Iranian Navy | News and Discussions

[gambit]

Because initially red was allowed to use it's tactics and it was not scripted. When red sunk 19 blue ships, the conditions were changed to make it scripted.

You know this. I don't need to tell you this. Please don't argue for the sake of arguing.

I got news for you: ALL exercises and war games are rigged.

I can tell that you have never served so have never been in a military exercise. If MC2002 was allowed to have minimal restrictions like how Red Flag is, Van Ripper's little boats would have never made it past the outer defense perimeter.

So it goes back to my original questions for you that if the war game was so bad and so flawed, what make you think you can use it as evident that Iran's little boats can take on and hilariously board a US aircraft carrier?

 

[AmirPatriot]

I got news for you: ALL exercises and war games are rigged.

I can tell that you have never served so have never been in a military exercise. If MC2002 was allowed to have minimal restrictions like how Red Flag is, Van Ripper's little boats would have never made it past the outer defense perimeter.

So it goes back to my original questions for you that if the war game was so bad and so flawed, what make you think you can use it as evident that Iran's little boats can take on and hilariously board a US aircraft carrier?

Van Ripper's little boats sunk 19 US warships including a US aircraft carrier, 6 cruisers and 5 LHAs. Can you tell me what restrictions were put on Blue that would enable this? In general it is considered that in the first round, where 19 ships were sunk, was free and open. The second round was where restrictions were put on red.

So to reiterate and in case you want to ignore my answer again, the first phase where 19 US ships were sunk was free and open. Then the exercise was suspended, the US ships "re-floated" and the "bad and flawed" restrictions were put on red, NOT on blue.

So kindly don't ask me the same question again, I've already answered it twice.

I've already said boarding is unrealistic. Don't make up things I haven't said.

 

[VEVAK]

The entire idea is unrealistic. Think about it.

If you guys criticize the US Millennium Challenge 2002 as bad, scripted, unfair, and so on, then why do you guys continually touted it as evident that a fleet of small boats can take on a carrier group?

But if you want to use it as evident that the Iranian Navy can conduct a naval assault on the US carrier group, then what make you think that we have not taken steps to correct the flaws the war game revealed, therefore, PROBABLY rendering any plan you have as ineffective and useful only as propaganda?

WW II was the first time that naval fleets fought each other without seeing each other, and probably the last time fleets fought within visual range of each other. That means the fleet without air power will be at a serious tactical disadvantage. We have in a single carrier fleet airpower that Iran cannot match in terms of technology, combat experience, range, and best (or worse for Iran) flexibility. Not only that, Iran will be facing long range bombers that can launch from CONUS that can deliver precision munitions on any coastal installation that can harbor the Iranian Navy.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2015/June 2015/Airpower-Against-Ships.aspx

Here is what you guys on this forum do not understand and it is because you guys are more interested in nationalistic cheering for the public instead of quietly do research and think about what you find, especially when the US military is a lot more open about our equipment and tactics than other countries are.

Look at the highlighted above.

A 'mission kill' is a disabling hit, or a 'soft kill'. Ever thought and wonder why does the US focuses on that tactic for ships?

I maybe an Air Force guy, but precisely because I know humans do not belong in the air that I can definitely understand why ships warrant special tactics.

On land, individual soldiers can disperse and regroup at a different location and can resume the prosecution of the battle. We cannot do that in the air or at sea.

For example...And we return to the Vietnam War, specifically the air war...

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Vi...ng-migs-air-to-air-combat-over-north-vietnam/

In other words, the North Vietnamese MIGs did a 'mission kill' or 'soft kill' on the fighter-bombers. As soon as one fighter-bomber was hit, all jets jettisoned their bombs and maneuvered to survive. Without the bombs, the sortie was useless, therefore, whatever target planned survived another day.

It is not that much different at sea. A man in the air will drop and die. A man at sea will drown and die. The parachute and the float vest will save the man but do not allow continuation of the mission. If a ship is hit, sailors do not disperse like land army soldiers do. If a tank in a platoon is hit, the crew will be tended by others, but the other tanks can continue on. This cannot happen with a ship. So the idea is to judiciously use precision weapons to produce enough damages to the ship that it stop being a contributor the battle.

The larger the ship, the more difficult it is to produce that 'soft kill', let alone destroy or (hilariously) board an aircraft carrier. The corollary is that the smaller the vessel, like a speedboat, the easier it is to produce a 'hard kill' with the same weapon.

How much damage do you think an AC-130 can do to a speedboat to simply disable it? You think we cannot hit a moving boat?

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/griffin-missile-system/

As soon as one boat is hit, the others will execute evasive maneuvers, using up critical mission items like fuel and time. Maybe a 'soft kill' on the entire fast boat flotilla where each boat ran to its 'bingo fuel' status and must return to port. Or the smoking ruins of the port.

When you guys have not even considered something basic like sea state that WILL affect mission time, how can you expect learned people to take you seriously? If anything, I doubt that until now, you guys have ever heard of the Douglas Sea Scale.

This is not a video game. Iran is facing a technologically superior opponent whose battle tested weapons are enough to overwhelm most militaries.

Yea because speed boats is all Iran has!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!

1st off the most valuable thing Iranian speed boats can do at the start of a conflict is mine the Persian Gulf very quickly NOT engage U.S. warships with rockets!

2ndly Speed boats armed with rocket would only go after warships only after they have been hit by a Missile, Mine or Torpedo

3rd The carrier they were firing missiles at was not packed with jet fuel, explosives & a bunch of scared people running around

4th If the goal of the exercise was to sink the carrier Iran would have started the exercise by firing 2-3 torpedo's at it 1st....

And yes U.S. has the technological advantage BUT Iran has the manpower, geographic and home field advantage!

Also, Iran's reach in terms of precision strike capability is far beyond what it was in 2002!

In 2002 Iran would have been lucky to achieve a CEP 150 meters against a fixed target 150km away using it's newly developed Fatteh-110 Ballistic Missiles where as today there is not doubt in Iran's capability to achieve a cep of ~20 meters at 600km with it's Zolfaghars up to 800km with a CEP of 50 meters with upgraded version of the Qiam, 1700km with a CEP of ~ 200 meters with Emad

In 2002 Iran was just testing it's 400km Raad missiles (A cruise missile that required a tank to carry and fire just 1 with various parts that had to be smuggled in) where as today there is little doubt that Iran can easily achieve ranges beyond 1500km cruise missiles entirely built inside the country that are far easier to deploy with a greater rate of fire.

In 2002 Iran's 1200km Shahab-3's was still finishing testing and Iran main BM's were the Shahab-2's with max range of 700km and it's CEP at the time was 1km at max range so they weren't really a military threat to U.S. Bases and at best they could disrupt operations for a few hours to a day

And at that time Iran produced no more than 50 missiles with ranges beyond 300km a year combined that required various parts to be imported (And that's everything from cruise missiles to BM combined)
where as today if I was to say Iran is producing over 500 missiles with ranges beyond 300km all at home with NO imported parts I would be grossly underestimating!

In 2002 Iran constantly highballing the ranges of it's BM where as today Iran has repeatedly lowballed the ranges of it's BM sometime by over 1000km so they are not perceived as a threat to Europe

Iran's military capabilities today is NOTHING compared to Iran in 2002!

 

[zartosht]

good posts. I don't think the armchair nationalistic Americans will ever be able to accept/handle how badly the strategic situation in the Persian gulf has tilted towards iran. (though luckily American naval commanders seem to have gotten the hint)

it wasn't long ago that those American assets like the 5th feet in the region were considered a huge potential threat to iran. I think today iran just sees them as leverage. they are almost easy targets for iran today. and the americans know it too..

their presence in the Persian gulf is almost a bluff at this point. to show the a-rabs they are still stronk. but just look at the behaviour of the US Navy. They are extremely meek and very very cautious when dealing with iran in the Persian gulf. You can definitely sense the last thing the navy leadership wants is direct confrontation with iran. They know how vulnerable they are in this tiny little death trap iran has been spending decades militarizing., and cannot afford any incident that will shatter their image.

when was the last time the world saw American sailors on their knees in the surrender position and crying? This wasn't just humiliation for the navy but affects their psychological edge as well. naval commanders were rightly complaining that such footage will be showed as part of a training course in other world navies. To show how vulnerable, human, and even weak American military personnel are when put in a position of actual danger/ potential close quarter combat.

in war psycology is extremely important. you want the enemy to think you are strong/invincible. The Israelis exploited this psychological strategy to great effect against arabs.

 

[Stryker1982]

good posts. I don't think the armchair nationalistic Americans will ever be able to accept/handle how badly the strategic situation in the Persian gulf has tilted towards iran. (though luckily American naval commanders seem to have gotten the hint)

it wasn't long ago that those American assets like the 5th feet in the region were considered a huge potential threat to iran. I think today iran just sees them as leverage. they are almost easy targets for iran today. and the americans know it too..

their presence in the Persian gulf is almost a bluff at this point. to show the a-rabs they are still stronk. but just look at the behaviour of the US Navy. They are extremely meek and very very cautious when dealing with iran in the Persian gulf. You can definitely sense the last thing the navy leadership wants is direct confrontation with iran. They know how vulnerable they are in this tiny little death trap iran has been spending decades militarizing., and cannot afford any incident that will shatter their image.

when was the last time the world saw American sailors on their knees in the surrender position and crying? This wasn't just humiliation for the navy but affects their psychological edge as well. naval commanders were rightly complaining that such footage will be showed as part of a training course in other world navies. To show how vulnerable, human, and even weak American military personnel are when put in a position of actual danger/ potential close quarter combat.

in war psycology is extremely important. you want the enemy to think you are strong/invincible. The Israelis exploited this psychological strategy to great effect against arabs.

The Brits are also dumb enough to build a military base in Bahrain, basically giving Iran leverage over Britain during a hostile scenario. By building it, they think they've become stronger, but the truth is, they have become weaker as now their assets are within range of Iran's SRBM's and they are vulnerable.

 

[Oldman1]

The Brits are also dumb enough to build a military base in Bahrain, basically giving Iran leverage over Britain during a hostile scenario. By building it, they think they've become stronger, but the truth is, they have become weaker as now their assets are within range of Iran's SRBM's and they are vulnerable.

Or Iran be dumb enough to get Bahrain involved in any conflict with Iran. This can go both ways.

good posts. I don't think the armchair nationalistic Americans will ever be able to accept/handle how badly the strategic situation in the Persian gulf has tilted towards iran. (though luckily American naval commanders seem to have gotten the hint)

it wasn't long ago that those American assets like the 5th feet in the region were considered a huge potential threat to iran. I think today iran just sees them as leverage. they are almost easy targets for iran today. and the americans know it too..

their presence in the Persian gulf is almost a bluff at this point. to show the a-rabs they are still stronk. but just look at the behaviour of the US Navy. They are extremely meek and very very cautious when dealing with iran in the Persian gulf. You can definitely sense the last thing the navy leadership wants is direct confrontation with iran. They know how vulnerable they are in this tiny little death trap iran has been spending decades militarizing., and cannot afford any incident that will shatter their image.

when was the last time the world saw American sailors on their knees in the surrender position and crying? This wasn't just humiliation for the navy but affects their psychological edge as well. naval commanders were rightly complaining that such footage will be showed as part of a training course in other world navies. To show how vulnerable, human, and even weak American military personnel are when put in a position of actual danger/ potential close quarter combat.

in war psycology is extremely important. you want the enemy to think you are strong/invincible. The Israelis exploited this psychological strategy to great effect against arabs.

Sorry but the 5th Fleet is not something you want to mess with no matter what your claims are. You saw Iran quickly returning the U.S. sailors quickly to resolve the crisis in a matter of hours because they know it was a mistake on our part of navigation error and don't want to make the situation any worse. You may use that to claim American sailors as weak along with the rest of the U.S. Navy. But the Japanese thought the same when they captured large amount of U.S. military personnel in the early stages of the war.

Remember Operation Praying Mantis?

 

[TheImmortal]

The Brits are also dumb enough to build a military base in Bahrain, basically giving Iran leverage over Britain during a hostile scenario. By building it, they think they've become stronger, but the truth is, they have become weaker as now their assets are within range of Iran's SRBM's and they are vulnerable.

You are sincerely ignorant if you think Iran would attack British bases in any skirmish. That would be inviting tremendous response from BriTain with the full backing of the British people if that were to happen.

Even if US attacked Iran’s nuclear sites it would be very unlikely that Iran would touch any US Navy ship. You are talking about casualties in 100’s or 1000’s for the US. If such a thing were to occur, Iran would effectively be attacked by the US at magnitude causing casualties in several thousands if not more for Iran. In war, countries don’t back down they up the ante, hence why a lot of negotiation happens to prevent conflicts from escalating.

Iran’s establishment knows this, that is why any surigical strikes against Iran would not result in a big response from Iran because the risk of escalation is a big downside for Iran. It is a battle it won’t win. The US won’t back down if you take out a destroyer or severely damage an aircraft carrier. At that point you have effectively declared full on war.

Iran will attack countries it knows it can “handle” (ie Arab countries). Any attack against British or NATO bases is just inviting another strong adversary into the war which Iran does not need when already facing the US.

The only time Iran will fight with all its power is if it believes it’s an existential threat and the government will be at risk of falling (ie regime change).

Anything short of that and Iran’s response will probably be mute and subdued as not to risk a bigger confrontation.

You can already see this thought process in Syria.

 

[Stryker1982]

You are sincerely ignorant if you think Iran would attack British bases in any skirmish. That would be inviting tremendous response from BriTain with the full backing of the British people if that were to happen.

Even if US attacked Iran’s nuclear sites it would be very unlikely that Iran would touch any US Navy ship. You are talking about casualties in 100’s or 1000’s for the US. If such a thing were to occur, Iran would effectively be attacked by the US at magnitude causing casualties in several thousands if not more for Iran. In war, countries don’t back down they up the ante, hence why a lot of negotiation happens to prevent conflicts from escalating.

Iran’s establishment knows this, that is why any surigical strikes against Iran would not result in a big response from Iran because the risk of escalation is a big downside for Iran. It is a battle it won’t win. The US won’t back down if you take out a destroyer or severely damage an aircraft carrier. At that point you have effectively declared full on war.

Iran will attack countries it knows it can “handle” (ie Arab countries). Any attack against British or NATO bases is just inviting another strong adversary into the war which Iran does not need when already facing the US.

The only time Iran will fight with all its power is if it believes it’s an existential threat and the government will be at risk of falling (ie regime change).

Anything short of that and Iran’s response will probably be mute and subdued as not to risk a bigger confrontation.

You can already see this thought process in Syria.

You are the ignorant one if you think Iran won't respond to a British attack on it. Britian is not as capable as it used to be. I won't respond to the rest cause you're just ranting on about the U.S which is a very dangerous threat to Iran I'll admit

 

[N_Al40]

The Brits are also dumb enough to build a military base in Bahrain, basically giving Iran leverage over Britain during a hostile scenario. By building it, they think they've become stronger, but the truth is, they have become weaker as now their assets are within range of Iran's SRBM's and they are vulnerable.

Plus it's a very small base, it can only house 500 personnel

You are sincerely ignorant if you think Iran would attack British bases in any skirmish. That would be inviting tremendous response from BriTain with the full backing of the British people if that were to happen.

Even if US attacked Iran’s nuclear sites it would be very unlikely that Iran would touch any US Navy ship. You are talking about casualties in 100’s or 1000’s for the US. If such a thing were to occur, Iran would effectively be attacked by the US at magnitude causing casualties in several thousands if not more for Iran. In war, countries don’t back down they up the ante, hence why a lot of negotiation happens to prevent conflicts from escalating.

Iran’s establishment knows this, that is why any surigical strikes against Iran would not result in a big response from Iran because the risk of escalation is a big downside for Iran. It is a battle it won’t win. The US won’t back down if you take out a destroyer or severely damage an aircraft carrier. At that point you have effectively declared full on war.

Iran will attack countries it knows it can “handle” (ie Arab countries). Any attack against British or NATO bases is just inviting another strong adversary into the war which Iran does not need when already facing the US.

The only time Iran will fight with all its power is if it believes it’s an existential threat and the government will be at risk of falling (ie regime change).

Anything short of that and Iran’s response will probably be mute and subdued as not to risk a bigger confrontation.

You can already see this thought process in Syria.

Azizam, think about what you just said.

If the U.S attacks Iranian nuclear facilities, do you think the Iranian Govt. (let alone the Iranian people) would stay silent?

Comparing Iran's long & slow responses in Syria is nonsensical because like @AmirPatriot said, Iran does not have escalation dominance due to it not being a conventional military power and because its resources are stretched thin. Worth remembering that the Persian Gulf is a highly militarized area on both the Iranian front and the US/Arab side.

But back to my first point; I'm absolutely astonished that someone of your caliber would go out and make such a stupid statement.

 

[TheImmortal]

Plus it's a very small base, it can only house 500 personnel



Azizam, think about what you just said.

If the U.S attacks Iranian nuclear facilities, do you think the Iranian Govt. (let alone the Iranian people) would stay silent?

Comparing Iran's long & slow responses in Syria is nonsensical because like @AmirPatriot said, Iran does not have escalation dominance due to it not being a conventional military power and because its resources are stretched thin. Worth remembering that the Persian Gulf is a highly militarized area on both the Iranian front and the US/Arab side.

But back to my first point; I'm absolutely astonished that someone of your caliber would go out and make such a stupid statement.

It’s not a stupid statement but rather an indication of reality.

To think that Iran would respond by causing thousands of casualties is ludicrous. That would effectively be the end of Iran’s government.

Furthermore, you seemlingly contradict yourself by saying “Iran does not have escalation dominance due to it not being a conventional military power”

So Iran would not try to get into a shooting battle with the US.

The response would be measured, strait of Hormuz would likely be closed and heavily mined. Oil tankers would be sunk. Saudi oil fields would be attacked. Iran would try to cause massive economic pain worldwide in order to get the U.N. security council to mandate a ceasefire.

By retaliating and causing thousands of casualties for the US military, Iran would invite an even bigger counter response. This is a battle Iran won’t win.

Instead after attacks on Its nuclear program, Iran would likely pull out of NPT and race to build a small arsenal of nuclear weapons in order to prevent future attacks.

The above scenario is a lot more likely than what some people here think that Iran will do which is to start firing missiles at every Arab country, US, Israel, France, Britain, etc. that is just nonsense. When you say it out loud it sounds even worse.

 

[N_Al40]

It’s not a stupid statement but rather an indication of reality.

To think that Iran would respond by causing thousands of casualties is ludicrous. That would effectively be the end of Iran’s government.

Furthermore, you seemlingly contradict yourself by saying “Iran does not have escalation dominance due to it not being a conventional military power”

So Iran would not try to get into a shooting battle with the US.

The response would be measured, strait of Hormuz would likely be closed and heavily mined. Oil tankers would be sunk. Saudi oil fields would be attacked. Iran would try to cause massive economic pain worldwide in order to get the U.N. security council to mandate a ceasefire.

By retaliating and causing thousands of casualties for the US military, Iran would invite an even bigger counter response. This is a battle Iran won’t win.

Instead after attacks on Its nuclear program, Iran would likely pull out of NPT and race to build a small arsenal of nuclear weapons in order to prevent future attacks.

The above scenario is a lot more likely than what some people here think that Iran will do which is to start firing missiles at every Arab country, US, Israel, France, Britain, etc. that is just nonsense. When you say it out loud it sounds even worse.

Allow me to clarify with regards to the conventional powers & escalation dominance remark; I was referring to Iran's military capability in Syria. Hence why I put that in a separate paragraph...one that also mentioned Syria.

 

[N_Al40]

It’s not a stupid statement but rather an indication of reality.

To think that Iran would respond by causing thousands of casualties is ludicrous. That would effectively be the end of Iran’s government.

Furthermore, you seemlingly contradict yourself by saying “Iran does not have escalation dominance due to it not being a conventional military power”

So Iran would not try to get into a shooting battle with the US.

The response would be measured, strait of Hormuz would likely be closed and heavily mined. Oil tankers would be sunk. Saudi oil fields would be attacked. Iran would try to cause massive economic pain worldwide in order to get the U.N. security council to mandate a ceasefire.

By retaliating and causing thousands of casualties for the US military, Iran would invite an even bigger counter response. This is a battle Iran won’t win.

Instead after attacks on Its nuclear program, Iran would likely pull out of NPT and race to build a small arsenal of nuclear weapons in order to prevent future attacks.

The above scenario is a lot more likely than what some people here think that Iran will do which is to start firing missiles at every Arab country, US, Israel, France, Britain, etc. that is just nonsense. When you say it out loud it sounds even worse.

Hey bro, figured you'd like this article regarding Iran's threat perceptions and how much it's willing to spend (financially & resourcefully) abroad:

https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-...an/184-irans-priorities-turbulent-middle-east

 

[zartosht]

Or Iran be dumb enough to get Bahrain involved in any conflict with Iran. This can go both ways.

I assume you meant Britain. because the fear of getting mighty Bahrain involved....lol. especially considering the fact they are enemy state, and host major military assets designed to confront iran. let me put it simply for you my friend. if the US is attacking iran. then iran will respond to any state or entity that is helping them.

if its brits, Bahrainis, Saudis etc... anybody who lets their territory be used for military ops against iran has already declared war.

Sorry but the 5th Fleet is not something you want to mess with no matter what your claims are. You saw Iran quickly returning the U.S. sailors quickly to resolve the crisis in a matter of hours because they know it was a mistake on our part of navigation error and don't want to make the situation any worse. You may use that to claim American sailors as weak along with the rest of the U.S. Navy. But the Japanese thought the same when they captured large amount of U.S. military personnel in the early stages of the war.

Remember Operation Praying Mantis?

this topic has been widely covered already. There is no question in my mind iran can and would anahilate the 5th fleet incase of any American aggression.

and praying mantis is as relevant as the ww2 photo you posted.

iran developed its entire strategy based on the lessons of preying mantis and studying American tactics. to even mention preying mantis tells me how little you know about the subject to be honest.

last thing I want to point out is the motivation factor. For the US their presence in the Persian gulf is a matter of ambition. They see themselves as the kings of the world and see it as their right to be hegemons everywhere.

For iran this is a matter of survival. this is our home, we have nowhere to go. The americans could leave tomorrow and nothing would happen to them. If iran and the US were border countries and both fighting for survival then you could say yes iran might be in trouble.

that is why its a miscalculation to assume that iran will be intimidated by the US/Britain if its homeland was getting bombed. In such a scenario all the gloves would immidiatly come off and iran would slaughter any American/western assets troops close to Iranian territory.

that is why nobody has dared directly attack iran. They know what iran is capable of, and how it will respond to such aggression. and for them its simply a war that's not even close to being worth it.

 

[Draco.IMF]

what he says? Does Iran have already a working nuclear propulsion reactor system?

 

[AmirPatriot]

The response would be measured, strait of Hormuz would likely be closed and heavily mined.

My friend, do you really think that's the measured option? That's the nuclear option! The option that can cause absolute havoc for every country in the world, that can easily multiply the oil price, that will push everyone in the west to act against you. That's what Iran does if it thinks the US is going for the jugular.

Don't forget the atmosphere in 2012. Iran would certainly retaliate with full force at any US attack and where it is launched from, be it an aircraft carrier, an airbase in Qatar, whatever. Part of our doctrine is to make it impossible to take limited action against our territory, by making sure that we retaliate in such a way that the costs outweigh the benefits for the attacker. That's partly why we have missiles that can hit every corner of the middle east.

Allowing any adversary to conduct limited action is a slippery slope - just look at Iraq between 1991 and 2003. It was under constant bombardment and other forms of military attack, but Saddam hoped he could appease the US by not retaliating. In reality, he was just letting the US soften him up.