www.ditl.org

If Iran did try to do anything in Iraq, it'd be by small units of guerilla forces. Anything else would just get airstriked the moment it came in sight.

On the subject of naval forces, I wonder how effective this would be, or if they even have any operational.

Iran does have a fairly good army. nothing compared to the US but then again they arent fighting on multiple fronts.

Tsukiyumi wrote:On the subject of naval forces, I wonder how effective this would be, or if they even have any operational.

Even if they have them, it'll be unguided (as rocket torpedoes are) so they'll have to be careful how they employ it. Or it'll just miss.

Supercavitiation torpedos(at least theres) are suspected to be very short ranged. Just don't come within 13 kilometers of their stuff and send in the airplanes.

I've heard the same thing on both counts; short ranged, and no guidance. Getting a launch craft within, say, a few miles of a US warship is not going to be an easy matter if open hostilities are going on.

Pulling back out of range is a good idea, but there isn't that much sea room in parts of the Gulf. How practical is it to pull back from a swarm of attackers in the straights of hormuz?

Still and all the USN would no doubt triumph in the end. Hell if it's a US initiated strike they might well catch most of those little boats and their crews still in port and bomb the crap out of them there.

Ultimately though, no matter how well the Iranians do, any success will just bring a bigger response from the US. If they did respond to an attack by managing to sink a US carrier through luck or some surprise weapon/tactic, they'd just have another six show up a month later.

These little boats only stand a chance before war breaks out. Once the balloon goes up and the CVBG imposes it's exculsion zone, everything in there is going to die unless it's fleeing at high speed. The US isn't going to sacrifce a carrier or even an allied frigate because one of those tiny contacts may a dhow.

Yeah I'm not so much worried about the little boats so much as the anti ship missiles.

And yes for that we'd want to be out of the Persian gulf. There is technically enough room in the gulf to get out of range of shore launched anti ship missile, if and aircraft or sub or anything closes much distance at all the ships would be taking fire. They're just too darn expensive to risk that way. Too many lives risked as well. Not that we probably won't lose some to Iranian ballistic missiles. Hopefully people will get to shelter though so it'll mostly be property damage.

Though on that note I get the feeling they're trying to pick a fight before we're out of Afganistand and Iraq. As Persian/shia nations themselves attacking those countries once the US is gone would be like us attacking Canada.

It'd leave them with a whole lot less in the way of juicy targets. Their shorter range weapons might come up without a target at all, and firing longer range weapons at more distant targets is a good way to lose them in flight. As is they may pound the green zone. We might just want to write some Iraqi/Kuwaiti bases off and pull people out of them as soon as we launch strikes.

Relevant news
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/ ... index.html

and also the bizzar
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1001526.html

The problem with the last one is that, while diplomatic, militarily it's ugly. It sounds like instead of dealing them a vicious first strike beatdown we'll instead let Israel rile them up without even weakening their ability to counter attack.

Maybe they think that if Israel just hits the nuclear sites that Iran won't actually escilate to full war? Or we've started caring more about world opinion than American lives?

The response would be strategic rather than tactical. Does bombing Tokyo in WW2 come to mind? Or we could just let the Israelis do their thing. Either way Iran would be a parking lot.

Ballistic missiles against ships is a losing proposition. Flight time of even two minutes lets a ship move a thousand yards or more. And since ballistics are not guided (or at least Iran's aren't) then targetwise you are basically throwing darts at a wall and hoping to hit something. Ships are very small compared to the sea.

I don't think the US will pull out of the gulf for fear of missiles. It's not just a matter of the range of the missile; A Silkworm might have a range of 95 km, but that is useless unless you can locate your target at that distance. For a surface radar the horizon is no more than a few tens of kilometres. The only serious threat is going to be from aircraft carrying anti ship missiles, and against the US any Iranian aircraft that takes off is going to have a life expectancy of measured in minutes. Submarines are another potential danger, but it's hard to believe that Iran's sub fleet isn't heavily, heavily outclassed.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Ballistic missiles against ships is a losing proposition. Flight time of even two minutes lets a ship move a thousand yards or more. And since ballistics are not guided (or at least Iran's aren't) then targetwise you are basically throwing darts at a wall and hoping to hit something. Ships are very small compared to the sea.

The US Navy now has the means to engage ballistic missiles with their SM-2/3 anyways. So that's a bust.

I don't think the US will pull out of the gulf for fear of missiles. It's not just a matter of the range of the missile; A Silkworm might have a range of 95 km, but that is useless unless you can locate your target at that distance. For a surface radar the horizon is no more than a few tens of kilometres. The only serious threat is going to be from aircraft carrying anti ship missiles, and against the US any Iranian aircraft that takes off is going to have a life expectancy of measured in minutes. Submarines are another potential danger, but it's hard to believe that Iran's sub fleet isn't heavily, heavily outclassed.

SSK's have a horrible track record against CVBG's, they pretty much have to be positioned ahead of time in an area where the carrier group may pass through in order to attack them. Their slow submerged speed makes a stern chase a waste of time. To my knowledge there's only been a handful of incidents since WWII where an SSK could have scored a kill against a US carrier, one by a Chilean and one by a Canadian sub (the old O boats). I'm sure there's a few more as well.

Chances are that the CVN is only going to take one or two hits anyway once decoys are taken into account. A CVN is a huge vessel and could take a few torpedoes. And in the event of an attack on Iran there's going to be at least two in the Gulf plus the Gator Navy with it's LPH's.

The Iranians would, I think, have at least a decent chance of ambushing a carrier if they stationed a Kilo or two in the Straights of Hormuz in the run-up to any military action. Whether their commanders are good enough to do pull off a damaging attack is another matter, as is the question of whether their subs are in seaworthy condition.

I have to wonder how long something like a Kilo would last, given that it has to breach the surface with a snorkel every now and again. Not too long, I'd wager.

GrahamKennedy wrote:I have to wonder how long something like a Kilo would last, given that it has to breach the surface with a snorkel every now and again. Not too long, I'd wager.

I doubt it would last long enough to fire, the Americans will be looking for it as SOP. And if it does last long enough to fire, it'll be dead shortly afterwards.

GrahamKennedy wrote: I don't think the US will pull out of the gulf for fear of missiles. It's not just a matter of the range of the missile; A Silkworm might have a range of 95 km, but that is useless unless you can locate your target at that distance. For a surface radar the horizon is no more than a few tens of kilometres. The only serious threat is going to be from aircraft carrying anti ship missiles, and against the US any Iranian aircraft that takes off is going to have a life expectancy of measured in minutes. Submarines are another potential danger, but it's hard to believe that Iran's sub fleet isn't heavily, heavily outclassed.

First of all if they have a rough idea of where the ships are I do believe a number of their missiles can simply be fired in the right direction and will aquire a target when it comes in range of the missiles radar. Some also have remote video guidance.

All in all that makes it hard to reach a carrier past its escorts. But it's not like we'd like to lose a destroyer either. Especially since a modern day US destroyer is more equitable to a cruiser in terms of size and cost.

Planes would be in deep trouble if they attacked our ships, but on the other hand trading a plane for a ship is a good deal.

Especially since losing a ship would reported like the end of the world over here.

So in short we should get out of the gulf to avoid the above. Especially since it can be largely avoided. As mentioned their subs have to come up for air. So we should be able to neutralize them using long range aircraft along with the rest of the fleet and the Iranian airfields. Only come in close once that has been acheived to allow us to strike harder deeper in.