NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know whether to laugh or cry, this is histerical stuff. Pulled from DU. Eutrusca is gonna have a field day with this one!

___________________________________________________
LynnTheDem (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-06-06 02:06 PM
Original message
A US soldier's predicition if bush is stupid enough to strike Iran...
Edited on Fri Jan-06-06 02:23 PM by LynnTheDem

***20,000+ US troops dead within the first week.

Iran's Sunburn missiles will take out every US ship in the Gulf.

Iran's allies will step into the fray.

China will be occupying Wisconsin within 3 months.

USA will concede defeat within 4 months.

1,000,000+ US dead.

And that's without Iranian allies India, Pakistan & China (or the rest of the world)throwing nukes at us.

***20,000 US dead is VERY conservative...one aircraft carrier holds 7,000 troops. TWO FLEETS are sitting in the Gulf.

Alert | Hide Thread | Recommend Topic for Greatest Page (0 votes)
________________________________________________________________

My monitor is covered in root beer. OMG this is funny! Forget cable, I want to subscribe to this!

O...k

I'm just not gonna say anything.

Except wow.

Thanks for sharing, now move along.

...

Thanks for sharing, now move along.

Yup. And what's with the 3rd person references?

Just to be very clear though...things can happen in war that one did not anticipate.
And Iran is a lot more powerful than Iraq.

And ARF, you might like this article here about the great "Millennium Wargames" the US did before Iraq. Everyone assumed the simulated enemy was Iraq, it turned out to be Israel, but nonetheless, here's what happened...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,786992,00.html
http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/2240/Is_The_U_S_Vulnerable_In_The_Persian_Gulf

And ARF, you might like this article here about the great "Millennium Wargames" the US did before Iraq. Everyone assumed the simulated enemy was Iraq, it turned out to be Israel, but nonetheless, here's what happened...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,786992,00.html
http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/2240/Is_The_U_S_Vulnerable_In_The_Persian_Gulf

Interesting, and not just a little reminiscent of the D-Day reherseals in '44 which cost the Allies about 750 actual lives.

Just to be very clear though...things can happen in war that one did not anticipate.
And Iran is a lot more powerful than Iraq.

And ARF, you might like this article here about the great "Millennium Wargames" the US did before Iraq. Everyone assumed the simulated enemy was Iraq, it turned out to be Israel, but nonetheless, here's what happened...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,786992,00.html
http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/2240/Is_The_U_S_Vulnerable_In_The_Persian_Gulf
AHAHAHA! That's hilarious!

What a twit LOL!

What's this DU you pulled this from? I think that Iran would be much tougher than Iraq, but c'mon... not even close to this.

I'm not at all suprised that a smart general managed to use the resources of a 3rd world country to defeat the US.

I also have fairly high confidence that it won't happen in real life.

Because IRL, the other side is almost certainly just as handicapped by the incompetence of its commanders...

I'm talking about the two links, which are pretty old.

About the original prognosis in the first post - what the hell is that guy smoking and where can I get some?

Just to be very clear though...things can happen in war that one did not anticipate.
And Iran is a lot more powerful than Iraq.

And ARF, you might like this article here about the great "Millennium Wargames" the US did before Iraq. Everyone assumed the simulated enemy was Iraq, it turned out to be Israel, but nonetheless, here's what happened...
http://
http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/2240/Is_The_U_S_Vulnerable_In_The_Persian_Gulf

Iran would get it's ass kicked.

They had a retired Marine general wreak havoc on the navy. Not too hard, Marines are intelligent. The navy, for the most part, isn't.

Marines would be either spearheading from Iraq or landing amphibiously onto iranian shores......

Hell, I might get out of college soon enough for this. Just gotta give it 2 years or so.

Iran would get it's ass kicked.

Cruise missiles decided the fate of much of the naval flottila, as did suicide attacks via small craft. Additionally, according to the simulations, the US was beaten to the punch, struck as it was massing its fleet.

Iran has a fairly large stockpile of cruise missiles one would think, and it cannot be denied that they are shopping for the newer and more sophisticated models from Russia. If the US fleet becomes involved in an Iranian conflict, of which I assure you the generals will demand, we might see the matter actually occur in real life rather than a simulation.

Then we will see red faces and calls for the nuclear option. Why? Because they wouldn't want to admit defeat.


They had a retired Marine general wreak havoc on the navy. Not too hard, Marines are intelligent. The navy, for the most part, isn't.

Without the Navy, the Marines are more or less sunk. Literally in this case.

Without the Navy, the Marines are more or less sunk. Literally in this case.

Moreover, the ex-Marine was ordered to look the other way when the Marines were landing... I bet the Marines would have taken it in the crotch, too.

lol

china will never go to war with us, and vice versa.

Cruise missiles decided the fate of much of the naval flottila, as did suicide attacks via small craft. Additionally, according to the simulations, the US was beaten to the punch, struck as it was massing its fleet.

Iran has a fairly large stockpile of cruise missiles one would think, and it cannot be denied that they are shopping for the newer and more sophisticated models from Russia. If the US fleet becomes involved in an Iranian conflict, of which I assure you the generals will demand, we might see the matter actually occur in real life rather than a simulation.

Then we will see red faces and calls for the nuclear option. Why? Because they wouldn't want to admit defeat.



Without the Navy, the Marines are more or less sunk. Literally in this case.

Actually, Marines are already in theatre so there isn't any need for transporting them via ship. Don't forget about the anti-missile system the navy has in place. If the Russians are actually selling it, I wouldn't put to much faith in it. They NEVER sold their best, only 2nd-rate stuff.

Iran has a number of Sunburst Air-to-surface naval missiles. However, they aren't very complex and are sparrows to the Phalanx.

Actually, Marines are already in theatre so there isn't any need for transporting them via ship.

Somehow, I don't think that the entire US military command staff is interested in a solely land based invasion if that is the case. They already have a carrier in place and I have this feeling that they would want to use it out of pride if nothing else. Military hubris is a very real thing wherever you go. Even more so with armies who believe they are invincible.


Don't forget about the anti-missile system the navy has in place.

If you had bothered to read the links properly, as well as research the topic, you would have realized that the only area where US naval carrier groups can actually deploy effectively is in the gulf. And that means that the anti-missile systems designed for engagement of missiles in open water would be at best, only half as effective in the closed in scenario such an invasion would have taken place in.

You might take one of the crybaby general's stance and say that the carrier group would never be that close in a true war, but for all the tactical good that would do so far as an invasion is concerned, you might as well not have it.


If the Russians are actually selling it, I wouldn't put to much faith in it. They NEVER sold their best, only 2nd-rate stuff.

Simulations showed that a Silkworm missile, the caveman of the cruise missile family, sunk the carrier. What makes you think the newer and more advanced Russian missiles, even the commercial ones, won't perform better? It would be like someone trying to sell MP-40s in a modern army when there are AKs abound already. The Russians are not THAT stupid businessmen.


Iran has a number of Sunburst Air-to-surface naval missiles. However, they aren't very complex and are sparrows to the Phalanx.

The Phalanx system was designed for use in open waters, not gulf straits and other shore type scenarios. Besides, so far as actual combat scenarios go, the Phalanx has not been tested in cases where there would be literally hundreds of missiles in the air.

Furthermore, if such an invasion were iminent, Iran is more likely than not to reinforce the entire gulf with land based launchers, making it a death trap for any fleet.

Additionally, the Iranians can easily afford a hundred cruise missiles if it means even just one carrier sunk. The resulting trade off gives Iran the strategic win in that case.

Not that it's important, but Iran wouldn't be as easy to tackle as some people might think. Remember, currently its only really Sunnis that are making trouble in Iraq. The vast majority are Shia. Now the catch is that Iran is Shia too. Iran and the new government of Iraq are getting along really well now, and three guesses as to what will happen in Iraq if the US invades Iran.

Don't think this means that the US won't win against Iran. What it does mean is that the US would have to double efforts in Iraq at least AND pacify Iran at the same time. With the strains on the US forces as they are now, one can easily see why the President is holding back and trying to find a different solution to the Iran problem that doesn't involve a US invasion.

That said, a scenario that sees Wisconsin occupied within a couple of months is laughable.

Sinking the American fleet in the Gulf? Sounds reasonable. The rest is just bullshit overextrapolating from the beginning- a trait common to the alternate history forums that I frequent.

ARF, you seem to be under the impression that tech always wins. It doesn't. This has been demonstrated multiple times throughout history. Who had the best tech in WWII? Germany. Who won? The Soviet Union, which had far inferior technology (not counting T-34s), but vastly superior manpower and resources. Who had the better fighter technology in the Pacific theater? Japan. Who won? The US; we had more fighters, even if they weren't better until late in the war. Who had the best tech in Vietnam? The US, by far. Who won? North Vietnam, a political entity with a crappy economic system and few resources to draw upon.

An American invasion of Iran- especially after the Iraq debacle- would be seen as a mortal threat to Iranians and to Islam. As such, the Iranians would use whatever mean were at their disposal to repel such an invasion. Land troops? Iran is a mountainous country- perfect for guerilla forces. Sea-borne assault? As indicated by the USS Cole attack and by this simulation, the US Navy isn't very good at handling suicide attacks by small, fast boats filled with explosives; apparently, we haven't learned our lesson from the Japanese kamikazes. Any gaps in the line of suicidal boat captains can be filled up with swarms of missiles. We're not talking about one or two meant to pop a carrier with one shot; we're talking about dozens or hundreds of the things dropping down in a rain of fire- supplemented, of course, by the suicide boats. I can see such an attack posing quite a threat to any American operation in the Persian Gulf, which you will note is a rather small body of water- much concentration of forces there.

ARF, you seem to be under the impression that tech always wins. It doesn't.

He also seems to have failed to completely checked on the limitations of the tech he endorses. Looking at the latter links, it would seem to be the same for US military high command. Not a very promising example of "military intelligence"

<snip>

Silliest numbers ever. :)

Oh, and Iran's anti-ship missiles are not a major threat. I was an EW in the Navy and my job was anti-ship missile defense. Trust me on this.

In order to attack U.S. naval assets, Iran would first have to paint them with targeting radars. Well, that's where Electronic Warfare comes ito play. EW ystems are capable of jamming these radars, temporarily reducing visibility and delaying a targeting lock long enough for friendly air assets to attack and neutralize that threat. Even if lock is achieved and missiles are fired, Most naval battle groups have no less than FIVE methods of defense against those incoming missiles(not all of these methods are pertinent to all missiles).

Hell, CIWS alone(which is considred the least reliable and last-option anti-ship missile defense) has a 50% success ratio!

I think that if the US hits Iran, anybody who is 'allied' with Iran, will be taking a big step back. Seriously, this person included India in that list? Why would a democratic country with a Hindi majority, ally with Iran in a war against the US..?

Just to be very clear though...things can happen in war that one did not anticipate.
And Iran is a lot more powerful than Iraq.

And ARF, you might like this article here about the great "Millennium Wargames" the US did before Iraq. Everyone assumed the simulated enemy was Iraq, it turned out to be Israel, but nonetheless, here's what happened...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,786992,00.html
http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/2240/Is_The_U_S_Vulnerable_In_The_Persian_Gulf
That's really funny as hell :D
The US military is really too stupid for their own good :D

I think that if the US hits Iran, anybody who is 'allied' with Iran, will be taking a big step back. Seriously, this person included India in that list? Why would a democratic country with a Hindi majority, ally with Iran in a war against the US..?

B-coz thay r teh kommiez, duh :rolleyes: :sniper: :mp5: :headbang:

lol

china will never go to war with us, and vice versa.
Correct. Both have far too much to lose. The real danger is that we'll "back into" a war over something innocuous.

That's really funny as hell :D
The US military is really too stupid for their own good :D
The only stupid thing is statements like the above. You're either living in a fool's paradise, or vastly underestimating. Either way, you lose. BIG time. :D

In order to attack U.S. naval assets, Iran would first have to paint them with targeting radars.

Wasn't Russia building a missile that could have a course pre-programmed and do targetting on it's own? I seem to remember them building one that could identify carriers in a battle group.

The only stupid thing is statements like the above. You're either living in a fool's paradise, or vastly underestimating. Either way, you lose. BIG time. :D

Underestimating seems to be something that particular section of military command seems to be doing just fine too. Would you want someone like that commanding you? Unless he was well versed in the art of raising the dead or had a time machine somewhere, I would think not.

this is provided America doesn’t get help fighting Iran hell if Saddam was still in power he would help us even the warlords in Afghanistan would fight Iran

And undoubtedly Iran would make the first move in any action what with America being too busy in Iraq unless this is 20 years from now in which case Iran would be so far behind to fight back

Wasn't Russia building a missile that could have a course pre-programmed and do targetting on it's own? I seem to remember them building one that could identify carriers in a battle group.



Underestimating seems to be something that particular section of military command seems to be doing just fine too. Would you want someone like that commanding you? Unless he was well versed in the art of raising the dead or had a time machine somewhere, I would think not.

Iran's Sunburst missiles are launched by Aircraft. Destruction of Iran's airfield would be top priority, and I doubt any Iranian aircraft can match the new super hornets.

Of course, none of this is really the deciding factor. It's the guys behind it. The US has some of the brightest and most intelligent people working in it's military. Cap't Brian Chontosh. Sgt. Paul Smith. SPC Prosser, many others.

I was an EW in the Navy and my job was anti-ship missile defense. Trust me on this.




Trusting on the internet is like giving a blind person a gun, it usually just ends up getting you in the ass.


SO, he used the commercial shipping channels to bring the ships close enough?


And what was it about the prop planes?

Iran may be harder than Iraq, but this is well, crazy.

What a nutter.

Iran's Sunburst missiles are launched by Aircraft. Destruction of Iran's airfield would be top priority, and I doubt any Iranian aircraft can match the new super hornets.

Did you just ignore what I mentioned? I remember specifically mentioning land based cruise missile launchers. Given the range on the newer missiles, they never have to be mounted on craft to cover the whole gulf.

Besides, I think you've quoted the wrong section.


Of course, none of this is really the deciding factor. It's the guys behind it. The US has some of the brightest and most intelligent people working in it's military. Cap't Brian Chontosh. Sgt. Paul Smith. SPC Prosser, many others.

It also has got some people who from all appearances, whine like kindergarten kids when they lose. And these people are up top. Not a captain, not a lieutenant. No. It's the command staff.

People who don't learn from past mistakes are doomed to failure.

Here is the deal: The Iranians have actually said that pre-emptive strikes are not an exclusive means to the Americans.

Iraq sat there and waited for the US to mass its troops. Iran will not.

Iran can fight best on land. So what will they do? They will attack US Forces in Iraq and maybe Afghanistan, thus forcing the US into the defensive before they are even ready. This has not happened for decades, and we can't tell what might happen.

A war with Iran will destroy Iraq, destroy Lebanon, get Israel bombed again (probably resulting in Israeli forces trying to crush Hezbollah in Lebanon: Civil War II) and so on and so forth.
Not to forget the Kurds declaring independence and getting attacked by the Turks.

I'd prefer not to go to war with Iran, because it will probably cost a lot more than it is worth. Only as a very last resort, and with everything NATO has to offer would I want to consider it.

I think I'd like to add to all this speculation that it remain just that.

Entering another war at this point would be unadultered, pure stupidity.

Thanks for sharing, now move along.
Democratic Underground is the ultimate tinfoil hat forum on the Internet. That explains the idiotic assertion that Iran would win in a military showdown with the US.

That said, it looks like the US is going to let the Europeans drive this one - their leaders will talk, and talk, and talk, until the Iranians do something stupid.

It's worth the wait. I'd love to see the looks on peoples' faces when Iran nukes something without provocation. And then those same people who were clamoring against pre-emptive action will look as stupid as Chamberlain.

In fact, I'm waiting for a EU representative to step out of a meeting with Iranians waving a piece of paper, claiming "peace in our time" just days before the nukes go off.

In fact, I'm waiting for a EU representative to step out of a meeting with Iranians waving a piece of paper, claiming "peace in our time" just days before the nukes go off.
Which would be what?

That's right: A failure of the intelligence services.

And who's supposed to be the best, the great leader of the Western intelligence services?

Iran has a fairly large stockpile of cruise missiles one would think, and it cannot be denied that they are shopping for the newer and more sophisticated models from Russia. If the US fleet becomes involved in an Iranian conflict, of which I assure you the generals will demand, we might see the matter actually occur in real life rather than a simulation.

Then we will see red faces and calls for the nuclear option. Why? Because they wouldn't want to admit defeat.

Actually, given the nature of the Iranian threat, our attack would probably begin with nukes to take out their major weapons stocks.

Iran = much tougher than Iraq?

Didn't Iraq fight Iran to a standstill a while ago? We all know how pathetic Iraq's armed forces were...

Maybe they didn't have cruise missiles then...?

Iran = much tougher than Iraq?

Didn't Iraq fight Iran to a standstill a while ago? We all know how pathetic Iraq's armed forces were...

Maybe they didn't have cruise missiles then...?

Iraq had been undergoing ten years of sanctions, remember? It used to be very hardcore.

Actually, given the nature of the Iranian threat, our attack would probably begin with nukes to take out their major weapons stocks.

Oh goody. Then we can see Chechnya go up in a mushroom cloud too. Unprovoked nuclear strikes? What next? India and Pakistan have a little spat and accidently glass a big section of the Kashmiri region? Perhaps Russia thinking: we've got so many of the big ones, and the Americanskis are using them too. Why shouldn't we?

You want to set the board for total nuclear war, that's probably the best way to go about it. With first strike nuclear weapons. Everybody else would join in too and no way in hell would the US be able to squeak a voice in protest without seeming like the biggest damn hypocrites in the world. Not that they would have that long to squeak anyways.

The only ones who are loony enough to think that the rest of the world won't follow deserve to spend the rest of their lives in padded cells and far away from red buttons.

Wow, that has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard...thanks ARF:D

Anyways, I've got a few questions...who are Iran's allies, and how will China get to Wisconsin without attacking Canada? I also like the four month surrender...apparently China will be able to mobilize, transport, and protect a force sufficent to occupy half of North America in four months.

I've seen more cogent things in North Korean newspapers.


I like how the deadly Iranian missles will crush our aircraft carriers...even though we'd annihiliate their airforce and missle systems before they could even launch them. And even if they did, we'd shoot them down.

If we attacked Iran, it'd be tougher than Iraq but not impossible or incredibly costly. The primary concern is the other nations of the Middle East, although I don't think the Sunnis would be particularly caring for the Shiite theocracy.

Anyways, I've got a few questions...who are Iran's allies, and how will China get to Wisconsin without attacking Canada? I also like the four month surrender...apparently China will be able to mobilize, transport, and protect a force sufficent to occupy half of North America in four months.


Yeah, what with their huge navy and all.:rolleyes:

And why would India come to Iran's aid?:confused:

Yeah, what with their huge navy and all.:rolleyes:

Yeah, and not like we have any airbases in Japan or anything...but that's the DU for you.

And why would India come to Iran's aid?:confused:

I'm kind of wondering about that one too...India has nothing to gain from siding with India, and I'm pretty sure the 800 million or so Hindus aren't going to side with the radical Islamic theocracy that wants them and all other non-Muslims killed or converted.

Actually, I don't think anyone would really have any reason to side with Iran.

And why would India come to Iran's aid?:confused:

Maybe it's raining outside and they've nothing else to do?

Note to self, check DU for daily laugh more often.

Note to self, check DU for daily laugh more often.
Yes indeed. Imagine that, someone saying something stupid on the internet. There sould be an inquiry. A censorship board should be established. Because no one has ever before said anything stupid on the internet, have they? DU is an abomination, a plauge upon mankind. And we should stop at nothing until it and all of its members are crucified atop the highest hill in Washinton.

Yes indeed. Imagine that, someone saying something stupid on the internet. There should be an inquiry. A censorship board should be established. Because no one has ever before said anything stupid on the internet, have they? DU is an abomination, a plague upon mankind. And we should stop at nothing until it and all of its members are crucified atop the highest hill in Washington.

A Censorship Board would deprive me of such fine comedic matter.

I like how the deadly Iranian missles will crush our aircraft carriers...even though we'd annihiliate their airforce and missle systems before they could even launch them. And even if they did, we'd shoot them down.


An anti-shipping cruise missile is an anti-shipping cruise missile. If an old dinosaur like the Silkworm missile can do it, anything Iran can field would be up to the job. As for shooting them down, it would be interesting to see how systems designed to operate in open waters perform in the relatively tight quarters of the gulf.

An anti-shipping cruise missile is an anti-shipping cruise missile. If an old dinosaur like the Silkworm missile can do it, anything Iran can field would be up to the job. As for shooting them down, it would be interesting to see how systems designed to operate in open waters perform in the relatively tight quarters of the gulf.

Of course, the ideal situation would be to disable them beforehand; however, we'd also have to take in to account that we could probably base a large number of aircraft on land in Iraq or another country if necessary. It's pretty much dependent on how many missles Iran has and how well prepared our defenses are.

Personally, I'd guess that the antimissle systems have been improved to a point where they would be able to pretty much fend off all but the largest assault by Iran.

Oh goody. Then we can see Chechnya go up in a mushroom cloud too. Unprovoked nuclear strikes? What next? India and Pakistan have a little spat and accidently glass a big section of the Kashmiri region? Perhaps Russia thinking: we've got so many of the big ones, and the Americanskis are using them too. Why shouldn't we?

You want to set the board for total nuclear war, that's probably the best way to go about it. With first strike nuclear weapons. Everybody else would join in too and no way in hell would the US be able to squeak a voice in protest without seeming like the biggest damn hypocrites in the world. Not that they would have that long to squeak anyways.

The only ones who are loony enough to think that the rest of the world won't follow deserve to spend the rest of their lives in padded cells and far away from red buttons.
Um, I never said we would be the ones moving first. Unprovoked invasion at the drop of a hat isn't our style. The whole iranian invasion will probably start with them launching on us or on the israelis with either chem or nuke weapons.

Um, I never said we would be the ones moving first. Unprovoked invasion at the drop of a hat isn't our style. The whole iranian invasion will probably start with them launching on us or on the israelis with either chem or nuke weapons.


I'm betting the Israelis are ready for an Iranian vacation. They're still pissed off about HAMAS too.

Did you just ignore what I mentioned? I remember specifically mentioning land based cruise missile launchers. Given the range on the newer missiles, they never have to be mounted on craft to cover the whole gulf.

Besides, I think you've quoted the wrong section.

It also has got some people who from all appearances, whine like kindergarten kids when they lose. And these people are up top. Not a captain, not a lieutenant. No. It's the command staff.

People who don't learn from past mistakes are doomed to failure.

Even if Iran did have land based launcher, they aren't going to dent the US naval fleet. Do you really think a bunch of 3rd-world retards who cannot even keep their own air force up and running are capable of attacking a distant naval fleet and damage it?

The one area that Iranians have the advantage in is small arms-They pretty much use obsolete soviet stuff that runs perfectly everytime.

Do you really think a bunch of 3rd-world retards who cannot even keep their own air force up and running are capable of attacking a distant naval fleet and damage it?
It took a lot less to blow up the USS Cole.

Fact is that a good missile is cheaper than a good anti-missile system. Iran has plenty of money to spend on its military, and chances are that it has the minds to match it.

Furthermore, the geography of Iraq was made for the US Military. Big, flat planes of sand, long, straight roads and nothing for the enemy to hide.
Iran isn't like that. The new methods of the US Military have not yet been tested in anything but the optimal conditions, namely in Iraq against an already destroyed army.

And have you ever had a look at pictures from Tehran? "Third-World Retards" they ain't.
http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rjafari/personal/pics/tehran/09.jpg

As for the air force...tell me, why would Iran want to keep a strong air force? The US will shoot it down anyways, even if they spend their entire budget on it.
Would it not be much smarter to spend that money on things to hurt an enemy even without controlling the skies?

Hey! WTF does this idiocy have to do with me? Huh? Huh? Huh? :p

It took a lot less to blow up the USS Cole.

The USS cole was not blown up, rendered inoperable, or destroyed. It was a fully functional destroyer before hand, and a fully functional one afterwards. Had the Ragheads decided to storm the destroyer, they would have been greeted with return fire.

Fact is that a good missile is cheaper than a good anti-missile system. Iran has plenty of money to spend on its military, and chances are that it has the minds to match it.

Furthermore, the geography of Iraq was made for the US Military. Big, flat planes of sand, long, straight roads and nothing for the enemy to hide.
Iran isn't like that. The new methods of the US Military have not yet been tested in anything but the optimal conditions, namely in Iraq against an already destroyed army.

We improvise, jerry-rig, and compensate. It's nothing new. Such as when Ragheads started holing up in houses loaded with explosives and heavy-caliber weapons. They couldn't bypass the houses, so what did they do? They don't want to use a super-expensive tank missile (Dragon, TOW, etc), so they dug old M72 LAW's out of storage and used those to demolish buildings. I've heard they're getting good enough to where they only need 3-4 to tear down a building.



And have you ever had a look at pictures from Tehran? "Third-World Retards" they ain't.
http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rjafari/personal/pics/tehran/09.jpg

The people of Iran are suffering under an oppressive government that stifles human liberties. Politically an invasion might not even be needed because the government might collapse on it's own.

As for the air force...tell me, why would Iran want to keep a strong air force? The US will shoot it down anyways, even if they spend their entire budget on it.

I dunno...I'd think they'd need an airforce to launch those sunburst missiles....

Would it not be much smarter to spend that money on things to hurt an enemy even without controlling the skies?

It's sort hard to win a battle without controlling the skies. Whoever has air superiority can call in all sorts of fun things-air strikes, carpet bombing, napalm, WP, etc.

This is a bitch to quote. Do it properly.

The USS cole was not blown up, rendered inoperable, or destroyed. It was a fully functional destroyer before hand, and a fully functional one afterwards. Had the Ragheads decided to storm the destroyer, they would have been greeted with return fire.
a) Don't call them ragheads. They are not rags. And besides, wanna bet that US Soldiers got all sorts of towels on their heads in the sand storms?

b) The concept is the same. In this simulation for example, very similar tactics were used to greater effect. I'd assume that the Iranian Military could provide the same sort of concept with a lot more BOOM than a bunch of terrorists could.

We improvise, jerry-rig, and compensate. It's nothing new.
And they don't?
Fact of the matter is that using an old LAW missile to destroy civilian property is not going to win a war for you. Abrams formations cannot function as well in the mountains. Forests and so on provide infantry and even tank forces with protection from air assaults.
And the Iranian Army is a lot bigger than the Iraqi one, and probably set up to survive Shock & Awe-type attacks on its command system intact. And don't forget that Iranians like their country, and will tolerate their leader (kinda like Americans and Bush) - unlike the Iraqis, they will not give themselves up on sight. Especially if their leadership actually's got a plan, which I think they do.

The people of Iran are suffering under an oppressive government that stifles human liberties. Politically an invasion might not even be needed because the government might collapse on it's own.
Yeah. Right.
The people had a choice between a reformist and a conservative, between more Westernisation, and more "Morality". They chose the latter.
I'm afraid the Iranians prefer the issues with their government to something they would no doubt see as a sell-out to the West.
They might change the President, but they won't change the style of government.

Nonetheless, you called them "third world retards", which makes you look mighty stupid.

I dunno...I'd think they'd need an airforce to launch those sunburst missiles....
Here's the deal.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Missile/2420.html

They've got more than just these few Sunbursts. And for the tactic used in the Millennium Challenge, you don't need anything that fancy anyway. Silkworms will do just as well, if fired from close enough.
And how hard can it be to put a Sunburst Missile on a land, or ship-based launch site? Don't you think they would've worked that out by now?

EDIT:
Actually, not very hard at all. A bit of research confirmed that this "Sunburst" Missile everyone is talking about is actually the Russian SS-22-N "Sunburn". It's fired primarily from missile destroyers, but can probably be launched from land as well. Not like the technology required is any different.
The Iranians have also expressed interest in purchasing the relevant ships (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/1242.htm) from Russia.
As is, the Sunburn looks rather dangerous, because it flies very low (<20m) and very fast (triple the speed of the US Harpoon), leaving almost no time for defensive maneuvres. Problem for the Iranians is just that so far it looks like if they got any, they only have eight of them, and they only have a range of 120km or so - meaning that a Carrier Group could probably not be attacked from the coast.
http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/antiship/3m80.asp

If the Iranians have any, they are dangerous. They will take out a big ship in one shot.

It's sort hard to win a battle without controlling the skies. Whoever has air superiority can call in all sorts of fun things-air strikes, carpet bombing, napalm, WP, etc.
That's the point.
They would be spending their money and time on working out how to keep resisting despite the US being able to call down all these things. Remember, in Afghanistan it was locals who did the fighting with US Air Support. In Iran, it would have to be all American forces.

All I am saying is that no war plan ever survives contact with the enemy. Iran is not a push-over like Iraq was.
Chances are that a war would drag on for some time, enemy forces would eventually retreat into the mountains and stay there for years. Then US Forces would have to deal with another occupation, bigger and possibly just as violent as Iraq ... with Pakistan just across the border.

Um, I never said we would be the ones moving first. Unprovoked invasion at the drop of a hat isn't our style. The whole iranian invasion will probably start with them launching on us or on the israelis with either chem or nuke weapons.

An Iranian attack like that would be rather unlikely. Not unless the leaders there have collectively lost it. The mullahs would pull Khatami down if he was going to start something like that. Especially with that much US force available so close.

Unless of course we see a repeat of the whole US/Iraq pre-invasion thing with things such as "final solutions" and "last resort" rhetoric. Not to mention whatever charges they can cook up to convince congress.


Even if Iran did have land based launcher, they aren't going to dent the US naval fleet. Do you really think a bunch of 3rd-world retards who cannot even keep their own air force up and running are capable of attacking a distant naval fleet and damage it?

An air force that requires parts that aren't available anymore for maintanence? Any fool would know that without parts to maintain machines will have them break down eventually. And guess where those parts used to come from. The USA. Which is why the Russians are now mostly selling their hardware to Iran at a decent rate.

Besides, someone who played as a retard with prop driven planes, which incidently are much easier to maintain than jet fighters, as well as pleasure boats, managed to not just dent, but cripple an entire fleet.

Perhaps your obvious brown skin prejudice is making you put on blinkers to the ideas that the US is not infallible. Just like a certain General who "refloated" his dead fleet because he couldn't accept he was a retard with a retarded plan.

In a real world situation, said General would have been removed from his post for such a failure.

In your case? With all that talk about "being on time" for an Iranian invasion? You'd just probably be dead. Drowned perhaps.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry, this is histerical stuff. Pulled from DU. Eutrusca is gonna have a field day with this one!

___________________________________________________
LynnTheDem (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-06-06 02:06 PM
Original message
A US soldier's predicition if bush is stupid enough to strike Iran...
Edited on Fri Jan-06-06 02:23 PM by LynnTheDem

***20,000+ US troops dead within the first week.

Iran's Sunburn missiles will take out every US ship in the Gulf.

Iran's allies will step into the fray.

-snip-
Pretty fucking idiotic stuff.

Just to be very clear though...things can happen in war that one did not anticipate.
And Iran is a lot more powerful than Iraq.
"China occupying Wisconsin" is where it really went out the window.

Unless of course we see a repeat of the whole US/Iraq pre-invasion thing with things such as "final solutions" and "last resort" rhetoric. Not to mention whatever charges they can cook up to convince congress.

I doubt you'll see agression on the American side. Much easier just to wait until the Iranian president's term runs out.

I doubt you'll see agression on the American side. Much easier just to wait until the Iranian president's term runs out.

Maybe, but patience hasn't exactly been a strong suit of the current administration.

Democratic Underground is the ultimate tinfoil hat forum on the Internet. That explains the idiotic assertion that Iran would win in a military showdown with the US.

That said, it looks like the US is going to let the Europeans drive this one - their leaders will talk, and talk, and talk, until the Iranians do something stupid.

It's worth the wait. I'd love to see the looks on peoples' faces when Iran nukes something without provocation. And then those same people who were clamoring against pre-emptive action will look as stupid as Chamberlain.

In fact, I'm waiting for a EU representative to step out of a meeting with Iranians waving a piece of paper, claiming "peace in our time" just days before the nukes go off.
I've never understood this American attitude to Chamberlain and appeasement. How do they teach that episode in American schools?

Maybe, but patience hasn't exactly been a strong suit of the current administration.

What gets me was that the Iranians would probably have modernised by now if it wasn't for Bush. Iran was reforming, civil liberties were improving, dress codes were being pushed, but then Bush tried to impress the American voters by effectively ordering the Iranians to reform 'or else'. This threat led to the Iranians rallying around the hardliners to show that they would not be intimidated.

I've never understood this American attitude to Chamberlain and appeasement. How do they teach that episode in American schools?
It begins with the quote "Peace in our time," which speaks volumes about the lack of concern for the future, and ends with "appeasement is never a good idea, especially when all the aggressor wants is 'more.'"

It begins with the quote "Peace in our time," which speaks volumes about the lack of concern for the future, and ends with "appeasement is never a good idea, especially when all the aggressor wants is 'more.'"
I don't mean an opinion as to whether appeasement worked or not; history has answered that. I mean the attitude that many Americans seem to show when they use the episode to try to show European cowardice and lack of moral fibre contrasted with American virtue. All this from a country that at the time had absolutely no intention of going to war with Hitler and moreover a country that wasn't under any threat if a war broke out from either invasion or bombing, and one that had suffered comparatively little in the Great War both economically and in terms of deaths.

It begins with the quote "Peace in our time," which speaks volumes about the lack of concern for the future, and ends with "appeasement is never a good idea, especially when all the aggressor wants is 'more.'"

As opposed to the current idea of "War now, screw the future"?

I've never understood this American attitude to Chamberlain and appeasement. How do they teach that episode in American schools?

I don't know what they teach in your country, but it's a long standing joke here in the US that Chamberlain and the peaceniks of his time who abhorred war were responsible for emboldening Hitler, aiding Hitler, and allowing the nascent Hitler to become dangerously powerful.

We learn from this history lesson that just because "negotiations" are occurring, they usually end up aiding the bad guys in terms of time and leverage.

I don't know what they teach in your country, but it's a long standing joke here in the US that Chamberlain and the peaceniks of his time who abhorred war were responsible for emboldening Hitler, aiding Hitler, and allowing the nascent Hitler to become dangerously powerful.

We learn from this history lesson that just because "negotiations" are occurring, they usually end up aiding the bad guys in terms of time and leverage.
His argument is a bit more nuanced than that. Additionally, you're making the dangerous mistake of assuming that all historical periods are the same. Preempting Hitler probably made sense, whereas preempting Iran is an awful idea (kids, can you spell "overstretch" and "insurgency?") Neither preemption nor negotiation are always good ideas or always bad ideas. Each situation is different.


As for Yossarian's argument (love the name!), not all Americans use Chamberlain to make Europeans look bad and Americans look good. Our history classes simply teach appeasement as a massive failure on the part of both the Europeans and the Americans. In fact, American isolationism is also given very bad press in the history textbooks, especially when it comes to the Holocaust.

I don't know what they teach in your country, but it's a long standing joke here in the US that Chamberlain and the peaceniks of his time who abhorred war were responsible for emboldening Hitler, aiding Hitler, and allowing the nascent Hitler to become dangerously powerful.
That's how they teach it in the US. However, by the time of the Munich Agreement, Germany was already very strong, and Hitler was looking for a fight, since he thought he could take on the Western allies. Great Britain and France, also thought the same (although in reality Germany was not as strong, but Hitler's propaganda machine made it seem otherwise).

That was only part of the reason. Another part is that Hitler was not seen as such a bad chap in the West. Not like that Stalin fellow or other dictators in Eastern Europe. In fact, Hitler was still being praised for his leadership and economic recovery of Germany. Both by the Western European countries and by the USA. So, negotiation with him was seen as a perfectly acceptable course of action.

We learn from this history lesson that just because "negotiations" are occurring, they usually end up aiding the bad guys in terms of time and leverage.
That's a very simplistic outlook, not to mention distorted, which is why people in other places wonder how this episode is taught in the US. Although, in all due honesty, I doubt Europeans get a complete history of America in their school lessons.

Iran = much tougher than Iraq?

Didn't Iraq fight Iran to a standstill a while ago? We all know how pathetic Iraq's armed forces were...

Maybe they didn't have cruise missiles then...?

Didn't Iraq have the US backing them during that war? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's WHERE Saddam got all of his "WMDs", we gave them to him. Just like we gave the Taliban weapons and training when they were fighting Russia. So no, Iraq didn't fight Iran to a standstil, Iraq with US backing fought Iran to a standstill. Just like Isreal with US backing fought what, 6 countries at once and took massive amounts of land doing it (too bad the UN made them give it back)

It begins with the quote "Peace in our time," which speaks volumes about the lack of concern for the future, and ends with "appeasement is never a good idea, especially when all the aggressor wants is 'more.'"

Thing is, Britain was in no way ready to fight a war then. The year earned by Munich allowed Britain to pump up her fleet and air forces. Further, it was thought that Germany had a far larger army than it did; the British and French were paranoid about that.

Further, Iran isn't being particularly aggressive about anything except wanting to have nuclear fusion reactors. Methinks cries of "They're going to start bombing people if we don't invade now!" are just examples of toeing the party line.

This is a bitch to quote. Do it properly.


a) Don't call them ragheads. They are not rags. And besides, wanna bet that US Soldiers got all sorts of towels on their heads in the sand storms?



b) The concept is the same. In this simulation for example, very similar tactics were used to greater effect. I'd assume that the Iranian Military could provide the same sort of concept with a lot more BOOM than a bunch of terrorists could.


And they don't?
Fact of the matter is that using an old LAW missile to destroy civilian property is not going to win a war for you. Abrams formations cannot function as well in the mountains. Forests and so on provide infantry and even tank forces with protection from air assaults.
And the Iranian Army is a lot bigger than the Iraqi one, and probably set up to survive Shock & Awe-type attacks on its command system intact. And don't forget that Iranians like their country, and will tolerate their leader (kinda like Americans and Bush) - unlike the Iraqis, they will not give themselves up on sight. Especially if their leadership actually's got a plan, which I think they do.


Yeah. Right.
The people had a choice between a reformist and a conservative, between more Westernisation, and more "Morality". They chose the latter.
I'm afraid the Iranians prefer the issues with their government to something they would no doubt see as a sell-out to the West.
They might change the President, but they won't change the style of government.

Nonetheless, you called them "third world retards", which makes you look mighty stupid.


Here's the deal.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Missile/2420.html

They've got more than just these few Sunbursts. And for the tactic used in the Millennium Challenge, you don't need anything that fancy anyway. Silkworms will do just as well, if fired from close enough.
And how hard can it be to put a Sunburst Missile on a land, or ship-based launch site? Don't you think they would've worked that out by now?

EDIT:
Actually, not very hard at all. A bit of research confirmed that this "Sunburst" Missile everyone is talking about is actually the Russian SS-22-N "Sunburn". It's fired primarily from missile destroyers, but can probably be launched from land as well. Not like the technology required is any different.
The Iranians have also expressed interest in purchasing the relevant ships (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/1242.htm) from Russia.
As is, the Sunburn looks rather dangerous, because it flies very low (<20m) and very fast (triple the speed of the US Harpoon), leaving almost no time for defensive maneuvres. Problem for the Iranians is just that so far it looks like if they got any, they only have eight of them, and they only have a range of 120km or so - meaning that a Carrier Group could probably not be attacked from the coast.
http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/antiship/3m80.asp

If the Iranians have any, they are dangerous. They will take out a big ship in one shot.


That's the point.
They would be spending their money and time on working out how to keep resisting despite the US being able to call down all these things. Remember, in Afghanistan it was locals who did the fighting with US Air Support. In Iran, it would have to be all American forces.

All I am saying is that no war plan ever survives contact with the enemy. Iran is not a push-over like Iraq was.
Chances are that a war would drag on for some time, enemy forces would eventually retreat into the mountains and stay there for years. Then US Forces would have to deal with another occupation, bigger and possibly just as violent as Iraq ... with Pakistan just across the border.

Agreed, no plan ever does.

8 Sunburn's aren't enough to do a ton of damage. I had been told they are air-launched missiles. US Naval Anti-missile systems are still capable of shooting down Sunburns-it's multilayered and is capable of putting up a wall of flak in front of an approaching missile. They would have to saturate the defensive systems to get a few in, but it doesn't look like they have the numbers to do it. If they could get some Torpedo tube launched Suburns for those Kilo subs they have, they'd stand a much better chance of damaging a carrier or other US vessel.

The Iranians I would most worry about are those "Red Brigades". They have crappy equipment, but they are motivated and eager to fight.

Using a LAW to destroy an insurgent/terrorist hideout kills terrorists. Good enough for me. Certainly can't just bypass the house, or go inside the building and engage the ragheads.

I've seen US Soldiers wear keffiyahs in Sandstorms. It's certainly a good way to keep the sun off your neck. "Raghead" is a demeaning term. It's supposed to be for peope running around beheading innocent people, bombing crowded market places and whatnot. I've worn a keffiyah once....running down my hall at school with an AK mag vest on screaming "ALLAHU ACKBAR!". Gives me that Lawrence of Arabia look :D

AFAIK no M1 tanks have been deployed to Afghanistan. Simply not practicle, and not a good idea. Lighter forces with heavy artillery and air support are better. We learned from the Russians n that regard.

"Raghead" is a demeaning term. It's supposed to be for peope running around beheading innocent people, bombing crowded market places and whatnot.

So why did you claim that everybody who has been on a pilgrimage to Mecca is a 'raghead'? Are they all running around beheading innocent people, bombing crowded market places and whatnot?

Islamist=Terrorist=Middle eastern camel jockey=Hadjis= raghead= sand monkey

US Naval Anti-missile systems are still capable of shooting down Sunburns-it's multilayered and is capable of putting up a wall of flak in front of an approaching missile.
Perhaps, but as far as I can tell, these things are the best in the business right now, specifically designed by the Russians to get around the modern defenses of US Carrier Groups.
But the Iranians may lack the means to deploy them properly, which is where it comes crashing down.

The Iranians I would most worry about are those "Red Brigades". They have crappy equipment, but they are motivated and eager to fight.
Most Iranians would be. Remember the Iran/Iraq War? They still consider that a heroic battle, and it was horribly bloody and for a long time the Iranians seemed totally outclassed and could only keep going with human wave-style tactics.
The leadership would invoke that sort of patriotism again, and as I said, Iraqis hated their government, Iranians don't.

AFAIK no M1 tanks have been deployed to Afghanistan. Simply not practicle, and not a good idea. Lighter forces with heavy artillery and air support are better. We learned from the Russians n that regard.
Iran is a big place, you'll have to have significant forces on the ground, and if tanks can't operate, then that is a bad thing for the US, one way or another.
Afghanistan was fought with ground forces, it's just that those were provided by the Northern Alliance, which took a lot of casualties. As I said, this time, those casualties will be taken by the US Forces.

And you haven't really addressed the issue of what is to be done once the Iranian military has retreated into the hills and cities and you have to occupy a country 2-3 times the size and population of Iraq.

China will be occupying Wisconsin within 3 months.


And that's without Iranian allies India, Pakistan & China (or the rest of the world)throwing nukes at us.


These two contradict each other.

Trusting on the internet is like giving a blind person a gun, it usually just ends up getting you in the ass.


SO, he used the commercial shipping channels to bring the ships close enough?


And what was it about the prop planes?

And they weren't warned off? The battle group ships weren't running Emcon? Air assets weren't running visial identificaion of these commercial ships?

Wow. Back when I was in the Persian gulf, we were a bit more thorough than that...

Wow. Back when I was in the Persian gulf, we were a bit more thorough than that...
Well I'd assume that they would have taken the lesson from this simulation to heart.
It was an example to illustrate that things can happen that one is not prepared for, and that any enemy (especially Iran though) needs to be taken seriously, no more, no less.

But now that you're back, what can you tell me from personal experience about the SS-N-22 "Sunburn" Missile?

Perhaps, but as far as I can tell, these things are the best in the business right now, specifically designed by the Russians to get around the modern defenses of US Carrier Groups.
But the Iranians may lack the means to deploy them properly, which is where it comes crashing down.

I studied the Sunburn missiles. Lives rode on my ability to do my job well, so I studied and drilled a lot. And you're right; Sunburns are dangerous.

They have multiple tracking systems. Not just two. Not just three. Four! It is a heat-seeker, an anti-radiation missile, a homing missile and a remotely targeted missile. That's a nasty missile to deal with.

However, there are several advantages the U.S. navy has against it:

First of all, we know the missile. We've had intelligence on it since it was created near the end of the Cold War.

Second, it's a huge son of a bitch. Not just anything can launch it. In fact, I'd be amazed if Iran had anything other than air assets that could. The idea of launching it from a commercial vessel is laughable. The idea that the launchers could be hidden from visual inspection from naval, satellite and aerial assets is ludicrous. So we know what assets can fire them.

Third, they still nee targets. You don't just put them into the air and let them do their job. That requires targeting radars. U.S. Naval ES and EA systems specifically look for and react to these radars. Especially emanating from potential threats. We neutralize these targeting radars and reduce their effectiveness so that the radiating target can be taken out before launch. A 90 second delay in their targeting is an eternity for air assets to eliminate the threat.

Fourth, even IF these missiles were launched at a ship in a batttle group, a properly trained crew can deal with each of these tracking systems that the Sunburn carries.

Fifth, if all else fails, CIWS still has a 50-50 chance of downing any missile.

Thanks for that. Now I know a lot more. :)

Thanks for that. Now I know a lot more. :)

As a former EW, the missiles I used to sweat the most:

Silkworms(and similar)

and

Exocets.

Silkworms because they were small, could be fired from numerous platfroms from short range and could have one of three different homing systems.

Exocets... You know what? I still can't tell you. :p Suffice to say, that I hated exocets.

Silkworms because they were small, could be fired from numerous platfroms from short range and could have one of three different homing systems.
Hmm...the Iranians are building them themselves by now. I'd suspect they have quite an arsenal.

Hmm...the Iranians are building them themselves by now. I'd suspect they have quite an arsenal.

Fortunately, they're short range and still need targeting radars to fire.

Big-ass targeting radars with big-ass dishes that show up nicely on satellite photos. :)

But being in range of one of those big-ass dishes sucked. You were always looking for them to switch on.

But being in range of one of those big-ass dishes sucked. You were always looking for them to switch on.
Well, I suppose that comes with the job.

My dad used to serve in the Anti-Air troops in a radar truck. Apparently they reckoned they'd have had about 20 minutes before some sort of HARM missile blew them to smithereens if the Soviets actually ever attacked.

So the worrying is mutual. ;)

Fortunately, they're short range and still need targeting radars to fire.

Didn't the simulation have them firing from pleasure boats? I don't think a 20 foot speed boat could carry it, but the larger 50 foot or so boats should be able to fit them nicely I think. Where was the radar for that? Or could it be slaved to navigate via standard navigation radars?

Didn't the simulation have them firing from pleasure boats? I don't think a 20 foot speed boat could carry it, but the larger 50 foot or so boats should be able to fit them nicely I think. Where was the radar for that? Or could it be slaved to navigate via standard navigation radars?

At very short range, maybe. Navigational radars are far too grainy and their scan-type isn't proper for the job. But I've heard of it being done. Again, it brings up the question of why those small craft are so close to military vessels in a potential combat theatrewithout being warned off or visually identified.

At very short range, maybe. Navigational radars are far too grainy and their scan-type isn't proper for the job. But I've heard of it being done. Again, it brings up the question of why those small craft are so close to military vessels in a potential combat theatrewithout being warned off or visually identified.

You don't have to be THAT far off do you? I'm not sure what area the US fleet uses as a "no approach" zone, but if you can spot it visually, won't your standard navigation radars provide you with a good enough lock to fire with a reasonable chance of hitting?

Heck, you could use basic prop planes with jury-rigged radar mounts for terminal guidance wouldn't you? Sure, you lose the plane, but it's cheap and if all it will do is just provide radar coverage at a specific time, you could probably have a basic automated system fly it.

Either that or they could replace the seeker heads with HARM types for a second salvo after the first activates all the countermeasures. Not a bad tactic I think.

You don't have to be THAT far off do you? I'm not sure what area the US fleet uses as a "no approach" zone, but if you can spot it visually, won't your standard navigation radars provide you with a good enough lock to fire with a reasonable chance of hitting?

Heck, you could use basic prop planes with jury-rigged radar mounts for terminal guidance wouldn't you? Sure, you lose the plane, but it's cheap and if all it will do is just provide radar coverage at a specific time, you could probably have a basic automated system fly it.

Either that or they could replace the seeker heads with HARM types for a second salvo after the first activates all the countermeasures. Not a bad tactic I think.

Terminal guidance uses doppler radars. Very easy to spot and CIWS wouldshred a slow flier like a prop plane.

The first idea is the most likely scenario. Short-range missile fire from small craft with heat-seeking missiles. Warning would be minimal. That's why I don't understand what these small craft are doing in such proximity to U.S. warships.

I think either the computerized scenario where that general won had some serious flaws, underestimates Naval ASMD (Which everybody seems to do, much to my annoyance) or some rather naive naval commanders.

The Royal Navy lost a Destroyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Coventry_%28D118%29) to ”dumb bombs” during the Falkland war. And that’s despite having some of the most sophisticated anti-air systems of the time.

I’m not saying that it will happen to the US navy. I’m just saying that it could…

Terminal guidance uses doppler radars. Very easy to spot and CIWS wouldshred a slow flier like a prop plane.

Hmmm, as I understand it, the CIWS mounts a M61 20mm cannon. At least the existing M15 PHALANX. The range on that is about several thousand yards. Don't dopplar radars have longer ranges?


The first idea is the most likely scenario. Short-range missile fire from small craft with heat-seeking missiles. Warning would be minimal. That's why I don't understand what these small craft are doing in such proximity to U.S. warships.

The gulf isn't that big a stretch of water I think. What are the ranges of those "no entry" zones? I don't think it would be greater than beyond visual range if I'm not mistaken.


I think either the computerized scenario where that general won had some serious flaws, underestimates Naval ASMD (Which everybody seems to do, much to my annoyance) or some rather naive naval commanders.

A combination of all of the above I believe. Not to mention hubris by high command.

Hmmm, as I understand it, the CIWS mounts a M61 20mm cannon. At least the existing M15 PHALANX. The range on that is about several thousand yards. Don't dopplar radars have longer ranges?


All the better to detect the incoming plane and shoot it down when it's within a few thousand yards. ;)

Sucks if the Iranians had a few A-50's laying around.

And don't give me this shit that you would shoot them down before hand. I don't see Americans shooting down the A-50's patrolling around the Baltic Countries...

50-50 chance for CIWS? Source, other than your own "experience" that cannot be confirmed on the internetz0rz. Hell, I invented the Yakhont ASM, but I'm too lazy to prove it.

Now, seriously, was it the Sunburn, Moskit, or Yakhont that did S-Shaped turns with a very small terminal phase with large warhead at mach 3? Me thinks it was the Yakhont...

Anyways, It would seem that Iran has quite a few Scud Missiles... and I'd bet they would be in better shape than Iraq's, what with the no sanctions and all.

In all cases, I'd imagine the United States would force sanctions upon Iran, just like Iraq, and then this whole discussion would be irrelevant.

Oh and one last thing... how did the Russian Missiles hold up against the Phalanx? last I heard you boys had 120 seconds to respond against a sub-sonic missile... half that for supersonic, half again for sea-skimmers... not to mention those big fuckers with the armoured warheads designed to deflect 20mm shells. I'll stop trashing American CIWS when you boys get something like the Kashtan or when you put up the Millenium Gun.

50-50 chance for CIWS? Source, other than your own "experience" that cannot be confirmed on the internetz0rz. Hell, I invented the Yakhont ASM, but I'm too lazy to prove it.


No need to get nasty. The 50-50 chance thing was told to us EWs to scare us into making sure to take our job seriously. For all I know, it could be considerably higher...or lower. Though, if it were lower, I suspect they would give us accurate numbers to scare us further.

Suffice to say, those aren't good odds as compared to what a well-trained EW crew can do with proper equipment.

I've heard much lower actually. Something like 10% chance of interception based on newer missiles.

So, how do you think a US fleet would do versus a Yakhont or Moskit equiped Iran? (Or god forbid, Brahmos from India) Russia thought a single Oscar II armed with either of the two could destroy an entire American Carrier Battle Group... your thoughts? I'd imagine you would have a better idea on this, than the rest of us?

All the better to detect the incoming plane and shoot it down when it's within a few thousand yards. ;)

So why the heck would anyone with an ounce of sense have said plane get in range? Sure, you could fire missiles to knock it down, but it would take more time to do so than if it was with CIWS. And anyone with a working brain cell would have such target painter drones well beyond a few thousand yards.

Besides, the way I see it, the radar would only go active just prior to an immediate and concerted attack. EW officers would have what? Seconds to respond at best if the operators know what they're doing. Not to mention that in such a scenario, you'd also have to look out for suicide craft to swat out of the sky.

And as far as I know, the only test involving the PHALANX system was when it was sitting on a barge while attempting to shoot a missile that flew higher than it. Real world situations normally have the PHALANX sitting higher with the cruise missile skimming the sea at lower altitudes so accuracy would be not that effective.

Not to mention the newer missiles with violent end term manuevers that are bound to throw off the aim.

Would the CIWS and EW work? Probably. Against a hypothetical hundred/thousand missile strike? Not without taking heavy losses.

The whole thing here is that an attack on the US fleet would at most be a distraction. To keep the fighter screen pinned in that location while the missile batteries & missile armed fighters located at the Strait of Hormuz start targetting the oil tankers. That is a much more effective way of getting the US to back away seeing that that attack would hurt the US population where they really feel it. If the US attacks Iran (or goads Israel into doing it) expect those prices at the gas station to double, triple if not quadruple overnight.