• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

The Plan for Iran....

These are fantastic missiles, but as Cheezy says we still have the advantage. In numbers, technology, and firepower.

Iran will bleed us badly, but in the end we will overpowe there defenses and once we take don there radars etc. the missilesd will be useless. America's victory is assured, but we will be bled pretty badly in a war.

All that said I'm defenitely against an attack. Pre-emptive strikes aren't really the moral highground imo, and in this case considering the situation with the rest of the world we must attack from the moral high ground, if we attack at all.

I don't know if we'll be "bled badly," we're probably looking at something more like Desert Storm in terms of the air war.
 
Fëanor;6178890 said:
@George, IMHO its very unlikely that Iran would be able to sink a Carrier as it would take at least a half a dozen good hits by Iranian missiles to sink it, but even if they manage to sink a carrier or even several carriers its almost impossible that thousands of people on them would die, this is not the WW2 pacific war we are talking about, rescue operation would save the vast majority of the carrier crew within hours.
I forget the name of the russian made anti-ship misslies but its pretty decent and recent (Some website said that china tested the same exact anti-ship missiles and it sunk a decent (old) ship in 1 strike) (Sunburn missiles)
 
I don't know if we'll be "bled badly," we're probably looking at something more like Desert Storm in terms of the air war.
Sure and i'm sure the iran people would welcome us with flowers and oil could pay for everything right? (where have i heard that before?)
 
The one thing I worry about is not that we are not capable of striking them first in many targeted areas that is a substantial threat to our arm forces in Afganistan and Iraq, but the problem of subjecting our ground forces to more uprising by Shiites and other pro-Iranian leaders who can easily beat the drums of their fellow believers to attack us in those two nations that are occupied by us.
 
Military buffs: Correect me if I'm wrong, but didnt Russia sell Iran some fairly high-end SAM systems last year? I know they couldnt completely stop an attack but werent these paraded as somewhat of a detterent?
SAM's are great. But if within 15 minutes of war being declared, all of your major radar installations are rubble, then they might as well be firecrackers - they aren't going to hit a whole lot. The US wouldn't launch a massive assault with conventional airplanes, they'd use stealth bombers to take out the main radar and missiles sites before more conventional bombers took over.

They did this in the First Persian Gulf War too. Saddam had a lot of sams and radar to see the planes, but we knocked enough out quickly enough that we were able to fly planes over Iraq with impunity fairly quickly.

To everyone who seems to be doubting the American military's ability to defeat Iran's defenses, consider this: This is effectively what the American military is designed to do. Find targets, and blow the living daylights out of them as quickly and with as little loss of life as possible. We're having trouble in Iraq because we're fighting a war different from what the American military is designed to fight: Counterinsurgency (COIN) instead of conventional. Counterinsurgency operations are less about new technology and more about good relations with the locals, and lots and lots of boots on the ground to provide security. (In essence, anyway) In a conventional war, especially an air war, the US military is truly in its element and would be effectively unbeatable.

Would the US take casualties? Of course. Would Iran have a hope in hell of keeping control of their skies if the US deliberately decided to take it away? No way. Remember, this isn't a march on Tehran we're talking about - this is a modern war of fast strikes and precision munitions, where the US has a huge lead of Iran.

If you want to argue over whether a US attack is wise, or would be effective in neutralizing Iran's nuclear program, then that's fine. But as things stand, saying that Iran could stop, or even seriously slow down a determined US air assault is inaccurate at best.
 
:) Sounds like more than a speedbump then

Considering we have airraftonline that can see it and hit it while it can not see them... i's a speedbump.
 
I forget the name of the russian made anti-ship misslies but its pretty decent and recent (Some website said that china tested the same exact anti-ship missiles and it sunk a decent (old) ship in 1 strike) (Sunburn missiles)

I wouldnt call the SS-N-22 Sunburn "Recent" but it is not a bad weapon indeed, but take the USS Liberty incident for example, that was a civilian ship converted to Auxiliary Technical Research Ship, thus not nearly as reinforced as a purpose build warship like a Destroyer or Carrier and yet it survived numerous strafings and a torpedo hit, hence why i doubt that any anti-ship missile would sink a carrier in less that a couple of good hits (unless of course the Iranians somehow got supplie with Sunburns that have the120kt nuclear warheads, which is EXTREMELY unlikely) anyway, my main point was that with current damage control and search and rescue equipment a carrier's crew is unlikely to suffer WW2 style casualties, even if the carrier is sunk.
 
Fëanor;6179074 said:
I wouldnt call the SS-N-22 Sunburn "Recent" but it is not a bad weapon indeed, but take the USS Liberty incident for example, that was a civilian ship converted to Auxiliary Technical Research Ship, thus not nearly as reinforced as a purpose build warship like a Destroyer or Carrier and yet it survived numerous strafings and a torpedo hit, hence why i doubt that any anti-ship missile would sink a carrier in less that a couple of good hits (unless of course the Iranians somehow got supplie with Sunburns that have the120kt nuclear warheads, which is EXTREMELY unlikely) anyway, my main point was that with current damage control and search and rescue equipment a carrier's crew is unlikely to suffer WW2 style casualties, even if the carrier is sunk.
I wouldn't put it pass russia to sell a few 120kt nuclear warhead and tell iran's supreme leader to only use it when you are attacked (which he would only use if attacked. Case and point to all those that think iran would nuke israel just because: Iran has Chemical weapons and iran has not used them to attack israel) BTW i was thinking how is the military going to get into the gulf of whatever since when/if we attack iran we can kiss 20% of oil supplies bye-bye for awhile (aka iran attacking oil tankers at the straight of whatever and also i would not put it pass them to attack oil refineries in other countries), but the military would have to cross that point when/if they do attack (Turkey would not allow any military aircraft in their airspace that would be a given. Any other country might or might not allow military in their airspace)
I said Desert Storm you moron. Not Iraqi Freedom.
Sure and how would we pay for it? With fake bills? (SUre why not i mean 90% of all american's don't even really look at bills!)
 
Sure and how would we pay for it? With fake bills? (SUre why not i mean 90% of all american's don't even really look at bills!)

What does that have to do with your failed comparison to Operation Iraqi Freedom?

Further, when has money EVER been an issue when a war started? I've never EVER heard of a leader saying "sorry, we don't have the money to go to war, I guess they can do whatever they want." :rolleyes:
 
I think Iran will cause a lot more damage then people think,Iran has sufficient quantities of cruise missiles to destroy much or all of the Fifth Fleet which is within range of Iran's mobile missile launchers strategically located along its mountainous terrain overlooking the Persian Gulf. Paul Van Riper led a hypothetical Persian Gulf state in the 2002 Millennium Challenge wargames that resulted in the destruction of the Fifth Fleet. They had to "refloat" the fifth fleet to continue the war games.
Not to mention the thousand of missiles that would probably rain down on the green zone and other interests in the ME.
But in reality who really knows.
 
I think Iran will cause a lot more damage then people think,Iran has sufficient quantities of cruise missiles to destroy much or all of the Fifth Fleet which is within range of Iran's mobile missile launchers strategically located along its mountainous terrain overlooking the Persian Gulf. Paul Van Riper led a hypothetical Persian Gulf state in the 2002 Millennium Challenge wargames that resulted in the destruction of the Fifth Fleet. They had to "refloat" the fifth fleet to continue the war games.
Not to mention the thousand of missiles that would probably rain down on the green zone and other interests in the ME.
But in reality who really knows.
Where did Iran get these thousands upon thousands of highly accurate cruise missiles? And what happened to the US naval defense systems? (Missiles and Phalanx guns) I very much doubt that Iran could "destroy much or all of the Fifth Fleet".
 
Where did Iran get these thousands upon thousands of highly accurate cruise missiles? And what happened to the US naval defense systems? (Missiles and Phalanx guns) I very much doubt that Iran could "destroy much or all of the Fifth Fleet".

They reversed enginered them from missiles bought from Russia and China, Iran is a missile maunfacturing plant in itself.
Both the Yakhonts and the Sunburn missiles are designed to defeat the Aegis radar defense currently used on U.S. Navy ships by using stealth technology and low ground hugging flying maneuvers. In their final approaches these missiles take evasive maneuvers to defeat anti-ship missile defenses. The best defense the Navy has against Sunburn and Yakhonts cruise missiles has been the Sea-RAM (Rolling Actionframe Missile system) anti-ship missile defense system which is a modified form of the Phalanx 20 mm cannon gun . The Sea-RAM has been tested with a 95% success rate against the 'Vandal' supersonic missile capable of Mach 2.5 speeds but does not have the radar evading and final flight maneuvers of Russian anti-ship missiles.
Although Van Riper mainly used Silkworms and scuds, using asymetrical warfare it shows how new technology since then would make it that much harder.

Some links on the destruction of the fifth fleet by Van Riper...
www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,786992,00.html
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
www.badattitudes.com/ArmyTime.html
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2002/20020911.asp

Just think, if Van Riper could accomplish what he did with Silkworms and scuds, imagine what could happen if the US Navy, sitting in the Gulf like so many ducks, should face a massed-attack of supersonic Yakhonts missiles, a weapon that may well be unstoppable.
 
They reversed enginered them from missiles bought from Russia and China, Iran is a missile maunfacturing plant in itself.
Both the Yakhonts and the Sunburn missiles are designed to defeat the Aegis radar defense currently used on U.S. Navy ships by using stealth technology and low ground hugging flying maneuvers. In their final approaches these missiles take evasive maneuvers to defeat anti-ship missile defenses. The best defense the Navy has against Sunburn and Yakhonts cruise missiles has been the Sea-RAM (Rolling Actionframe Missile system) anti-ship missile defense system which is a modified form of the Phalanx 20 mm cannon gun . The Sea-RAM has been tested with a 95% success rate against the 'Vandal' supersonic missile capable of Mach 2.5 speeds but does not have the radar evading and final flight maneuvers of Russian anti-ship missiles.
Although Van Riper mainly used Silkworms and scuds, using asymetrical warfare it shows how new technology since then would make it that much harder.

Some links on the destruction of the fifth fleet by Van Riper...
www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,786992,00.html
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
www.badattitudes.com/ArmyTime.html
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2002/20020911.asp

Just think, if Van Riper could accomplish what he did with Silkworms and scuds, imagine what could happen if the US Navy, sitting in the Gulf like so many ducks, should face a massed-attack of supersonic Yakhonts missiles, a weapon that may well be unstoppable.
I think you need better evidence. From your Wikipedia link:

Most of the people on the U.S. side assumed that the adversary in the game would be Iraq, but according to a Nova show on PBS, it was later revealed that the other side was simulating the military forces of Israel, since U.S. military officials felt it was the only state in the region that would be a worthy adversary for American military power.

Israel does not equal Iran. Running a wargame that pits the US Fifth Fleet against Israel is quite a different thing than against Iran. And besides, this wasn't even a real scenario that involved tactical innovation - extent for van Riper. This was more of a scripted performance than a game of wits, and Riper "won" because he stopped using the script. If they hadn't been using a script (And therefore having their hands tied) the "blue" side wouldn't have been caught so off guard.

I think you're making way, way too much of this. It's interesting, and thanks for the link, but I don't think this means nearly as much as you seem to think.
 
The Bush Administration can't be ousted soon enough.... and they called Clinton bad, for what? Romantic desires that we all possess? Bah!
 
The Bush Administration can't be ousted soon enough.... and they called Clinton bad, for what? Romantic desires that we all possess? Bah!
Desire to sleep with a overweight intern? Speak for yourself buddy!:p
 
Desire to sleep with a overweight intern? Speak for yourself buddy!:p
So 3,000 people died for freedom in a country that doesn't want our help?
 
I hope it doesn't happen, but I have to agree -- US air superiority will rule, but the insurgency throughout the Middle East will hurt worse. Btw, didn't Russia say they would back Iran if they were attacked? Did anyone ever confirm that article as credible? Anyone? Bueller?
 
Top Bottom