USN in the Persian Gulf

[Werner]

Given the recent record of reliability of sophisticated Russian systems, especially under foreign maintenance, these might represent more of a hazart to the attacker than their victim.

Note especially the current string of SSBN launch failures. These would represent the cream of Russian technology and maintenance, and the very public launch failures only accentuate the disconnect between command and reality.

[bengtsson]

Given the recent record of reliability of sophisticated Russian systems, especially under foreign maintenance, these might represent more of a hazart to the attacker than their victim.

Note especially the current string of SSBN launch failures. These would represent the cream of Russian technology and maintenance, and the very public launch failures only accentuate the disconnect between command and reality.

I don't know Werner. What is the record of modern Russian sophisticated AA and Anti Shipping missiles in combat? When have they been used in recent memory? Not even the shoot down by Serbian forces of a stealth plane was done by modern Russian weapons systems. It was done by old equipment several generations behind the modern US equipment.
We will know how semi modern Russian systems perform when the first air strickes on Iran go in and when the first USN ship comes within range of Iranian Anti shipping missiles. Till then, it's all speculation. In war, a superiority complex is one hell of a bad attitude to have. Assume the enemy is capable and plan for it, if you find he is not capable, then it's all a plus. Be mistaken, and many of your forces die.

Bob B.

[Werner]

The F-117 shootdown was more a tribute to human intelligence than equipment. If you had the information the Yugoslavians had, you could have shot down the F-117 with a .50 caliber machine gun. It was neither fast not maneuverable. It was unstable in flight and no doubt any structural damage would put it outside the computer's ability to keep it from falling out of the sky.

It is moot, since it has been retired in favor of the similarly stealthy but much more capable F-22.

The Russians have been unable to launch SLBMS for some time now, and I know of no real combat experience for them since Vietnam.

[Gerarddm]

What lack of combat experience do you reference? I would have thought they had all they could take in Afghanistan. And for that matter, subduing Chechyna has been no walkover either.

[chuck]

Iranians also would have no real experience with anything they didn't have back in 1988. If they do have any more modern weapons actively deployed, they would be relying on a combination of text book and manual knowledge to operate them.

Also, I don't see any geography near the gulf that would be conducive to hiding a launcher for a large anti-ship missile from near continuous aerial surveillance, at least not hiding it in a near operable configuration. S-300 SAM system that supposedly represent an unfriendly gesture to sell to Iran hasn't arrived there yet.

[chuck]

If you had the information the Yugoslavians had, you could have shot down the F-117 with a .50 caliber machine gun. It was neither fast not maneuverable. It was unstable in flight and no doubt any structural damage would put it outside the computer's ability to keep it from falling out of the sky.

It is moot, since it has been retired in favor of the similarly stealthy but much more capable F-22..

No, human intelligence only got the Yugoslaves closer to the F-117. The actual shoot down occurred because F-117 wasn't stealthy when its weapon bay doors were open. 50 caliber machine guns won't get the F-117 in this situation unless each round has active radar homing capability. F-22 would also be unstealthy if its weapon bay doors were open. In addition, F-22 is also unstable in flight. In fact all 4th and 5th generation fighters in the world are unstable in flight, and the more advanced, the more unstable.

[Werner]

What lack of combat experience do you reference? I would have thought they had all they could take in Afghanistan. And for that matter, subduing Chechyna has been no walkover either.

Experience, Russian or American in fighting in Afghanistan or Chechnya offers no benefit in fighting an organized, more or less modern army or navy.

The Russians in particular have until very recently had no money for training, exercise, maintenance, new equipment, fuel, etc., etc., etc.

I would be very reluctant to sail on one of their ships during a missile or weapons live fire exercise for fear what happened to Kursk will be repeated in whatever force is exercising.

With the "new" wealth of the Russian government, and an apparrent willingness to spend it on the military, in a few years they may gain the skill and technology to pose a threat to more than themselves. Right now, the best they can do are some flight demonstrations over the Atlantic and North Sea with aging turboprop bombers.

I wonder if they're armed.

[Werner]

If you had the information the Yugoslavians had, you could have shot down the F-117 with a .50 caliber machine gun. It was neither fast not maneuverable. It was unstable in flight and no doubt any structural damage would put it outside the computer's ability to keep it from falling out of the sky.

It is moot, since it has been retired in favor of the similarly stealthy but much more capable F-22..

No, human intelligence only got the Yugoslaves closer to the F-117. The actual shoot down occurred because F-117 wasn't stealthy when its weapon bay doors were open. 50 caliber machine guns won't get the F-117 in this situation unless each round has active radar homing capability. F-22 would also be unstealthy if its weapon bay doors were open. In addition, F-22 is also unstable in flight. In fact all 4th and 5th generation fighters in the world are unstable in flight, and the more advanced, the more unstable.

My recollection of the experience tells me the Yugoslavians actually had an operative inside General Clark's NATO operations center with accurate information on the air tasking missions, not just standing off the runways in Italy and the Dalmation coast with cell phones. However, I will not dispute the F-117 is a pretty poor stealth aircraft and a poor aircraft in general. Good riddance.

[Ultimo Tiger]

Considering iran's army has in total a staggering 12,000,000 men in it, perhaps it would be best to lure them to a coastal area to fight, where ships could bombard them. An amphibious landing is sure to draw them out or at least a large force of them if we invade with a large enough force.

I think the Iowa class would be a good tools to use. But could they be refitted for combat and have ammuniton found for their 16" and 5" guns?

[chuck]

Considering iran's army has in total a staggering 12,000,000 men in it....

I think you've been too staggered to think clearly.

How big was the Soviet Army on the Eastern front? And Soviet Union was at war, maximally mobilized, and had a population base of 190 million.

[Ultimo Tiger]

I wans't counting all the nutty little Iranian citizens who aren't in the army who are going to throw stones, drive bulldozers at us and blow themselves up at the whim of the "Supreme Leader".

[chuck]

I wans't counting all the nutty little Iranian citizens who aren't in the army who are going to throw stones, drive bulldozers at us and blow themselves up at the whim of the "Supreme Leader".

And you still manage to come up with a figure of 12 million?

[Ultimo Tiger]

That's the active, reserve and Paramillitary all added together. If sources on the internet are to be believed.

So is it less then that? You seem to be the supremem master of knowledge round here. You tell me Chucky.

[chuck]

A highly industrialized country, fully and efficiently mobilized, can afford to put roughly 10% of its population into a credible armed force. Iranian population is about 67 million, or roughly the same as the of Germany on the eve of WWII. If Iran's level of industrialization and organizational proficiency matched that of Germany, and Iran has spent several years preparing for a full mobilization, then Iran may be able to field a armed force of up to 6 million. There is no evidence that Iran is nearly as industrialized or efficient as Germany was in 1939. It is considerably less industrialized than even Soviet Union in 1941. There is also no real evidence that Iran has prepared extensively for mass mobilization, rather than merely preparing to improve the efficiency of existing armed forces.

Should Iran have 1-2 years of warning of a massed invasion, I still doubt Iran would be able to mobilize more than 2 million men into an passably efficient armed force.

[Werner]

The point is neither the US or Russia has faced a modern army with a few divisions worthy of the name since Vietnam.

[Ultimo Tiger]

So the point is that even though Iran may have a total of however million which it could field, unless it spent years preparing them and arming them, they could only in reality field a fraction of that total number yes?

[bengtsson]

The point is neither the US or Russia has faced a modern army with a few divisions worthy of the name since Vietnam.

My point exactly Werner. How do we know how easy it will be to shoot down incoming Iranian anti shipping missiles if we have never faced one before. Also on the original subject of the USN in the Persian Gulf. We have objectives, this is not going to be a replay of Iraq. We don't have troops to hold Iran after the conventional army,navy and airforces are defeated. So we can expect a hostile shoreline for some time to come. The navy will have to clean out the coast of any threats to shipping and keep it cleaned out. The Mine and Anti Shipping Missile threat IS the threat. How well the USN does against it is not something I have complete knowledge about. Maybe someone knows the intelligence on Iranian mine capabilites [i.e. what types and how many, ability to deploy them] same with missiles, how many, what types, mobile or not etc. etc. To dismiss the Russian missiles that Iran has as fixed and in well known positions waiting for distruction or to claim that even if they are fired, it's a simple matter to shoot them down , well. Is that really how a competent US naval officer tasked with sailing through the straights is going to approach the mission. I sure hope not.
On the larger subject of Iran in general, I think the US and Israel are looking at a good long bombing campaign to put Iran out of a position to exercise any influence in the region and leave it at that.

Bob B.

[Ultimo Tiger]

How reliable is Russian equipment anyway? A lot of the more advanced stuff they have built has a habit of being more dangerous to the user than the enemy. I'm not doubting the potency of some of it, but I wonder how dangerous they really are.

[Werner]

The point is neither the US or Russia has faced a modern army with a few divisions worthy of the name since Vietnam.

My point exactly Werner. How do we know how easy it will be to shoot down incoming Iranian anti shipping missiles if we have never faced one before. Also on the original subject of the USN in the Persian Gulf. We have objectives, this is not going to be a replay of Iraq. We don't have troops to hold Iran after the conventional army,navy and airforces are defeated. So we can expect a hostile shoreline for some time to come. The navy will have to clean out the coast of any threats to shipping and keep it cleaned out. The Mine and Anti Shipping Missile threat IS the threat. How well the USN does against it is not something I have complete knowledge about. Maybe someone knows the intelligence on Iranian mine capabilites [i.e. what types and how many, ability to deploy them] same with missiles, how many, what types, mobile or not etc. etc. To dismiss the Russian missiles that Iran has as fixed and in well known positions waiting for distruction or to claim that even if they are fired, it's a simple matter to shoot them down , well. Is that really how a competent US naval officer tasked with sailing through the straights is going to approach the mission. I sure hope not.

The US has been able to afford a large annual series of live fire exercises. Every ship and plane, every ground unit has actually practiced with the weapons. Proof of this is the number of successful intercepts of ICBMs in mid-flight in the last year. (Last year the record was something like 10 for 10, including the one launched by a Japanese destroyer). In contrast, most of the rest of the world rarely has practice, and only when the US is involved.

I am reminded of a recent quote by Jean Labayle Couhat which said "The US military exercises at a rate which approximates a wartime tempo, which tends to exhaust equipment and cause casualties. This is why their budget is so high, and why they report so many training casualties. Even European military forces are lucky to get 10% of the live fire opportunities of the US military".

Current US missiles, torpedos and guns have been thoroughly tested in realistic wartime conditions, unlike the 1930s.

For about 20 years the Russians have had almost no opportunities to exercise. Even their operationa aircraft squadrons received fuel so infrequently that the pilots were lucky to fly once a month. Most of their surface fleet swung at buoys 12 months a year and only the few submarines with freshly fueled rectors made any regular voyages. None of their carrier pilots would be rated qualified in any other navy simply because they actually flew off a flight deck at most once a month for a few minutes.

[Werner]

On the larger subject of Iran in general, I think the US and Israel are looking at a good long bombing campaign to put Iran out of a position to exercise any influence in the region and leave it at that.

This is simply not going to happen with any US cooperation before the election. Whether a blessing or a curse, the President's hands have been tied by Congress on this matter. Iran sends munitions into Iraq which kill US soldiers and nothing is done. Iran has violated UN orders and nothing has been done.

Why does this mission fall solely to the US and Israel? The UN voted on their nuclear program. Theoretically Europe has as much obligation as Israel to prevent Iran from getting atomic weapons. It is my bet when Iran gets it's bomb, the first offensive attack will be on Europe, not Israel or the USA. The risk of damage to holy Islamic sites in Israel is simply too great, and the USA is so much further away.

Of course if this happens, Europe's governments will both blame the USA for the attack and look to the USA for supplies and emergency aid.