Iranian Navy no match for US battle group - Russian military official

[SinoChallenger]

if it really came down to war the US task forces doesnt even need to get too close to Iranian shores, iraq and afganistan would act as routes into iran. the navy can sit back and launch long range attack against ports and missile units, base some B-2's and F-22's in Iraq and pummel the defences from the air. those numerous speedboats dont work so well in open ocean. in addition i think 2000km is not reasonable at all, no Iranian weapon can reach 2000km and be a game changer

At 45 km cross, the Strait of Hormuz can be closed with artillery or artillery rockets. A US-Iran conflict to force open the strait would begin with the US doing airstrikes and cruise missile strikes from far away to attrit Iran's artillery / artillery rockets, not an easy job for the US. So Iran will probably be able to cut the Strait of Hormuz for as long as the Iranian state remains able to deploy artillery on its coast and fire them at the strait.

 

[pmukherjee]

The Iranians are putting up a brave face and showing courage and readiness to challenge the mightiest naval combat force ever fielded by any nation in history. That needs guts and a lot of heart. The only navy that has ever stood up and faced up to the USN has been the Soviet Navy of the 70s and 80s, long gone now. All other navies have just given the right of way to the USN when confronted. Full points to the Iranians. Now all they have to do is ensure that false bravado or foolish action by someone does not spark off a confrontation as that would only lead to the total destruction of the Iranian Navy including many shore based installations. Just let the moment pass and tensions fade, an engagement with a USN CBG is not in your interest.

 

[Harry_Thomason]

Is that not why such exercises are carried out?? The US found a weakness and has now probably solved it.

Yes and no, US naturally tries to amend its weaknesses, but its not so easy to do, and I even mentioned them in my post above. Each and every solution provided so far by US addressing asymmetric warfare are better than before, but still limited.

Few examples: to address missiles threat US deployed advanced AEGIS SM-3. Its accuracy is 80-100% when intercepting 1-2 missiles. Sounds good, right? Two issues:

1) Battery is limited, if there are more missiles incoming than battery holds (usually 26), warship is screwed, especially considering it usually fires 2 missiles per incoming target.

2) The more missiles incoming, the lesser accuracy of interception. Experts assume it significantly drops, but we simply dont in case of AEGIS SM-3, why? Because US never tested with more than 1-2 missiles at the same time. Dont they expect Iran to have more than 2 missiles? More like they know defense weaknesses, and dont want to give "wrong ideas" to enemies

We also could go on about limitations of Hellfire or Mk 38 Mod 2, but I have even better example - ultra quiet diesel subs, do you know US was never capable to address it, in over 30 years? Some issues are simply hard to solve, even for US, same applies to asymmetric swarm tactic.

 

[pmukherjee]

At 45 km cross, the Strait of Hormuz can be closed with artillery and artillery rockets. A US-Iran conflict to force open the strait would begin with the US doing airstrikes and cruise missile strikes from far away to attrit Iran's artillery / artillery rockets, not an easy job for the US. So Iran will probably be able to cut the Strait of Hormuz for as long as the Iranian state remains.

You can't close a water channel with artillery and rockets. Probability of the artillery shells or rockets hitting moving targets in the channel are very bleak. Moreover, it is very easy to neutralise those guns/batteries. The only option Iran has of closing the Strait of Hormuz is by carrying out extensive mining, it is too late for that now. The other way is to actually sink one or two merchant ships using whatever means thereby scaring away other merchant ships/oil tankers. This will not only antagonise all remaining friends of Iran but can be negated very easily by the USN in the area.

 

[pmukherjee]

Yes and no, US naturally tries to amend its weaknesses, but its not so easy to do, and I even mentioned them in my post above. Each and every solution provided so far by US addressing asymmetric warfare are better than before, but still limited.

Few examples: to address missiles threat US deployed advanced AEGIS SM-3. Its accuracy is 80-100% when intercepting 1-2 missiles. Sounds good, right? Two issues:

1) Battery is limited, if there are more missiles incoming than battery holds (usually 26), warship is screwed, especially considering it usually fires 2 missiles per incoming target.

2) The more missiles incoming, the lesser accuracy of interception. Experts assume it significantly drops, but we simply dont in case of AEGIS SM-3, why? Because US never tested with more than 1-2 missiles at the same time. Dont they expect Iran to have more than 2 missiles? More like they know defense weaknesses, and dont want to give "wrong ideas" to enemies

We also could go on about limitations of Hellfire or Mk 38 Mod 2, but I have even better example - ultra quiet diesel subs, do you know US was never capable to address it, in over 30 years? Some issues are simply hard to solve, even for US, same applies to asymmetric swarm tactic.

Totally hypothetical and theoritical.
Every one knows the weaknesses of the SM-3. The point is that Iran simply does not have the resources to seriously test the efficacy of the SM-3. It may be applicable to China perhaps but definitely not Iran. When a CBG is on the move, it is not just the AEGIS on one warship that counts but the combined AEGIS resources of all the AEGIS equipped warships accompanying the carrier. Hey, we are talking of scores of cruise missiles being fired nearly simultaneously at the CBG here, who has that capability? I doubt that even the Russians or the Chinese have that capability. AEGIS are not the only means available to the CBG to fend off a cruise missile attack. And anyway, if scores of missiles are indeed launched, it implies all out war and even if a warship or two gets dameged, the Americans will hit so hard with all resources at their disposal that not much would be left of Iran's war machinery. Remember that CVN-72, Abraham Lincoln is somewhere in the Indian Ocean now, closing in fast.

 

[Yaduveer]

USA- Iran conflict is not good for indian economy or anyother country .
Although Iran can not stand more than 1 month infront of western powers but oil disruption can cause adverse effect of oil importing countries like India china or japan.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The one major advantage the Iranians would have over our forces is their willingness to commit suicide. One could imagine many, many suicide attacks both from the waters and from the air on USN ships. So, it is likely that the USN would suffer some serious losses of lives and ships. However, in the process, the US would be so totally pi$$ed off that there would be nothing left of any Iranian military facility or capability. We would borrow all the money we need, for all the bombs it would take, from the PRC, if necessary. Heck! We might even raise taxes on ourselves to pay for wiping out the Iranian military capability. And the US would not let Iran re-build any military capability for a generation.

 

[RazPaK]

The one major advantage the Iranians would have over our forces is their willingness to commit suicide. One could imagine many, many suicide attacks both from the waters and from the air on USN ships. So, it is likely that the USN would suffer some serious losses of lives and ships. However, in the process, the US would be so totally pi$$ed off that there would be nothing left of any Iranian military facility or capability. We would borrow all the money we need, for all the bombs it would take, from the PRC, if necessary. Heck! We might even raise taxes on ourselves to pay for wiping out the Iranian military capability. And the US would not let Iran re-build any military capability for a generation.

Or you guys could just not bully Iran.

 

[WAR-rior]

I haven't gone thru all the post of this thread but ontopic i dud only say, USA simply can't get into iranian region. Otherwise, greater great depression is next corner due to oil shock. I don't think americans are even that much dictator to let whole world fall into a ditch. they do carry responsibility of world peace and prosperity as they claim. anything against their status dud only doubt their world dominance.

 

[Respect4Respect01]

guys instead of supporting usa, think first, usa is starting shi t all over the world for no reason. fking war mongering state.

 

[Harry_Thomason]

Totally hypothetical and theoritical.
Every one knows the weaknesses of the SM-3. The point is that Iran simply does not have the resources to seriously test the efficacy of the SM-3. It may be applicable to China perhaps but definitely not Iran. When a CBG is on the move, it is not just the AEGIS on one warship that counts but the combined AEGIS resources of all the AEGIS equipped warships accompanying the carrier. Hey, we are talking of scores of cruise missiles being fired nearly simultaneously at the CBG here, who has that capability?

Your first mistake - assuming Iran would launch a missile here and there only, thats not how it works, and thats not what Iran is preparing for (if they would be capable of only that - it would be a major failure of their strategy).

In other words - look up Millennium Challenge 2002. Van Riper equipped with a crap and employing Iranian strategy sunk entire US Navy fleet. Still think only China and Russia capable of it?

Then imagine what can do over 2000 speedboats equipped with missiles + trucks on land with more powerful cruise and ballistic missiles + over 20 subs + mines. Surely it will be hard to coordinate and time everything, thats why Iranians are doing drills over and over again, while constantly improving their tech.

And anyway, if scores of missiles are indeed launched, it implies all out war and even if a warship or two gets dameged, the Americans will hit so hard with all resources at their disposal that not much would be left of Iran's war machinery. Remember that CVN-72, Abraham Lincoln is somewhere in the Indian Ocean now, closing in fast.

Of course it would be all out war, or you think Iran is sinking US Navy ships for the fun? And again - if war starts and US warships are anywhere near Iran, most of them (if not all) wont survive till war ends, common sense.

 

[livingdead]

Well US military exercises usually put their own side at disadvantage in most of games.
Also they have a propensity to show their adversary as tough.
Remember Iraq war in which battled hardened troops in desert were supposed to make mincemeat out of them.
And now and then there is talk of "elite" this guard that guard.

 

[Harry_Thomason]

Well US military exercises usually put their own side at disadvantage in most of games.
Also they have a propensity to show their adversary as tough.

The opposite is true, US never ever allows to be defeated in practices, even if they have to fake the outcome. Thats their mentality. Look up Van Riper's commentary, he was disgusted with US faking the results of exercise.

About "propensity to show their adversary as tough" few US officials do that, and when they do, its to justify war against that adversary. For example, Iran is shown as the evil menace who can take down the World, thats why "Iran has to be attacked first". But when they speak how long it would take to defeat Iran, its "few weeks tops" (or look what US fanboys say here ). Its politics. Some dare to speak of the actual consequences of the war, but they are the minority.

Remember Iraq war in which battled hardened troops in desert were supposed to make mincemeat out of them.
And now and then there is talk of "elite" this guard that guard.

When you look for examples, pick those who have some similarities, Iran and Iraq in this case have nothing in common.

Here is example with at least some use - 2006 Lebanon war. Would you agree Israel has one of the best militaries in the World? Hezzbolah is just 1000 members and 6000 volunteers, trained and armed by Iranians. War happened in a relatively small area, and still Israel couldnt do anything, despite huge disparity in power. Why? Good training, Iranian weapons appeared to be pretty good, and they fought with a great spirit on their homeland.

Surely US has much greater arsenal of weapons compared to Israel, but same can be said about Iran. Israel couldnt defeat few thousand people, yet Iran has over million trained soldiers, over 12 mln. trained volunteers, with a vast and extensive stockpile (spread everywhere) of weapons for guerrilla warfare. Whole NATO forces cant beat ~15.000 cavemans in Afghanistan (who control 50-70% of territory), and yet some under illusion US would beat millions dedicated and well armed Iranians on their home turf in guerrilla war? Not going to happen, period.

 

[yyetttt]

^ You are over exaggerating. Iran does not even have 500,000 soldiers, heck 1 million. On top of that all of Iran's military equipment is about to fall to pieces. I think you know that too.

 

[Harry_Thomason]

^ You are over exaggerating. Iran does not even have 500,000 soldiers, heck 1 million. On top of that all of Iran's military equipment is about to fall to pieces. I think you know that too.

545,000 active, 650,000 reserve. Your statement about military doesnt make any sense, you just trolling