AmirPatriot
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,156
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
Not feasible at all.
Now, I know you will bring up Millennium Challenge 2002 as somehow 'proof' that the small and fast attack crafts tactic is feasible. But what you do not understand is that when we do these war games, it is not to give potential adversaries ways or even clues on how to defeat our forces, rather, it is to expose weaknesses and flaws so that we can take measures to correct them. Further, just because the war game resulted in one outcome, that does not mean it is the only outcome and that it is reproducible by anyone.
Do you know the differences between an 'exercise', a 'war game', and a real war? Am not being facetious. It is a serious question.
Let us take a boxer, for example.
In an exercise, the boxer trains on techniques, lift weights, and monitor his nutrition. No different for a military unit. In an exercise, the unit's primary mission is increased in tempo, meaning load and time. If it is a transportation unit, it will be stressed on how many trucks it can move at a certain time span. If the unit is a flying wing, it will be stressed on how many sortie it can generate within a certain time span. Am sure you can see the point. At no time, the unit will meet any opposition.
In a war game, the boxer spars with an opponent. The sparring partner may use predictable moves to refine the boxer's techniques, or may provide unpredictable moves to train the boxer's tactics. A war game is no different in principles for the military. If the unit is a flying wing, it will meet the 'bad guys' who may or may not produce predictable moves. Inspectors may force the unit to have simulated casualties to reduce manpower to force the unit to be creative. So instead of having the usual 4-man crew to refuel and reload, can the squadron produce the same sortie rate with 3-man crews per aircraft.
A real war is when the boxer enters a tournament where his opponent will be complete unpredictable and will not hold back. A real war is when the military lose or win.
So just because the Millennium Challenge war game turned out poorly for the aircraft carrier, that does not mean the conditions for that event can be reproducible by Iran. The US military is the most self critical military in the world. We have no problems embarrassing ourselves. We pay good money to think tanks like RAND and even Hollywood to come up with scenarios for the military to play war games. Then we examine the results and make changes if necessary.
Take Red Flag, for example. I have been to two Red Flags when I was active duty. Foreign pilots who have been to Red Flag returned home amazed at what we can do. At Red Flag, we have a low deck limit and no real missiles. That is as close to a real air war as one can get.
So let us return to the aircraft carrier and if the Iranian Navy can take on the US Navy.
This...
...Is not how a carrier fleet arrays in a real war.
There is no photograph available to show how the carrier fleet positions its ships, so here is an illustration...
To get to the carrier, the Iranian FACs would have to literally cross several hundreds km to meet the fleet's outer defense perimeter.
What about sea state? Do you know what that is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_sea_scale
Has the Iranian Navy conducted any exercises where the FACs has to negotiate varying sea states to see if these small crafts can survive waves that will be higher than the crafts? The higher the sea state, the more fuel require to travel.
A US aircraft carrier can conduct launch operation in a sea state high enough that the shooter, the man who actually fire off the jet on the catapult, has to time the bow's rise and fall in order to launch an aircraft.
Here is an example of a high sea state and air operations...
https://theaviationist.com/2013/11/26/e-2-high-swells/
If the sea state is high enough to affect the movement of a heavy vessel like an aircraft carrier, what make you think these FACs can survive the journey and still be effective enough to attack the carrier?
Another factor to consider is the presence of the AWACS that WILL see small surface vessels approaching the fleet. If the FACs has to maneuver to avoid air attacks, how much fuel will be available for the assault on the carrier itself, assuming the FACs survive the air attacks? So even before the FACs meet the fleet's outer defense perimeter, they have to fight the fleet's airborne fighters.
The video that you presented is not credible because it took nothing else into consideration. It is propaganda, in the truest sense of the word, designed to motivate passion and not critical thinking.
As @PeeD said, there won't be such defence perimeters in the Persian Gulf. It is too congested and small. And Iran's long coastline is lined with ASCMs that can threaten any ship in it, in addition to the IRGC FAC.
And part of the controversy around MC2002 was that at the end the scenario was altered to the point that it became scripted. Van Riper resigned as Red Commander because of this. This suggests an attitude of arrogance and ignoring issues rather than improvement and self-criticism.
As for a scenario outside the PG, I outlined a strategy Iran should work towards in the future.
https://irangeomil.blogspot.com/2018/02/a2ad-how-to-kill-carrier-outside.html?m=1
Last edited:
