It would only take 9 minutes to destroy Israel

Why do you hate Iran so much? Everyone should leave them alone.

 

I would guess that if Iran would unload a whole group of conventional missiles at one time, israel would be hit very hard.

 

Iran sends it's speedboats out, launches an attack against a USN carrier group, and undoubtedly will cause some severe damage for the reasons listed above - fast missile, and limited room to maneuver ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

What I think Iran doesn't understand is the escalation effect - what happens next.

Will China and Russia do anything to stop the United States from retaliating against Iran should this happen, or will they sit back like England and France did when Nazi Germany came after Czechoslovakia?

Personally, I think that China and Russia may voice some opposition against a U.S. retaliation - just so they can be on record as having done so - but they won't lift a finger militarily.

 

Mark Gaffney, the so-called military "expert" the OP uses as the foundation of most of his arguments, is anything but a military expert.

http://www.gnosticsecrets.com/pages/bio.htm

I see absolutely no worthwhile credentials that could make him a military expert. No military experience, no CIA, NSA, State, RAND, think tank, or even academic experience.

As I've said 10,000 times. Look at Operation Praying Mantis to see how a naval conflict in that area would go down.

 

Who said i hate Iran?
I was just pointing out the fact that Israel has much more fire power, then Iran.

 

To sum all this truism in a single sentence... BELIEVERS vs UNBELIEVERS...

As long as the proliferation of the Qur'an beliefs amongst lightheaded wet behind the ears is accepted, the WORLS will always be on the verge of an Atomic confrontation, this is of course, if they want it or not!

Europe : you cannot bribe yourself out of it... If attacked your fifth columnists do not have to take revenge, they are already in!

 

Keywords: Hit very hard. Sure, that is bound to happen. But rest assured my brothers and sisters, the more Israel's enemies try to wipe her off, the more they will fail. Glory to God.

 

You know the ***** are scared when they start hiding threads in the ME forum.

 

The US won't have a navy to fight with. You missed the part about Iranian Sunburn missiles in the OP. The US navy-or any navy for that matter, has no defense against a supersonic missile.

 

You missed the part where the Author was completely debunked as having any kind of military expertise. The U.S. military DEFINITELY has defenses against supersonic missiles....it can shoot down satellites and ballistic missiles....which move much much faster than the speed of sound. How can you get on here and make such a claim without having any idea what you're talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System#Deployment

Start there. There are plenty of reputable links from the wikipage.

 

Aegis can cope with ONE missile at a time. Sometimes it can't even cope with sub-sonic missiles. It is not an infallible system. Such a system does not exist.

 

Funny things happen when the only real superpower is bogged down in the middle east. Do you think Russia wouldn't consider a plan to take back south Ossetia? Or that China wouldn't try to control more South-East Asian geopolitics?

These countries most likely would help Iran through proxy and covert operations. Both to bog down America in the Middle East and monies. And this isn't even considering the geopolitics for resources in Central Asia.

I don't see it as a war America can win, Its been in Iraq and Afghanistan for 11 years already and America will get exhausted rather fast.

Their only option is a "get-in get-out" strike of Iran's nuclear facilities and hope to delay and supposed Nuclear Weapons Program.

 

I was invited in here by somebody else, and I am glad I was. Let me try to give out some real information here.

For one, the idea that an SM2 (or any other missile) can't intercept a supersonic target is bogus. The system was developed back in the 1960's specifically to strike supersonic targets.

Now I will try not to go to fast, or get to technical here. But try to follow some basic logic here.

The SM2 (RIM-66) has been around since 1966, and follows the RIM-24 (1962) and RIM-8 (1963). These were among the first surface to air guided missiles that were specifically designed to strike supersonic targets. Of course, back then the targets were expected to be Yak-38 and MiG-25 fighters, as well as Tu-22 bombers.

Even the older generations of SM2 were able to strike supersonic aircraft with ease. And this missile (like almost all other cruise missiles) are nothing but kamakazi drones powered with conventional or ramjet engines. They appear to radar to be just another incomming fighter (we refer to both aircraft and such missiles as "Air Breathing Threats" or ABT).

So shooting down an incomming "Mosquito" or MiG-25 is the same thing. Both are supersonic targets, and can be brought down with just about any missile in the inventory. And unlike a ballistic missile (like a SCUD), bringing down a cruise missile is rather easy.

As far as AEGIS only being able to track or engage one target at a time, that is also nonsense. The PATRIOT radar is less capable then the AEGIS is, but I have read unclassified reports that list it as being able to track from 60-100 targets at once, and the ability to engage up to 24+ targets at once.

I have never found an unclassified report of AEGIS, but it has been reported that it can engage "hundreds" of targets at once.

And the missile does not have to go all that fast. It is all geometry after all. You track TARGET A, and you know where it will be at X time. You simply fire the missile to meet TARGET A at LOCATION Y. These are not heat seeking missiles, that try to chase the missile once it passes by. They fly out and meet the target when it gets to the designated location.

And none of the Iranian missiles have the punch needed to do serious damage to a US carrier. And if you want to see why I would say that, consider the following:

The Mosquito has a 700 lb explosive charge.

In 1967 off the coast of Vietnam, a Zuni rocket onboard an A-4 accidentially caused a catastrophic accident on the deck of the USS Forestal. In addition to the missile itself, you also had 2 other aircraft suffer ruptured fuel tanks which caused a massive fire. You also had 2 1,000 pound bombs detonate on the deck of the aircraft carrier.

134 sailors were killed. But the Forrestal sailed under it's own power to the Philippines, underwent temporary repairs, and continues on to Virgina where repairs were completed. It then served for another 26 years.

Now if a 1950's era carrier would withstand 2 1,000 pound bombs going off in close proximity to each other, why would anybody think that a much more modern carrier would not be able to survive a single 700 pound bomb?

Now I am not sure how much experience or knowledge most people here have when it comes to air and missile defense systems, but I am guessing it is little to none. Trust me when I say that engaging a cruise missile is pretty simple. And the fact that it is "supersonic" means nothing. Our missiles have been designed to engage such targets for over 40 years.

 

Please show me a link that states that the AEGIS can only engage one target at a time. Please.

And no, no system is perfect. However, that is also why any engagement fires at a minimum 2 missiles. And more missiles are fired as needed.

This is one of the things I laugh at when people talk about the "effectiveness" of the PATRIOT missile system. But people that make such claims generally have no idea what is actually being talked about or discussed.

Here, let me tell you what the general success rate is of the PATROIT missile system. It is around 45%. The success rate is around 45%, even though the system is 99%+ effective. Why?

Well, because every target engaged has a minimum of 2 missiles fired at it. Now do the math. You have 2 missiles fired at 1 target. The target is destroyed. But you have a 2 to 1 missile to target ratio. So your successfull engagement rate is only 50%. Because generally the second missile has nothing to hit, and is self-destructed.

Many times over the years I have had people bring up articles that tlak about PATRIOT being only "50% effective", without knowing why it was only 50% effective. The success rate though is right around 100%. Every single missile (there were 9 of them) launched in 2003 was destroyed.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA435837.pdf

But please, give me a reference that states that AEGIS can only engage a single target at a time. I would love to see it.

 

You make an excellent point here. It is all about escalation.

The minute that Iran started to move it's missiles into launch locations, you will see the US raise it's readyness status. And the moment the missile heaters were turned on, then you will start to see this go to a "weapons free" status.

And does anybody here think that Iran would be able to do a single first strike that would completely devistate all US forces and equipment in the area? Not even close.

In order to have such a strike, they will have to have their fighters leave their bases an hour or more ahead of time. Their taking off will be noticed within moments of this happening.

We would also see their missiles moving into location, and being prepared for launch. Other things like this would be screaming to the US "Hey, we are about to attack you!".

You will see fighters and bombers then taking off from air bases all over the region. And they will be hovering around the area, just waiting for the first attack.

And once it comes, then it would be "bombs away". Expect few if any Iranian aircraft to make it to the Persian Gulf. And as the missiles and patrol boats start to engage US Naval forces, B-1 bombers will be on the way with their own little gifts. And within 12 hours those will be met with B-2 bombers dropping payloads deeper inside Iran.

And we are not talking just the US here. The UK, France, Italy, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and just about every other nation in the area will jump in as well. These nations all have long and deep memories of the "Tanker War". And they never again want to have to suffer an attack on their merchant ships by a beligerant neighbor.

People who claim to be "military experts" in here are amazingly foolish if they think Iran could win a military exchange in this area. We have military assets all over this area, all with the saim goal: to protect the independent nations from an attack from Iran.

Why do you think so many nations have almost beged the US to move in? Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait are just 3 examples of this. They all invited the US to come after Iraq took over Kuwait, because they saw that they had no defense if their larger neighbors wanted to take them over. And they also saw that most of their neighbors did little to nothing to help Kuwait when this happened.

In short, they were all scared s***less. You now have anti-missile batteries protecting the capitols of Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain for exactly this reason. And they are all pointed to protect these countries from the direction of one country: Iran.

An engagement that is often talked about is rather idiotic, because in general the people proposing such engagements have no idea what they are talking about. For one, the carriers do not hang around in the Strait of Hormuz waiting for something to happen. They hang around one side of the strait or the other, where it has room to move around. And all defensive systems are in a state of high alert, since that is when it is most vulnerable. The passage is made as quickly as possible, with a huge amount of air assets in the area in case of trouble.

They are aware they are not simply sailing into Pearl Harbor, and act accordingly.

And no, I doubt that Russia or China would do a thing either. They certainly did not do anything when Libya was taken out, and they had much closer ties to Russia then Iran does. And they did nothing when Iraq was taken out either.

They would most likely do just like they did in Iraq. Protest a lot, then try to get as many oil contract and infrastructure contracts as they could from the new government when the fighting is done.

 

Excellent post!

Something else that is overlooked, is that missiles may be launched at an aircraft carrier, but a carrier is part of a "carrier strike group" which is typically composed of (from Wikipedia) --

A supercarrier, which is the centerpiece of the strike group and also serves as the flagship for the CSG Commander and his/her staff. The carrier is commanded by aviation community captain.
A carrier air wing (CVW) typically consisting of up to nine squadrons. Carrier air wings are commanded by an aviation community captain (or occasionally a Marine colonel).
One to two Aegis guided missile cruisers (CG), of the Ticonderoga class—a multi-mission surface combatant, equipped with BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles for long-range strike capability, each commanded by a surface community captain.
A destroyer squadron (DESRON) commanded by a surface community captain (O-6) who commands the escort destroyers, with two to three guided missile destroyers (DDG), of the Arleigh Burke class—a multi-mission surface combatant, used primarily for anti-aircraft (AAW) and anti-submarine (ASW) warfare, but which also carries Tomahawk missiles for long-range strike capability. A destroyer is commanded by a surface community commander.

As I understand the AEGIS Combat System to work, the cruiser(s) and the destroyers act as picket ships and screen the carrier. All the radar units onboard the cruiser(s) and destroyers are tied into one Combat Information System (CIC) which controls the Mk-41 VLS with the RIM-162 missiles, as well as the Phalanx CIWS.

Depending on how many missiles are launched, it is possible that the capabilities of the AEGIS could be overloaded, and a missile or two might sneak through.

But, as you pointed out, an aircraft carrier is a warship and is designed to suffer battle damage and remain afloat.

What I would expect to happen is for a Sunburn missile or two to impact the carrier, damage the flight deck, and interrupt the capability of the carrier to launch and/or recover aircraft.

The only way I could imagine a carrier being sunk is if the Iranians went nuclear, and used something along the lines of the W80 "Dial-A-Yield" warhead. The problem with this scenario though is twofold - First, there is no guarantee that a single missile will strike - multiple missiles would have to be launched to ensure that one would strike the carrier. Second, as we all know - once that nuclear line is crossed, no one knows how the situation will escalate.

Iranians may be crazy, but they're not stupid. Launching an attack on the U. S. Navy is not a wise move - just ask Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.

 

Thanks. Of course, this has been my profession for the last 5 years now, so you could say I have an unfair advantage over the so-called "experts" that have been posting here.

And do not forget a few Oliver Hazard Perry class Frigates (mostly designated for ASW work, but also with an AMD capability).

They generally work in that mode when they are in a "search" mode. In other words, when things are relatively peacefull or during the initial start of hostilities. The longer range missiles (SM-3, 300+ miles) can use this to get more accurate reports at attacking targets that are effectively at the edge of the horizon.

But as the incoming targets get closer, they go independent, only reporting up the information to a central command location to better designate zones of fire and to prevent multiple ships from firing on the same target. Once weapons go hot at closer ranges, each ship operates fully independently.

The SM-2 and other missiles can all be coordinated from a central point, but this is generally not done. It is the same way with PATRIOT units. An entire Brigade or Battalion can be controlled from a single point, but in reality they are still actually controlled at the Battery level (Company sized unit, 6 launchers and 1 RADAR).

The only time you might ever see in a Naval engagement all the AEGIS tied together for a unified C&C use would most likely be in defense of a fixed location (for example a line of picket ships protecting Taiwan from a massive Chinese missile strike). In a naval engagement where all the ships are moving all over the place, this would quickly be impossible as the ships would be changing course and direction constantly.

Well, I doubt that Iran qould have this capability for many years if not decades.

Remember, first generation nuclear bombs are massive things, generally only deliverable from aircraft. It will be a long time before Iran will have the capability to reduce them in size enough to be able to fir them onto missiles.

And like I have told somebody else, if they did that, it will no longer be a war. It will be a nuclear war. And that is something totally different.

 

Sounds like a FC (Fire Controlman) to me.

 

AMD radar systems are AMD radar systems. And the phased array radar and fire control systems are in many ways a scaled down truck portable version of the AEGIS system.

So if you know the capabilities od one, you know most of the capabilities of the other. The biggest difference between the two is in size and power. Because the system on the PATRIOT has to be able to fit on a trailer and is powered by a generator, it can't be as powerfull as that put on a ship.

But other then that, the systems are pretty similar.

USS Ticonderoga (CG-47) with view of AN/SPY RADAR:



PATRIOT AMD system AN/MPQ RADAR:

 

My last ship was the USS Vella Gulf (CG-72). We were the first U.S. warship to use the Navy's WSN-7 RLGN (Ring-Laser Gyro Navigation System) in actual missle launching tasking during the Kosovo Campaign in the late 90's. My specialty in the Navy was Navigation systems like the Gyrocompass, INS and RLNG. We fed our data into the various combat control and Fire Control systems on the ship. The only school I never got to go to was the Navy's DMS (Data-Multiplexing System) that is dominant on the Arleigh Burke class Destroyers.

 

I am under the impression that we would be better off trying reduce our tax burden by establishing more, rather than less, stable markets in our global economy, and especially the Middle East.

 

Well then, I invite you to go visit a mall or department store in the Middle East.

You will see very little there that is "American Made". Clothes mostly come from Europe, and electronics from the Far East (mostly Korean, Japanese and Chinese). About the only place you will find many things from America is in the entertainment areas.

Our computer and video games are fairly dominant there, to no surprise. So are our movies and music. But a lot of titles will not be find, since many of the nations there object to our "immorality".

But you can find those titles with few problems in the souqs.

But in at least one area, US products do dominate. And that is in the area of food. Pepsi, Coke, Mountain Dew, and other such products dominate over there. So does McDonalds, Carl's Jr, Burger King, and other US fast food franchises.

Just do not expect to find a cheeseburger.

 

I may if I ever go there.

 

I have been there.

The clothes stores are rather interesting. You will see Paris fashions, but you never actually see women wearing them. Although several times I have seen under the ankle of a short hemmed burqa that the woman is wearing jeans and high heels or tennis shoes.

However, the men were about 60-40 split, most wearing the traditional robes, and the other wearing Western style clothes, either jeans and shirts, or suits.

And as for most of the things, it is no different then here. How many American electronics will you find in your local department store? I bet not many. It is no different elsewhere in the world.

However, cell phones by US companies tend to dominate there also. Motorola and iPhone are probably the biggest sellers I saw.

I remember being very tempted to buy The Sims 3 when it first came out. But with the exchange rate, I would have paid about $75 US for the game.