USN in the Persian Gulf

[bengtsson]

Let's assume that there is a war with Iran. I'm not interested in the politics of how it starts, but we do know it is a real possibility at this point.
What is the strategy of the USN to keep open the straights and to suppress Iranian air, sea and missile threats to the oil shipping routes? Tankers would have to be escorted, and a way found to neutralize Iranian anti shipping missiles and even perhaps the Iranian navy submarines. Mines would likely be laid as well. The USN would confront it's biggest sea control mission since WWII. ANy thought on what the USN would do and how it would gain control with minimal losses?
A long air campaign would be needed to suppress the Iranian's missiles. But these would appear hard to find and strike. Witness the failure to find and hit skuds during Desert Storm. The Iranians may have learned lessons from the two Iraq wars and arranged to not show their hand too soon in the conflict. Maybe even some Marine forces landed along the narrow point of the straights to gain some land control over possible missile sites. If this war happens, the USN has a big job. I wonder how it could play out.

Bob B.

[Werner]

The USN has enough �gis-equipped ships to protect shipping from air and cruise missile threats. These were, after all, designed to protect carrier task forces and ReForGer convoys from Backfire regiments, high altitude supersonic and pop-up cruise missiles. Presumably a few submarines would be sufficient to prevent Iran's surface or submarine fleet from leaving harbor.

[chuck]

Not sure why this would be a significantly bigger sea control mission than reflaging Kuwaiti tankers in 1988. I assume if this becomes a shooting war, any Iranian surface and land based assets in the gulf region would be destroyed within 24 hours by preemptive carrier airstrikes and tomahawk barrages. Iran's ability to make us regret attacking her does not lay in making our attack itself tactically difficult. It lies instead in the additional weights she can still throw onto the whole creaking, teetering structure that is euphemistically called our Middle East policy.

[Ultimo Tiger]

I'd be more worried about the 2,000,000 strong Iranian army stampeding in a Human wave into iraq

Of course if they did do Human wave attacks (like in the first Gulf War), 16 B-52's dropping 1,120,000 pounds of bombs on them would probably make them regret it.

It would be a bloody and bitter war and the Iranians won't be afraid to dig in and fight to the last if the Iran/Iraq war was anything to go by.

[Werner]

I'd be more worried about the 2,000,000 strong Iranian army stampeding in a Human wave into iraq

Better be out of Iraq first or be prepared to go nuclear during the immediate assault phase, hitting assembly areas and marshaling points.

There must be many natural choke points at the border, else Saddam would have been overrun in the beginning of his war. If true, it would greatly diminish the problem of overrun. In this instance, the Iranians also have the luxury of violating the Afghan border, although they would march for days before they got to any sizable US or Western formations there.

Here too, Pakistan could make things very uncomfortable for any Allies in Afghanistan....

[pingjockey]

Finding anti-ship missiles would not be as difficult as hunting for Scuds. Due to their shorter range, the missiles would have to be in the southern part of the country, limiting your search area. With Scuds the Iraqis could hide them anywhere in the country they wanted because they could basically reach Israel from any point in Iraq.
The two biggest problems the USN would face would be mines and small boats. I am confident the Iranian Air Force and conventional Navy would be taken out in short order but the assymetric threats are another matter.

[Ultimo Tiger]

I'd be more worried about the 2,000,000 strong Iranian army stampeding in a Human wave into iraq

Better be out of Iraq first or be prepared to go nuclear during the immediate assault phase, hitting assembly areas and marshaling points.

There must be many natural choke points at the border, else Saddam would have been overrun in the beginning of his war. If true, it would greatly diminish the problem of overrun. In this instance, the Iranians also have the luxury of violating the Afghan border, although they would march for days before they got to any sizable US or Western formations there.

Here too, Pakistan could make things very uncomfortable for any Allies in Afghanistan....

Going nuclear is out of the question. God only knows the Pandora's box we'd open by launching an attack on Iran with nuclear weapons (whatever type they be). Unless Iran was prepared to use their own nuclear weapons (and they don't have any or at least we don't think they have) I couldn't condon the use of WMD's. We could invite retaliation from Irans allies (Russia & China spring to mind).

Pakistan is an issue which at some point has to be dealt with. They are either with us against Al Queada and the Taliban or against us (we already know some elements of the Pakistan army our against us or are at least providing some sort of help to the Taliban). I doubt Iran would attack via the Afghan border anyway. I'm sure for them an attack via Iraq is more easily executed and is also a measure of revenge for the Iran/Iraq war.

I fear a war with Iran is coming and I hope we are prepared for it. I worry more that Isreal will be the cause of it as well. We all know (for good or bad) that Isreal is intolerant of anything it perceives as a threat to its existance and will attack if they feel the need to.

I reckon the USN & RN could cope, Iran's airforce is probably worn out anyway. Still, better to not take the risks we took in the Falklands. For all we know, Iran still has a fleet of F-4's, F-5's and F-14's they could use. Overwhelming naval force would be a great anchor on which to fasten our strategy in any Persian Gulf conflict. I just hope other big players (like I have mentioned) stay out of it. I don't really want to wake up on day and find my nice suburban home here in Manchester burnt to the ground because Kirov launched a salvo of Nuclear missles at my country.........That's assuming it's reactor doesn't fall out of the ship on the way (Bad joke I know).

The two biggest problems the USN would face would be mines and small boats. I am confident the Iranian Air Force and conventional Navy would be taken out in short order but the assymetric threats are another matter.

The so called "anti-Navy". All it takes is speed boat packed with explosives and you could do a lot of damage to a Destroyer or Frigate.

If only I had Janes Fleet Command. I could try this scenario out.

[Werner]

Since Iran does not refine it's own oil but relies on the other Gulf states, a naval blockade would make the active phase of the war very short. If they didn't re-open the fuel pipeline, they'd have to deal with internal unrest pretty soon.

Maybe civilian nuclear power is actually to alleviate this essential shortcoming in their economy. No refinery is going to survive the first day of American missile/air attack, but an obviously civilian reactor will probably do so for many reasons.

[Gerarddm]

Even if we sucessfully defend the Strait of Hormuz ( likely), the mere act of hostilities would drive oil well to the north of $200/bbl. Ouch, to say the very least.

Could they not simply sink a ship or two blocking shipping lanes to start off? That would accomplish their mission w/o committing military assets.

Not sure why they'd invade Iraq when al-Maliki seems to be such pals with Ahmedinejad. And has been pointed out, a few dozen Arclight raids would tend to discourage them.

[Sean Hert]

...that Israel is intolerant of anything it perceives as a threat to its existence and will attack if they feel the need to.

Um, what nation doesn't feel this way?

[Werner]

At it's narrowest, the strait's shipping lanes are 10Km across and 75-100m deep.

Take a big stack of sunk supertankers to block the route. Even a dozen sunk closely together would represent a minor hazard and be easily buoyed.

[Ultimo Tiger]

...that Israel is intolerant of anything it perceives as a threat to its existence and will attack if they feel the need to.

Um, what nation doesn't feel this way?

Yeah but doesn't Isreal have a histroy of pre emptive attacks and such? The Iraqi reactor, Entebbe etc etc.

[MartinJQuinn]

Um, what nation doesn't feel this way?

Yeah but doesn't Isreal have a histroy of pre emptive attacks and such? The Iraqi reactor, Entebbe etc etc.

I wouldn't call Entebbe a "pre-emptive" attack.

[Ultimo Tiger]

Well no it wasn't but you see what I'm getting at.

Isreal in my opinion is much more likely to take action before her enemies. I just hope it doesn't cause problems for us by starting a war we won't be ready for to help them with.

[bengtsson]

I would expect that all Iranian anti shipping missiles are mobile. After all, many are capable of air launch, so they aren't all that big. The Iranians have a rugged coastline and have had years to site and plan fields of fire. Arrangements for hundreds of decoys would be a likely move. The Serbian army did just that when under allied air assault. At night dozens of tank and apc decoys were set up and along comes NATO and bombs them, day after day. In fact NATO never laid more than a few real damaging air strikes on the Serb army. This lesson would not be lost on an intelligent enemy. Question is, is the Iranian military intelligent? I have no idea. But they could be.
I fail to see why Iranians would park all the anti shipping missiles out in the open and build no decoy sites and await the 24 hour distruction of hundreds of missiles. Also, how modern are Irans anti shipping mines? If they are up to date, they are much more than that old WWII version. I know from Navy friends and Vets, that mines are a BIG fear.
We don't know really what weapons systems the Iranians may have that are modern. Electonic jamming for example. It's said they have passive search capability linked to air defences. i.e. they simply read US electronic emissions and track targets that way. No need to light up a radar.
To me, it's a question of what we don't know that should worry the USN. Don't expect that Iran is equipped with only 1960s weapons like Iraq was. We all know that Iran will be flattened by an air campaign. I'm asking about the sea lanes and how many losses they might inflict. But if it's all over in 24 hours, I'll buy drinks for everybody. I don;t expect to have to pay off on that promise though!

Bob B.

[NukeMM]

I wouldn't fly on AIR IRAN airlines during any conflict, if I were you. i.e. USS Vincennes incident in 1988.

"Strait of Hormuz - 1988" diorama.

USS Sides FFG-14 and USS Vincennes CG-49

[Gerarddm]

I guess the block ship tactic is out, then.

Well, as I said, simply having a hostile zone is enough to drive oil very far north of where it is now. A big unknown for me is how robust the Iranian economy is. If they can't ship oil, how ruined are they economically, and for how long? If, for example, the ball drops pre-U.S. election and the Iranians economically can hold out 6-8 months under an oil embargo, what they do in the meanwhile will so jack up oil that the effected nations, faced with a winter heating season and real supply shortages, might well be faced with not pressing home any real solution. Are we going to share our national petro reserve with Europe in response? The whole world may wonder.

It's a real can of worms, which is probably why, absent any true causus belli, it's not a good idea.

[ASFC]

(Proper)Submarines are out-apparently the Gulf and the straits are too shallow.

Gerarddm has the right idea-I do no think Iran could ever effectively block the Straits. However they will try and cause trouble in any war (even if its reduced after Airstrikes from carriers), because whilst their economy will struggle long term, they know it is politically unacceptable in the west for Oil Prices to keep increasing, and good force a quick end to any war.

And a concern from a US/RN/Allied side is would we have enough available MCM/Minehunter vessels to deal with any mines that the Iranians would surely lay in a conflict?

[Werner]

I don't know... the trick of renaming the Abdul bin Omani as S.S. Surf City with a US Flag worked before, and the simple act enforced old Arab ideas of indebtedness to the USA which paid substantial rewards for years. The Kuwaitis still have a list of preferred vendors, with American, British and French at the top. One of the only overseas destinations where one can see the occasional Chevrolet taxi cab.

[pingjockey]

While some of Iran's anti-ship missiles may be mobile, many are in fixed coastal fortifications along the strait and on some off shore islands. As for the mobile ones, I am not saying they would be easy to find, but they generally would be in a more defined area than if you were looking for Scuds. One missile that Iran reportedly has is the Sunburn, which is a very sophisticated missile and is bad news. However I believe that they are ship launched. There is an air launched variety but I think it can only be launched by the Russian navalized SU-30.