What's new

U.S. Aircraft Carrier Enters Zone Near Iranian Oil Route as Tensions Rise

. .
However I support you guys but I have to say you are in delusion mate.

Your ships would be a fodder for F-18's and anti ship missiles. A US CBG is an army in itself.
* Navy.

US have the strongest NAVY in the World, however its vulnerable to swarm attack, as shown in Millennium Challenge 2002, when most of US Navy was destroyed in an exercise: Millennium Challenge 2002 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

US is trying to address swarm issue with Mk 38 Mod 2 machine gun (reliable up to 2,5 km, when target moves as predicted) and helicopters Hellfire (in the future might include Rayguns, etc).

Several issues with this defense - speedboats dont even have to come close, Iran's anti-ship missiles have 15-300 km range, up to 2000 km if we include Sejjil and other ballistic missiles (Iran recently successfully tested 2 such missiles hitting targets at 1900+km range in Indian ocean). Hit and run swarm strategy by hundreds of missile boats should still be very effective, plus specifically against US helicopters Iran developed new missiles as well.

US Navy defense against missiles:

Remember how a single 1st generation Iranian Kowsar did major damage and almost sunk the best Israel 5-Class corvette? Israel said their defense was down, and regardless if we believe them or not, consider the fact Iran has thousands of 3rd generation Kowsar's, and its the weakest anti-ship missile in Iran disposal!

US would use their most advanced AEGIS ABM with SM-3, in controlled tests it has success rate 80+% (1-2 missiles at the same time). If there are more missiles - intercept accuracy significantly drops, and after ~13 tries to intercept missiles, ships run out of initial battery and becomes exposed.

US Naval War college estimates:

"The U.S. Navy’s Targeting Problem. The Navy would almost certainly fire two ABMs (AEGIS SM-3) against each of the incoming ASBMs. Doing so would of course increase the probability of a successful intercept. However, with only twenty-four or twenty-five ABMs aboard, each Aegis ship escorting a carrier would at that rate be able to engage at most thirteen ASBMs."

"the fact that many kinds of penetration aids are quite cheap relative to ABMs is one reason why the United States cannot “buy its way out” of this problem."

Iran strategy:

simultaneous attack of wide range missiles, speedboats, subs, etc. 30-50 various missiles per warship plus decoys ("Persian Gulf", Ghader, Qiam, Kowsar, Nasr, Noor, Raad, Fajre Darya, underwater Supercavitation torpedo Hoot, various other torpedoes, mines, etc), and no US warship can survive that, maybe except aircraft carriers. For those Iran might use several more ballistic missiles (or not - if intention isnt to sink but to disable them - who needs sunken carriers with nuclear reactors in the backyard waters? ;-)

Bottom line: US Navy will keep out of Persian Gulf if the war starts, unless they want to provide high-tech houses for the local coral reef ;-) Most likely Navy would stay at reasonably safe 2000+ km distance. This would limit their contribution, but its better than a sunken fleet.
 
. .
The straight of Hormuz is just over 34Kms wide, with Iran on one side. How hard is it to detect a 100,000 ton ship moving through this narrow straight?
The news report did not say the aircraft carrier passed through the Straits of Hormuz. It said the carrier entered the zone of Iran's exercises. In other words, it was in the littoral regions of the Gulf of Oman. That is a much larger area and much harder for Iran to pinpoint the location.


Iran has full right to oppose if USN comes into forbidden territory, But attacking them will be suicide move. I agree with you that Iran can easily sink American supercarrier (If Some insane guys bring down twin tower, then whats big deal in sinking Supercarrier). But the question is consequence? What will USA do after it???

During peace time armed forces are relax, during war time any thing suspected within 300 Nautical miles will be killed by CBG. Hope you understand it....
I should clarify what I meant before. What is happening here is that Iran is declaring a large "no go zone" in a critical international sea lane to demonstrate its ability to disrupt shipping through the Straits of Hormuz.

USA is reacting by sending its aircraft carrier right into the "no go zone" with a big sign that says "shoot me if you dare, Iran." In a shooting war situation, USA would never send its carriers into such close range of enemy forces because that nullifies USA's technological advantage. They would hang back and use stand-off missiles to destroy the enemy forces.

Now we see Iran's reaction as well. They are going right up to the US aircraft carrier with a big sign that says "shoot me if you dare, USA." Close enough to take photos / videos. In a normal situation, a carrier would never allow a foreign aircraft to come so close. They would be warned, harassed and if necessary shot down. But because USA itself is barging into Iran's military exercises, and is within close range of Iran's missiles, it doesn't want to escalate the situation by shooting down the Iranian aircraft.

So, it is provocation and counter-provocation -- a naval stand-off. Neither side has opened fire. But it's very easy for "accidents" to happen in situations like this.
 
.
Speed boats? They would be wiped out in seconds. Read the comment under the link you supplied.
You cant just destroy each and every speedboat. Those are very mobile and fast, destroying all of them is nearly impossible even if US deploys all of their jets (intending to destroy all the armed speedboats)

Btw those comments are from american fanboys, the news is in the blog, the original news link is down World Tribune — Iran's Hormuz fleet includes more than 1,000 heavily armed speedboats
 
.
The Millennium Challenge being mentioned took place over 9 years; are we to assume a nation that has a military budget that is larger than the GDP of very many nations would sit around for the last decade and not counter these issues?

More importantly, in war footing, the US Navy will simply overpower its foes. How do you "swarm" a force that literally outnumbers you and has superior firepower? The greatest edge the US enjoys is the ability of all of its armed forces wings to function as one unit...no enemy vessel is coming anywhere near a carrier group.

But that is a pointless argument to begin with since the incredible American air power will insure complete air superiority in a matter of days, if not hours, at which point any and all land or sea targets will be sitting ducks. Trying to take on US military might head on will have devastating consequences for any nation, much less one that is equipped with obsolete equipment furnished by it's very adversary.
 
. .
Any war in the persian gulf would drive up the cost of oil with massive impact to the already fragile world economy and for that reason there will be no conflict.
 
.
Irans strategy will be assymetrical when it counters the US navy. Those F16,18,22 can not destroy all those fast,mobile speedboats armed with missile launchers
I hope not but what will happen if they really do.......???.. Need to keep a backup as well as an alternative......:smokin:
 
.
Now we see Iran's reaction as well. They are going right up to the US aircraft carrier with a big sign that says "shoot me if you dare, USA." Close enough to take photos / videos. In a normal situation, a carrier would never allow a foreign aircraft to come so close. They would be warned, harassed and if necessary shot down. But because USA itself is barging into Iran's military exercises, and is within close range of Iran's missiles, it doesn't want to escalate the situation by shooting down the Iranian aircraft.

So, it is provocation and counter-provocation -- a naval stand-off. Neither side has opened fire. But it's very easy for "accidents" to happen in situations like this.
Close enough to take photos
:hitwall::hitwall::cry::cry:
WOW
That's news to me.
However I'm pretty sure that you are used to seeing such news in your country.
Right?:rofl::rofl:
 
.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5a/Hormuz_map.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Strait_of_Hormuz.jpg

...Other American bases are not too far from strait of hormuz + That carrier fleet
Really a serious trouble...:coffee::undecided:

Strait_of_Hormuz.jpg


Hormuz_map.png


Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup ...

Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg


US military bases surround Iran

usbases1.jpg
 
.
In 2007 Iran had 1000 heavily armed speedboats. if we keep track of the mass production of the ships,boats since 2007 till now Iran will have atleast 2000 now!
WorldTribuneComments: Iran's Hormuz fleet includes more than 1,000 heavily armed speedboats

How about a direct attack on irans land ?

---------- Post added at 09:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 PM ----------

In 2007 Iran had 1000 heavily armed speedboats. if we keep track of the mass production of the ships,boats since 2007 till now Iran will have atleast 2000 now!
WorldTribuneComments: Iran's Hormuz fleet includes more than 1,000 heavily armed speedboats

How about a direct attack on irans land and port using long range cruise and ballistic missiles?
 
.
we can send oil to china by pakistan.and we'll also give allowance to chinese and friends ship to Navigate in pesian gulf
 
.
The Millennium Challenge being mentioned took place over 9 years; are we to assume a nation that has a military budget that is larger than the GDP of very many nations would sit around for the last decade and not counter these issues?

More importantly, in war footing, the US Navy will simply overpower its foes. How do you "swarm" a force that literally outnumbers you and has superior firepower? The greatest edge the US enjoys is the ability of all of its armed forces wings to function as one unit...no enemy vessel is coming anywhere near a carrier group.

But that is a pointless argument to begin with since the incredible American air power will insure complete air superiority in a matter of days, if not hours, at which point any and all land or sea targets will be sitting ducks. Trying to take on US military might head on will have devastating consequences for any nation, much less one that is equipped with obsolete equipment furnished by it's very adversary.
That is because the man does not have any military experience to know the true intention of an exercise: To expose flaws in current doctrines and weaknesses in arrays of forces.

Like most here who brought that up, he falsely believes that such exercises actually IMPOSES structural and philosophical limitations instead of stimulating new ideas. Like most here who brought that up, he falsely believes that if <country> cannot do it, then no one else can. And usually the country in question is not US. Basically, like most here who brought that up, he thinks the limitations of his country's military are ours as well. It is no wonder that people like him can be 'shocked and awed' when the time comes.

---------- Post added at 10:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 AM ----------

You cant just destroy each and every speedboat. Those are very mobile and fast, destroying all of them is nearly impossible even if US deploys all of their jets (intending to destroy all the armed speedboats)

Btw those comments are from american fanboys, the news is in the blog, the original news link is down World Tribune — Iran's Hormuz fleet includes more than 1,000 heavily armed speedboats
Who said we need to destroy every single one of them? :lol: We just need to destroy ENOUGH of them and we can do before they can be launched. Just like how the Iraqis were surprised, so will you.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom