Qaher-313

[The SC]

Just for comparison, an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a seazone prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea over which a state has special rights over the exploration and use of marine resources, including energy production from water and wind. It stretches from the baseline out to 200 nautical miles (370km) from its coast.

Syrian EEZ

EEZ Waters Of Syria

Country legend

Lebanon Speaker on EEZ: Our problem is with Israel not Cyprus | Ya Libnan | World News Live from Lebanon

Carrier based aviation and cruise missile equipped ships can - easily - hit Syria from outside its EEZ (and outside of reach of any coastal missile batteries).


SManalysis

SManalysis

With respect to inclusion of Us 5th fleet in the Persian Gulf (8), consider the distance Basra-Damascus being 1134 km = 705 miles = within cruisemissile and - with aerial refuelling - within carrier aviation range. Project that distance from Damascus into the Mediterranean Sea and that'll give you an idea of how far naval ships can stand-off the coast while conducting a strike on Syria. Hence, note (4) and (2). US cruisemissile equipped destroyers in the Med are within strike range, RN surface warships are standing 'well clear' of the Syrian coastline.

Which perfectly illustrates that naval forces could effectively strike at significant portions of Iran from outside the Persian Gulf, including from the Mediterranean and Arabian Seas, without even being close to the Strait of Hormuz. So let Iran be the first to fire its missiles on commercial shipping there: it will only provide excuse to accompany commercial ships with navy ships. Fire upon those, and it is an excuse for all out war (coalition formation likely, but no longer required for military intervention). In Russian roulette, there is no bluffing.

What you do not seem to grasp, is that Iran won't attack first, it is in its doctrine of defence, and it stated clearly that it will respond to any attack on its land.
Meaning that in case of the USrael attack on Iran, all hell will break loose in the Area; The strait of Hormuz will be closed (oil prices will be too high for you to drive to school or work, so you better do a good check on your bicycle) and war will spread to all American bases and interests in the Area and to Israel who is clearly behind the whole affair.
No one denies that the US can send cruise missiles on Iran, but all the experts agree that it will be unsuccessful to achieve any worthy goal, not even against Syria.
The most appalling things are the lies behind all these moves to wage war, with unknown and mostly unpredictable and very dangerous consequences.
It is all about Oil and Gaz and the control of pipelines and supplies; the oil and gaz reserves of the area are too huge to be left to one side, so it a proxy economic war between the US and Russia mostly, but it involves China, Japan and others as best examples of dependency on these reserves.

 

[Penguin]

The SC - If Iran can defend itself against the US? well, they have officially said that was exactly what they have prepared for, for the last 30 years.
So you can expect at least a very painful response from them to the US proportionate to the US aggression, because this is no little game, once the US shows signs or begins hostilities, the matter will be so grave to the whole planet that the consequences would be unimaginable.
If we stick to the theoretical confrontation between let us say the US and Iran in the gulf, I think Iran can win that confrontation.
It is just a matter of logic and logistics,; if the US is on its own and is not allowed by any country of the region to attack from its territories (everyone understands why, their countries have to bear the consequences of war for a long time, and frankly, no one in the area wants to jeopardize its economic growth, or any other gains they have made in the last decade, and also because the only entity that will benefit from such a conflict is Israel at the detriment of the others including the US itself )
it needs ground and other support for its carriers. because it is going to be mostly a missile war, and the US has to have air superiority in the first place

A lot of ifs.... but the whole thing revolves around the assumption US (or Nato ships, this is were you change your own little scenario) need to be in the Persian Gulf to strike... and they don't! Plus, the US can keep up missiles strikes without needing to use bases in countries near Iran. And the will strike if they see the need. Should the response be to close down Hormuz, again... dont hold your breath.

 

[Penguin]

What you do not seem to grasp

I grasp more than you know, but the point is I disagree ( but I don't feel the need to comment on what I perceive to be your conceptual understanding of matters)

Iran won't attack first, it is in its doctrine of defence, and it stated clearly that it will respond to any attack on its land.
Meaning that in case of the USrael attack on Iran, all hell will break loose in the Area; The strait of Hormuz will be closed (oil prices will be too high for you to drive to school or work, so you better do a good check on your bicycle) and war will spread to all American bases and interests in the Area and to Israel who is clearly behind the whole affair

I cycle to work daily and the time I went to school is a good 30 years behind me... more huffing and puffing.

No one denies that the US can send cruise missiles on Iran, but all the experts agree that it will be unsuccessful to achieve any worthy goal, not even against Syria.

balony, see links in earlier posts

 

[That Guy]

I grasp more than you know, but the point is I disagree ( but I don't feel the need to comment on what I perceive to be your conceptual understanding of matters)


I cycle to work daily and the time I went to school is a good 30 years behind me... more huffing and puffing.


balony, see links in earlier posts

Are you and him still talking about this?

Guys, just stop. You've diverted the topic too much.

End it right here and move on.

 

[The SC]

It is all related to the Qaher313, since it is an Iranian warplane that surprised some people, it is undeniably their right to be sceptical, but other facts prove that Iran can come up with new and unique designs in other systems, like its most advanced missiles, a good example would be the Fajr3.

 

[The SC]

I grasp more than you know, but the point is I disagree ( but I don't feel the need to comment on what I perceive to be your conceptual understanding of matters)


I cycle to work daily and the time I went to school is a good 30 years behind me... more huffing and puffing.


balony, see links in earlier posts

Those are some scenarios of an armed conflict, the facts are very simple; in case of an attack on Iran, the strait of Hormuz will be closed for an undetermined period and the consequences will be grave for the whole world's economy.
The other fact is that Iran can win a war in the Persian gulf and around its territories, and can also extend that to Israel, since they have the means to do that if we rely on the available information from the Iranians themselves, the American generals who have made very thorough studies of Iran's war capabilities and from the Israeli generals and intelligence directors about the Iranian KH 55, called the Meshkat (Lantern) Cruise Missile with a range of 2,000km (they are very conservative about the range; normally it is 3000+ km, so for 2000 km the war head is certainly very heavy.) for instance.

 

[he-man]

Those are some scenarios of an armed conflict, the facts are very simple; in case of an attack on Iran, the strait of Hormuz will be closed for an undetermined period and the consequences will be grave for the whole world's economy.
The other fact is that Iran can win a war in the Persian gulf and around its territories, and can also extend that to Israel, since they have the means to do that if we rely on the available information from the Iranians themselves, the American generals who have made very thorough studies of Iran's war capabilities and from the Israeli generals and intelligence directors about the Iranian KH 55, called the Meshkat (Lantern) Cruise Missile with a range of 2,000km (they are very conservative about the range; normally it is 3000+ km, so for 2000 km the war head is certainly very heavy.) for instance.

Man how to u expect to win a war against an adversary having

1)11 super carriers

2)53 destroyers

3)god knows how many airpanes

4)having support of israel,turkey,saudi etc

5)60-70 nuclear subs

pls elaborate

 

[The SC]

I am not here to explain to you HOW Iran can win that war.
Suffice to give the example of Hezbollah against Israel in 2006 (At most 4 to 5000 soldiers against 150 000 Israeli soldiers plus thousands of the most advanced warplanes and advanced navy warships.), if you can figure out how they did it than you can figure out the answer to your own question.

 

[That Guy]

Man how to u expect to win a war against an adversary having

1)11 super carriers

2)53 destroyers

3)god knows how many airpanes

4)having support of israel,turkey,saudi etc

5)60-70 nuclear subs

pls elaborate

They can cause some damage, but winning a conventional war is not in the realms of possibility. The Iranians know this, which is why they've incorporating asymmetric systems and warfare techniques into their armed forces. Fighting an asymmetric war give Iran a chance of victory in the long term, but a conventional war is out of the question.

 

[Wright]

They can cause some damage, but winning a conventional war is not in the realms of possibility. The Iranians know this, which is why they've incorporating asymmetric systems and warfare techniques into their armed forces. Fighting an asymmetric war give Iran a chance of victory in the long term, but a conventional war is out of the question.

The point of the US Iranian conflict is to cripple Irans military threat to the region. If the military machine, navy, etc is destroyed. The job is done. US allies like Saudi arabia, etc will be more than happy.

 

[That Guy]

The point of the US Iranian conflict is to cripple Irans military threat to the region. If the military machine, navy, etc is destroyed. The job is done.

True enough, but would that be accomplishable against an enemy that is unpredictable and extremely motivated?

 

[Wright]

True enough, but would that be accomplishable against an enemy that is unpredictable and extremely motivated?

Military targets are easy to take out. A navy vessel or airplane cant hide like Taliban fighters do in the civilian population or rough terrain.

Destroy the military assets and industry, and the job is done. A bunch of RPG armed fighters only become a problem when you stay in the country and try to police. Insurgent fighters dont have the ability to cause regional turmoil like a conventional military does.

So US allies in the region would not have to worry about Iranian vessels in the Gulf, etc.

 

[The SC]

The same applies to American navy vessels and airplanes on board of them in the Gulf or close by.
What US allies are you talking about?

 

[Tihamah]

i just love stealth photoshop jets....they are formidable on PC screen but they can't even take off in reality, let alone giving them specification and armament then discussing how they will destory the US militay air, sea and land power......

 

[The SC]

In military aviation and even the American type one, it all starts from a mockup an a proof of concept before production begins. The Iranians did the same thing with testing, presenting the proof of concept and the mockup and have said that production has began.
So please do not worry about how they will do it, you should think first of the undesired consequences for SA, the whole middle east and the rest of world in case of war in that region. Beyond making the whole region a laughing stock to the Americans who have the least to lose in human lives and infrastructure apart from those expeditionary forces composed mostly of immigrants in case of a war far away from their homelands.
Would you be happy with SA infrastructure destroyed completely? no oil to sell, no nice life anymore?
Please answer this question, and do not post posts without thinking about what you are saying. because Iran today is capable of destroying SA petroleum pipelines and many other things along with the US war machine in the area. Even Israel is scared, and to say the least it is at least 2 times stronger than SA military wise.
The main thing here is that a war in the middle east is not wanted by the population of the region or by the world at large.
So according to you, those delegates, the Iranian president Ahmadinejad and the defence minister were photoshoped too !?