Mahmoud is trying to start some ****.... The reason they are keeping this under wraps is stuff like this will spike crude to $110

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Navy said Friday that one of its ships fired warning shots at a small Iranian boat in the Strait of Hormuz in December during one of two serious encounters that month.

The USS Whidbey Island fired the warning shots on Dec. 19 in response to a small Iranian boat that was rapidly approaching it, said a U.S. Navy official.

"One small (Iranian) craft was coming toward it, and it stopped after the Whidbey Island fired warning shots," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

It was the first official confirmation that the United States had fired warning shots in any recent confrontation with Iran in the Gulf.

In the second incident that month, the USS Carr encountered three small Iranian craft on Dec. 22, two of which were armed, said the official. The USS Carr did not fire warning shots, but sent warning blasts on the ship's whistle, which caused the boats to turn around.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22610649/

When did they start allowing warning shots? That's certainly a change from standard rules of engagement protocol in the past.

Zero Wrote:When did they start allowing warning shots? That's certainly a change from standard rules of engagement protocol in the past.

Then apparently you don't know anything about the rules of engagement. Does it anger you that the warning shot happened?

This is a bad situation for the US Navy.

I think the Iranians were probing to see how far they could go before provoking an incident. While in a traditional role these little boats cannot cause a tremendous amount of damage to a large US Navy vessel, if these little boats are fired upon by the US Navy it gives a perfect excuse for the Iranian military to fire anti-ship missiles from shore batteries. The current crop of Iranian anti-ship missiles are quite effective, and even more effective in the tight quarters of the Straits of Hormuz.

Regardless of the US response to the above, worst case scenario could see a fair number of capital ships of the US Navy at the bottom of the Persian Gulf, including aircraft carriers, if the US Navy fires and sinks an Iranian speedboat.

Lord Stanley Wrote:This is a bad situation for the US Navy.

I think the Iranians were probing to see how far they could go before provoking an incident. While in a traditional role these little boats cannot cause a tremendous amount of damage to a large US Navy vessel, if these little boats are fired upon by the US Navy it gives a perfect excuse for the Iranian military to fire anti-ship missiles from shore batteries. The current crop of Iranian anti-ship missiles are quite effective, and even more effective in the tight quarters of the Straits of Hormuz.

Regardless of the US response to the above, worst case scenario could see a fair number of capital ships of the US Navy at the bottom of the Persian Gulf, including aircraft carriers, if the US Navy fires and sinks an Iranian speedboat.

Iran may have balls, but their balls aren't that big. They are surrounded by forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and any tard that fires a missile at a US warship will suffer the consequences from said warship. Not to mention the Aegis cruisers. The Phalanx system will take down any anti-ship missile that approaches the ship.

You seriously underestimate our might and technological superiority in this aspect.

Lord Stanley Wrote:TWhile in a traditional role these little boats cannot cause a tremendous amount of damage to a large US Navy vessel, if these little boats are fired upon by the US Navy it gives a perfect excuse for the Iranian military to fire anti-ship missiles from shore batteries. The current crop of Iranian anti-ship missiles are quite effective, and even more effective in the tight quarters of the Straits of Hormuz.

Sink a US Navy CVN with Iranian anti-ship missiles....

Never happen... Youd have to beat AEGIS, SAMS, Electronic Countermeasures, Combat Air Patrol and a CWIS to even get close to scratching it.

The Iranian ASM batteries along the Strait are effective only in punching holes in VLCC's .. Supertankers.... scaring the hell out of some merchant sailors, and causing crude prices to go through the roof.

And after the first salvo the US Tomahawk/Airstrike would take the Iranian launchers out within a few hours....

An Iranian diesel sub could put a US warship down in the Strait of Hormuz if they wanted to. To say they have no capability to inflict damage of the US Navy is ludicrous, ignorant, and dangerous.

Zero Wrote:An Iranian diesel sub could put a US warship down in the Strait of Hormuz if they wanted to. To say they have no capability to inflict damage of the US Navy is ludicrous, ignorant, and dangerous.

1. You dont put carriers INSIDE a confined area like the Persian Gulf if you don't have to. They can stay outside off the coast of Oman, conduct flight ops and still cover everything in Gulf airspace.

2. An Iranian diesel/electric Kilo class could torpedo a US cruiser/destroyer/frigate in the Gulf, but it would be VERY difficult. It would have to beat a LAMPS helicopter, the AEGIS system, and P-3 ASW aircraft, as well as countermeasures.

3. Iranian sub bases are kept under watch pretty much 24/7. A Kilo sorties into the Gulf and I promise you every ASW asset will be on its tail HARD as soon as it gets into international waters/airspace. With a LAMPS helicopter and dipping sonar on top of them the Iranians wouldn't have a chance to do anything.

4. Presently its the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in their speedboats causing the problems. The Kilos are Iranian Navy. Different crews, command and control. Different mindset. An Iranian submarine skipper knows that if he launched a fish at a US warship his life expectancy would then be less than 10 minutes. He doesn't really want to go meet Allah like the guys in the speedboats do..

I think they're trying provoke an incident. It's important to be cautious here, cause if we went to war with Iran, it brings up some serious questions:

1) Where will the troops come from?
2) Where will the planes come from, now that active duty squadrons are taxed more by the grounded F-15s?
3) Where will the money come from? Guns vs butter ....

You can't have a draft given how Iraq has gone. You'll have rioting across the country overnight.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:I think they're trying provoke an incident. It's important to be cautious here, cause if we went to war with Iran, it brings up some serious questions:

1) Where will the troops come from?
2) Where will the planes come from, now that active duty squadrons are taxed more by the grounded F-15s?
3) Where will the money come from? Guns vs butter ....

You can't have a draft given how Iraq has gone. You'll have rioting across the country overnight.

USAF cleared 260 F-15 C/D's back in the air today.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo...80111.aspx

If theree is a naval confrontation I think it will be limited. No invasions.. just air/missile attacks on naval bases and any Iranian warship stupid enough to sortie. Similar to Operation Preying Mantis back in 1988 when we spanked the Iranians for laying mines.

The US wants to avoid having to convoy tankers in/out of the Gulf so it won't be a widespread attack.

Zero Wrote:An Iranian diesel sub could put a US warship down in the Strait of Hormuz if they wanted to. To say they have no capability to inflict damage of the US Navy is ludicrous, ignorant, and dangerous.

Last time subs caused us any damage was back during WWII. We've progressed our technology since then. Every Russian sub that trailed or crossed a US Naval vessel during the Cold War was known. There were planes dispatched just in case the bastards got ballsy. Sub movement isn't that stealth anymore.

Not to mention, their formidable aircraft was the F-14, which we don't support anymore. Now? Here's their "new" fighter:

http://www.spike.com/video/2778627?ns=1



If you don't understand why I'm laughing, you don't know anything about the military. It looks like a f'n T-38. THIS is their "New" fighter.

The entire squadron will be taken out before they can even see the F-22's bearing down on'em.

...as I have always said, I love it when people who don't know jackshit about the military, talk about it as if they do.

RebelKev Wrote:

Lord Stanley Wrote:This is a bad situation for the US Navy.

I think the Iranians were probing to see how far they could go before provoking an incident. While in a traditional role these little boats cannot cause a tremendous amount of damage to a large US Navy vessel, if these little boats are fired upon by the US Navy it gives a perfect excuse for the Iranian military to fire anti-ship missiles from shore batteries. The current crop of Iranian anti-ship missiles are quite effective, and even more effective in the tight quarters of the Straits of Hormuz.

Regardless of the US response to the above, worst case scenario could see a fair number of capital ships of the US Navy at the bottom of the Persian Gulf, including aircraft carriers, if the US Navy fires and sinks an Iranian speedboat.

Iran may have balls, but their balls aren't that big. They are surrounded by forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and any tard that fires a missile at a US warship will suffer the consequences from said warship. Not to mention the Aegis cruisers. The Phalanx system will take down any anti-ship missile that approaches the ship.

You seriously underestimate our might and technological superiority in this aspect.

No, actually I have a fair understanding of our might and technological capabilities. If you say you know as much about the military as you do, how could you possibly downplay the danger of current anti-ship missiles to a US carrier group? Anti-ship missiles (regardless from air, sea or land) is the main weakness to the US Navy.

Regardless of who orders an attack, or why, or what the consequences of that action would entail, my point is that a concentrated Iranian anti-ship missile attack on American forces in the Gulf might see some success. If Iran fired 15 Sunburn anti-ship missiles in the confined space of the Persian Gulf in a concentrated attack on a carrier group or a battle group, some might hit American targets. With the development of anti-ship missiles in the 50's, naval vessels have depended on defensive armaments instead of actual armor, to the detriment of surviving an actual anti-ship missile impact.

To what damage would be inflicted is debatable and without answers, but anti-ship missiles have seen success in past engagements. There is reason to believe that there is tremendous danger in this situation.

Am I correct in assuming that cruisers would still be protected behind a destroyer screen, or is that no longer the case? And if a destroyer/frigate is attacked, I would think that the US navy would thereafter have carte blanche to attack any approaching gunboats first, and ask questions later. Wouldn't require any land forces or invasion, just a demonstration of US naval power.

I think we just need to make it clear to the Iranians what they can expect if they actually attack one of our warships. None of this "its dangerous" stuff. Tell them that their little gunboats will provide safe haven for small fishes at the bottom of the Persian Gulf.

WMD Owl Wrote: Sink a US Navy CVN with Iranian anti-ship missiles....

Sure, maybe not. But all Navy vessels, and especially the carriers, are lightly armored. One hit could cause catastrophic damage and you cannot rule out sinking. These ain't Iowa class battleships.....

Quote:Never happen... Youd have to beat AEGIS, SAMS, Electronic Countermeasures, Combat Air Patrol and a CWIS to even get close to scratching it.

The Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf are some of the most confined waters in the world. We are not talking about the open ocean with missiles launched hundreds of miles away. The Iranian anti-ship missiles skim the water at Mach 2.5 with directional thrusters, making them difficult to pick-up and even harder to target. By the time the Sunburst attack is picked up and targeted on Aegis, there could only be seconds left to deploy countermeasures of any sort. It's estimated that a Sunburst fired from the Tunb Islands at a vessel in the Straits would be visible by the outer Ticonderoga cruisers with less than 30 seconds to impact. So 30 seconds for Aegis to ID target, SAMS, Electronic Countermeasures and CWIS to deploy against what could be a swarm of dozens of missiles. CAP would have no ability to influence the defense of the vessels in these confined spaces. Those are tough odds, not impossible, but not good.

Quote:The Iranian ASM batteries along the Strait are effective only in punching holes in VLCC's ..

Wrong. You do not have an understanding of Iranian ASM's if you really believe this - man I hope you don't really believe this......

Quote:And after the first salvo the US Tomahawk/Airstrike would take the Iranian launchers out within a few hours....

Can't argue with that. But the damage to the carrier group or the battle group might be devastating by the the time retaliation is in order. I'm not saying any of this will happen, I'm not advocating this this to happen, I don't want any of this to happen. But what I am writing cannot lightly be dismissed with a wave of the hand a couple LMAO smilies.

Lord Stanley Wrote:No, actually I have a fair understanding of our might and technological capabilities. If you say you know as much about the military as you do, how could you possibly downplay the danger of current anti-ship missiles to a US carrier group? Anti-ship missiles (regardless from air, sea or land) is the main weakness to the US Navy.

Regardless of who orders an attack, or why, or what the consequences of that action would entail, my point is that a concentrated Iranian anti-ship missile attack on American forces in the Gulf might see some success. If Iran fired 15 Sunburn anti-ship missiles in the confined space of the Persian Gulf in a concentrated attack on a carrier group or a battle group, some might hit American targets. With the development of anti-ship missiles in the 50's, naval vessels have depended on defensive armaments instead of actual armor, to the detriment of surviving an actual anti-ship missile impact.

To what damage would be inflicted is debatable and without answers, but anti-ship missiles have seen success in past engagements. There is reason to believe that there is tremendous danger in this situation.

Like I said, you have no clue. Go to my military site and pose the scenario you're talking about. Here's a quick hint, tell'em what you're telling me. That we're ******* and we'd all be ****** if they started getting ballsy.

As for Iran, if they ever tried to cowboy the **** up, they would lose BIG time in that scenario. We do have the capacity to completely **** them up. Why? Because we wouldn't need to send in ground troops. They're already surrounded. All we would want to do is bring them to their knees so they would stop ******* with us. That could easily be accomplished with airpower from Diego, the US, Bagram, Baghdad, etc., and sea power from the Persian Gulf. They wanna play? Fine, they won't like the game once we join.

Lord Stanley Wrote:

WMD Owl Wrote: Sink a US Navy CVN with Iranian anti-ship missiles....

Sure, maybe not. But all Navy vessels, and especially the carriers, are lightly armored. One hit could cause catastrophic damage and you cannot rule out sinking. These ain't Iowa class battleships.....

Quote:Never happen... Youd have to beat AEGIS, SAMS, Electronic Countermeasures, Combat Air Patrol and a CWIS to even get close to scratching it.

The Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf are some of the most confined waters in the world. We are not talking about the open ocean with missiles launched hundreds of miles away. The Iranian anti-ship missiles skim the water at Mach 2.5 with directional thrusters, making them difficult to pick-up and even harder to target. By the time the Sunburst attack is picked up and targeted on Aegis, there could only be seconds left to deploy countermeasures of any sort. It's estimated that a Sunburst fired from the Tunb Islands at a vessel in the Straits would be visible by the outer Ticonderoga cruisers with less than 30 seconds to impact. So 30 seconds for Aegis to ID target, SAMS, Electronic Countermeasures and CWIS to deploy against what could be a swarm of dozens of missiles. CAP would have no ability to influence the defense of the vessels in these confined spaces. Those are tough odds, not impossible, but not good.

Quote:The Iranian ASM batteries along the Strait are effective only in punching holes in VLCC's ..

Wrong. You do not have an understanding of Iranian ASM's if you really believe this - man I hope you don't really believe this......

Quote:And after the first salvo the US Tomahawk/Airstrike would take the Iranian launchers out within a few hours....

Can't argue with that. But the damage to the carrier group or the battle group might be devastating by the the time retaliation is in order. I'm not saying any of this will happen, I'm not advocating this this to happen, I don't want any of this to happen. But what I am writing cannot lightly be dismissed with a wave of the hand a couple LMAO smilies.

Don't know as much about the details, but we don't really know what the weaknesses of the US navy are until they are tested in actual combat. Can they really fend off all attackers (missiles or otherwise) effectively? That remains to be seen. When were they last seriously threatened? War games aren't always predictive.

Until then, assumptions that we are safe seem to be dangerous. Hopefully the sailors don't have that attitude, and I doubt they do.

Actually, what is the range of Iranian anti-ship missiles? I'm sure the carriers themselves are a good distance away since they have no reason to be close to shore.

RebelKev Wrote:

Lord Stanley Wrote:No, actually I have a fair understanding of our might and technological capabilities. If you say you know as much about the military as you do, how could you possibly downplay the danger of current anti-ship missiles to a US carrier group? Anti-ship missiles (regardless from air, sea or land) is the main weakness to the US Navy.

Regardless of who orders an attack, or why, or what the consequences of that action would entail, my point is that a concentrated Iranian anti-ship missile attack on American forces in the Gulf might see some success. If Iran fired 15 Sunburn anti-ship missiles in the confined space of the Persian Gulf in a concentrated attack on a carrier group or a battle group, some might hit American targets. With the development of anti-ship missiles in the 50's, naval vessels have depended on defensive armaments instead of actual armor, to the detriment of surviving an actual anti-ship missile impact.

To what damage would be inflicted is debatable and without answers, but anti-ship missiles have seen success in past engagements. There is reason to believe that there is tremendous danger in this situation.

Like I said, you have no clue. Go to my military site and pose the scenario you're talking about. Here's a quick hint, tell'em what you're telling me. That we're ******* and we'd all be ****** if they started getting ballsy.

Point out where I said the US military is a bunch of ******* and we are all ******. Why on earth would you put words in my mouth when my exact words are right above? Who said the US military is a bunch of *******? I didn't. Who said the US military is getting ballsy? I didn't. I said the Iranian military may be looking to provoke the US in attacking Iranian assets, and if the US responded with force the Iranian military only advantage in an armed conflict with the US military is a limited engagement with ASM's in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you normally have this much trouble differentiating between friends and enemies?

Here's my clue pal - I had this exact conversation over dinner and am stating the points made to me around Christmas about Iran's ASM capabilities. Who did I have this conversations with you ask? A recently retired US Marine Colonel who just returned from Afghanistan.

Must not know much, eh? I'll relate on to him how some internet warrior thinks the US military shouldn't worry about Iran and their ASM capabilities, and let you know what he says....

Lord Stanley Wrote:Point out where I said the US military is a bunch of ******* and we are all ******. Why on earth would you put words in my mouth when my exact words are right above? Who said the US military is a bunch of *******? I didn't. Who said the US military is getting ballsy? I didn't. I said the Iranian military may be looking to provoke the US in attacking Iranian assets, and if the US responded with force the Iranian military only advantage in an armed conflict with the US military is a limited engagement with ASM's in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you normally have this much trouble differentiating between friends and enemies?

You said:

"Regardless of the US response to the above, worst case scenario could see a fair number of capital ships of the US Navy at the bottom of the Persian Gulf, including aircraft carriers, if the US Navy fires and sinks an Iranian speedboat."

I.e., we don't have the capacity to deal with the Iranians without losing a ton of U.S. Warships.

Quote:Here's my clue pal - I had this exact conversation over dinner and am stating the points made to me around Christmas about Iran's ASM capabilities. Who did I have this conversations with you ask? A recently retired US Marine Colonel who just returned from Afghanistan.

Oh, you talked to someone. Gee, sure it wasn't someone who had talked to someone? Maybe someone who had talked to someone who had talked to someone? Afghanistani operations are so damn far removed from what goes on in the Persian Gulf they might as well be concerned with Tibet.

Quote:Must not know much, eh? I'll relate on to him how some internet warrior thinks the US military shouldn't worry about Iran and their ASM capabilities, and let you know what he says....

Internet warrior? I'm a former Non-Commissioned Officer in the United States Army. I'm a current defense contractor which has taken me all over the world in places you'd never agree to go to. Since my company is small, we're comprised of veteran Non-Coms, Warrant Officers to CW4, and officers to full bird Colonel. I am currently working on Certification and Accreditation for new military systems, but am also working with the U.S. Army Stryker Brigades, the 3-2, 1-25, 2CR, and 4-2. I'll be heading to Indiantown Gap next week to work with the PANG's Stryker Brigade.

When you are an idiot, it's better to keep your mouth shut and keep people thinking it than to open it and remove all doubt. Iran doesn't want to **** with us. We take out one of their boats, they will do exactly what they did when we shot down their "fake" Boeing..........not a damn thing. Again, they wanna play a game with us, they won't like it when we start participating. One ******* ship is sunk, it'll be the last. I.e., there won't be anymore, but a few of their cities will lay in ruins.

NIU007 Wrote:Actually, what is the range of Iranian anti-ship missiles? I'm sure the carriers themselves are a good distance away since they have no reason to be close to shore.

ASCM Sunburn

ASCM Sunburst

In regards to the difficulty of defending against a barrage of anti-ship missiles, on the Sunburst Wiki page read Section 3 in the PDF by Austalian Aviation, Sept 2005. It outlines the difficulties in defending against ASMs. I'd link to it but can't for some reason, but it is a good easy read.