, Iran has nothing to lose by going after a carrier.

Iranian missiles pushed Israel's navy back during their raid on Lebanon. Don't tell me the U.S navy has better technology than Israeli technology. That will be one pointless debate.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Aimster
Do you have any knowledge of the Iranian naval power or not? Unless you have any evidence to go against what I have said please don't respond to my posts with "I".

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TS-MHvDylUo
Yep. Looks like Iran can't get anything close enough to an aircraft carrier.

Is that supposed to prove anything? You're talking about a tiny drone that couldn't carry significant armament being allowed to stay in that location and not get shot down. The US carrier was certainly tracking the drone and would have shot it down if it went lower in altitude and looked like it was about to crash into the US carrier. Iran's only real naval threat would be its three Kilo Class Submarines, which would have a hard time locating a US carrier even in the Persian Gulf during wartime.

One thing you seem to be missing is that if Iran actually attacked a US carrier out of the blue tomorrow, that would actually hurt them. The US has plenty of other naval assets, combined with US Air Force assets of course, which they could use to effectively launch an air campaign against Iran. After an attack that was a clear act of war by Iran, world opinion would be on the US's side as the US launches a systematic air bombing campaign against Iranian military targets as well as targets related to the Iranian nuclear program. This would not help those currently in charge of Iran's regime, especially given world that Iran was dumb enough to clearly strike first would clearly leak to the general Iranian populace even if Iran does try to control its media. (Plenty of Iranianians have illegal satellite dishes and the like.)

Iran has drones that have missiles. In fact it has a lot of them.

I never said an Iranian attack first
People need to learn to read.

If U.S attacked Iran, Iran has nothing to lose by going after a carrier.

Iranian missiles pushed Israel's navy back during their raid on Lebanon. Don't tell me the U.S navy has better technology than Israeli technology. That will be one pointless debate.

Did you just honestly compare the Israeli Navy to the US Navy?

ok... this show is over. you're in fantasyland.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Aimster
Do you have any knowledge of the Iranian naval power or not? Unless you have any evidence to go against what I have said please don't respond to my posts with "I".

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TS-MHvDylUo
Yep. Looks like Iran can't get anything close enough to an aircraft carrier.

Is that supposed to prove anything? You're talking about a tiny drone that couldn't carry significant armament being allowed to stay in that location and not get shot down. The US carrier was certainly tracking the drone and would have shot it down if it went lower in altitude and looked like it was about to crash into the US carrier. Iran's only real naval threat would be its three Kilo Class Submarines, which would have a hard time locating a US carrier even in the Persian Gulf during wartime.

One thing you seem to be missing is that if Iran actually attacked a US carrier out of the blue tomorrow, that would actually hurt them. The US has plenty of other naval assets, combined with US Air Force assets of course, which they could use to effectively launch an air campaign against Iran. After an attack that was a clear act of war by Iran, world opinion would be on the US's side as the US launches a systematic air bombing campaign against Iranian military targets as well as targets related to the Iranian nuclear program. This would not help those currently in charge of Iran's regime, especially given world that Iran was dumb enough to clearly strike first would clearly leak to the general Iranian populace even if Iran does try to control its media. (Plenty of Iranianians have illegal satellite dishes and the like.)

Iran has drones that have missiles. In fact it has a lot of them.

I never said an Iranian attack first
People need to learn to read.

If U.S attacked Iran, Iran has nothing to lose by going after a carrier.

Iranian missiles pushed Israel's navy back during their raid on Lebanon. Don't tell me the U.S navy has better technology than Israeli technology. That will be one pointless debate.

Yes the US navy most likely does have better technology than Israel. Also, if you honestly think that the Iranians aren't scared of the US Navy then you are absolutely dillusional. Do you really think that if they sank a couple of US ships in the Persian Gulf that that would be the end of it?

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As OP on this thread, my main fear is not an Iranian unprovoked assault against the carriers but rather it gives any rag tag terrorists group motive and opportunity to try to damage US naval assets in the restricted waters of the Persian Gulf.

The threat of this is actually drastically overrated in this setting. A key point to note is the USS Cole was actually in a port refueling at the time, this will not be done from within the Persian Gulf.

The US Navy has also become far more alert to that sort of threat after what happened to the Cole, and has procedures and the armament aboard its ships to detect and blow away any approaching ship of any sort before it gets close enough to effectively set off a suicide bomb. This would be especially true of any ship approaching a US Carrier. A suicide bomb attack of this type has to get very close to a US warship before it can effectively punch a significant hole in the side of the warship, which gives the US time to warn innocent ships off and make sure the ship isn't making an innocent mistake. In case there is any confusion on this point, firing an antitank missile at a full sized US warship would not actually do significant damage to it.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Aimster
Do you have any knowledge of the Iranian naval power or not? Unless you have any evidence to go against what I have said please don't respond to my posts with "I".

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TS-MHvDylUo
Yep. Looks like Iran can't get anything close enough to an aircraft carrier.

Is that supposed to prove anything? You're talking about a tiny drone that couldn't carry significant armament being allowed to stay in that location and not get shot down. The US carrier was certainly tracking the drone and would have shot it down if it went lower in altitude and looked like it was about to crash into the US carrier. Iran's only real naval threat would be its three Kilo Class Submarines, which would have a hard time locating a US carrier even in the Persian Gulf during wartime.

One thing you seem to be missing is that if Iran actually attacked a US carrier out of the blue tomorrow, that would actually hurt them. The US has plenty of other naval assets, combined with US Air Force assets of course, which they could use to effectively launch an air campaign against Iran. After an attack that was a clear act of war by Iran, world opinion would be on the US's side as the US launches a systematic air bombing campaign against Iranian military targets as well as targets related to the Iranian nuclear program. This would not help those currently in charge of Iran's regime, especially given world that Iran was dumb enough to clearly strike first would clearly leak to the general Iranian populace even if Iran does try to control its media. (Plenty of Iranianians have illegal satellite dishes and the like.)

Iran has drones that have missiles. In fact it has a lot of them.

I never said an Iranian attack first
People need to learn to read.

If U.S attacked Iran, Iran has nothing to lose by going after a carrier.

Iranian missiles pushed Israel's navy back during their raid on Lebanon. Don't tell me the U.S navy has better technology than Israeli technology. That will be one pointless debate.

Yes the US navy most likely does have better technology than Israel. Also, if you honestly think that the Iranians aren't scared of the US Navy then you are absolutely dillusional. Do you really think that if they sank a couple of US ships in the Persian Gulf that that would be the end of it?

You got proof the U.S has better technology than Israel? Israel makes a lot of things better than the U.S and with a lot less R&D! Missile defense comes to mind.

Why would the Iranian navy be scared of a target it can hit? It might not win the battle, but it can hurt the U.S. The more U.S ships the more targets Iran has to attack.

Any U.S attack on Iran has to go 100% in with a full force invasion. U.S will already be giving Iran everything it has. Iran has no reason to hold back anything.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Aimster
Do you have any knowledge of the Iranian naval power or not? Unless you have any evidence to go against what I have said please don't respond to my posts with "I".

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TS-MHvDylUo
Yep. Looks like Iran can't get anything close enough to an aircraft carrier.

Is that supposed to prove anything? You're talking about a tiny drone that couldn't carry significant armament being allowed to stay in that location and not get shot down. The US carrier was certainly tracking the drone and would have shot it down if it went lower in altitude and looked like it was about to crash into the US carrier. Iran's only real naval threat would be its three Kilo Class Submarines, which would have a hard time locating a US carrier even in the Persian Gulf during wartime.

One thing you seem to be missing is that if Iran actually attacked a US carrier out of the blue tomorrow, that would actually hurt them. The US has plenty of other naval assets, combined with US Air Force assets of course, which they could use to effectively launch an air campaign against Iran. After an attack that was a clear act of war by Iran, world opinion would be on the US's side as the US launches a systematic air bombing campaign against Iranian military targets as well as targets related to the Iranian nuclear program. This would not help those currently in charge of Iran's regime, especially given world that Iran was dumb enough to clearly strike first would clearly leak to the general Iranian populace even if Iran does try to control its media. (Plenty of Iranianians have illegal satellite dishes and the like.)

Iran has drones that have missiles. In fact it has a lot of them.

I never said an Iranian attack first
People need to learn to read.

If U.S attacked Iran, Iran has nothing to lose by going after a carrier.

Iranian missiles pushed Israel's navy back during their raid on Lebanon. Don't tell me the U.S navy has better technology than Israeli technology. That will be one pointless debate.

Did you just honestly compare the Israeli Navy to the US Navy?

ok... this show is over. you're in fantasyland.

Do people lack reading comprehension skills?
Education 101. Enroll today.

I said technology. What does the U.S navy have technology wise that the Israel navy didn't that would have helped Israel from an attack by Hezbollah missiles?

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Iran has drones that have missiles. In fact it has a lot of them.

I never said an Iranian attack first
People need to learn to read.

If U.S attacked Iran, Iran has nothing to lose by going after a carrier.

Iranian missiles pushed Israel's navy back during their raid on Lebanon. Don't tell me the U.S navy has better technology than Israeli technology. That will be one pointless debate.

Iran DOES NOT have drones big enough to carry effective antiship missiles. (Particularly when we're talking about a target as huge as a US Carrier.) If there is an exception to this with some converted Iranian fighter into a drone, that drone would be far more likely to get shot down if it got close to the US carrier regardless. (A related point is the US carrier would almost certainly be able to shoot down just one or two antiship missiles fired suddenly at it if they are already alert to the drone being in the area.)

The reality is the only reason that Iranian missile hit the Israeli warship was that Israel was not anticipating the threat of antiship missiles in that situation and had its antimissile defenses basically shut off in order to make sure it didn't shoot down one of the Israeli aircraft in the area by accident. A single missile of that size wouldn't do all that much damage to a US Carrier even if it hit by the way, and US warships also have the luxury of longer ranged radars giving them a longer amount of time to react.

I frankly suspect the US would pull its carriers out of the Persian Gulf entirely first if they actually attacked Iran. Especially right now airbases in Iraq could also be used to provide air cover within the Gulf regardless. (If the US wanted to they could clarify that aircraft based in Iraq would only protect shipping from Iranian attack as it transited the Gulf.) Even if a US carrier stayed in the Persian Gulf, given Iran's limitations it would not be an easy target in this situation. Its not like the US would be dumb enough to literally park the carrier right off Iran's coastline to make it easy for Iran to hit it.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Do people lack reading comprehension skills?
Education 101. Enroll today.

I said technology. What does the U.S navy have technology wise that the Israel navy didn't that would have helped Israel from an attack by Hezbollah missiles?

The reality is military experts all know that the Israeli warship would have been easily able to shoot down a single sea skimming missile like that if its defenses had been fully turned on. That was basically a situation where they Israeli Navy screwed up since they didn't anticipate the real possibility of an antiship missile attack. Obviously the US would be ready for that in a war against Iran.

Furthermore, there are at least very clear capability differences between the two navies. The Israeli Corvettes are merely about 1200 tons while even the smallest US warships in a US carrier group right now are Perry Frigates which are 4,000 tons. This simply gives the US more room to stick more powerful air defense radars. The Israeli Corvettes also merely have point defense missiles with a range of about 10 kilometers, so they don't have the same incentive to put radars as capable at longer ranges on the ship. (While they have been modified now, the US's Perry Frigates previously were capable of firing SM-1 Air Defense Missiles, which have a rather substantial maximum range.) On top of likely being able to pick up the missile earlier, the US warships also have a significantly large crew so they can have more people constantly monitoring their radar screens at all times and ready to turn on the ship's anti-missile defenses if they detect an incoming antiship missile.

 

[Aimster]

All of Israel's defenses were turned on.
Israel anticipated an attack and got hit. There is no proven defense shield that is 100%. A Hezbollah missile managed to penetrate that defense.

Anyone who says Israel was just sitting there not anticipating an attack from Hezbollah with their defenses turned off is a complete idiot.

Nobody turns off defenses when they know the enemy has the capability to hit you. Israel knew exactly what Hezbollah had. Nothing was a secret.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Aimster
All of Israel's defenses were turned on.
Israel anticipated an attack and got hit. There is no proven defense shield that is 100%. A Hezbollah missile managed to penetrate that defense.

Anyone who says Israel was just sitting there not anticipating an attack from Hezbollah with their defenses turned off is a complete idiot.

Nobody turns off defenses when they know the enemy has the capability to hit you. Israel knew exactly what Hezbollah had. Nothing was a secret.

This is absurd nonsense. The Barak Antimissile system the Israeli Corvettes have can shoot down a single sea skimming missile like the Hezbullah fired, which was not particularly sophisticated, with extreme ease. They are designed to be able to shoot down supersonic sea skimming missiles if necessary, and even deal to some degree with a saturation attack. Countries like Singapore carefully tested the missile defense system and would not have bought it if they though it was inferior. Modern warships have repeatedly show the ability to shoot down that type of missiles in tests.

Israel had their Barak SAM system mostly off because they were worried about low flying Israeli aircraft setting it off.

They very obviously were not expecting an antiship missile attack not only because of apparent intelligence failures on what Hezbollah had in this area, but because they didn't see how Iran would get the targeting information to fire an antiship missile. The failed to anticipate the Hezbollah would use data from the Lebanese Military radar units to get the location of the Israeli warships and then jury rig a missile launch unit and fire the missile off in the Israeli warship's direction.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Iran has drones that have missiles. In fact it has a lot of them.

I never said an Iranian attack first
People need to learn to read.

If U.S attacked Iran, Iran has nothing to lose by going after a carrier.

Iranian missiles pushed Israel's navy back during their raid on Lebanon. Don't tell me the U.S navy has better technology than Israeli technology. That will be one pointless debate.

Again you forget about retaliation.
Israel had limited retaliation options when they attacked their ships so they pulled back.

We wouldn?t have that problem. Israel was dealing with a terrorists group with no national infrastructure and population to worry about, we wouldn?t have that problem.
Iran is what they call a target rich enviroment.

 

[Aimster]

oh please low flying aircraft.

Israel knew Hezbollah had missiles capable of hitting naval ships and they turned the system off?

You are suggesting Israel's military is stupid.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Aimster
Iran has drones that have missiles. In fact it has a lot of them.

I never said an Iranian attack first
People need to learn to read.

If U.S attacked Iran, Iran has nothing to lose by going after a carrier.

Iranian missiles pushed Israel's navy back during their raid on Lebanon. Don't tell me the U.S navy has better technology than Israeli technology. That will be one pointless debate.

Again you forget about retaliation.
Israel had limited retaliation options when they attacked their ships so they pulled back.

We wouldn?t have that problem. Israel was dealing with a terrorists group with no national infrastructure and population to worry about, we wouldn?t have that problem.
Iran is what they call a target rich enviroment.

what the hell are you smoking?

Israel had F-16s all over Lebanon. Retaliation? Israel was attacking every 5 seconds.