(01-24-2012 09:46 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And the Gulf is more confined than may be obvious for several reasons. It's pretty narrow. There is a lot of reefing, and a number of offshore platforms. That may place some severe restrictions on aircraft launches. When you go to flight quarters, you need enough good water in front of you to be able to complete the launch, and there are places in the Gulf where that is a problem. Also, if you're launching aircraft and there's a 200,000 ton tanker ahead, he's not going to be able to maneuver too much because of the above considerations, and you're not going to be able to maneuver and keep launching, so it gets complicated.

Granted its not the Pacific...but its not small either...I think they would be just fine.

I've sailed there a bunch. It gets pretty tight. The number of places where you'd have enough good water to do a complete aircraft launch is restricted, even more so with some specific wind directions. And anywhere you've got enough good water to do a complete launch, you're going to encounter tanker traffic. Assume two hours for a complete launch, at 30+ knots that's 60+ nautical miles, on a course that's say, within 10 degrees of the wind. That limits you.

One place that is not all that tight, actually, is Hormuz itself. We used to do gun shoots there. What's tight is the traffic control zone that all the tankers use going around the corner. You might close off that portion by mining it or putting 1 or 2 tankers on the bottom. But there's more room for them than that.

With one or two carriers in the vicinity, I think the Iranians would have a hard time shutting it down. I don't think it would be intelligent for the Iranian navy to venture far from port if there's a carrier group or two in the neighborhood. And if they stay in, you sink them at the pier. But tying one or two carriers down there for an extended period starts to create problems with carrier availability worldwide.

(01-24-2012 09:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:35 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:32 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 11:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  This is not good. We are going to be bottled up. Assuming our ships are invulnerable is a very, very bad mistake. This is putting our sailors in harm's way - big time.

Agreed when you take a blue water navy into an area that confined you increase the risk significantly.

I think you underestimate the capability of a carrier battle group...

I think you underestimate how many caves are on the east coast of that Gulf and just how portable land to ship missile launchers get.

Not saying they could take the whole group but only a fool thinks the group is completely secure and only the heir to the kingdom of fools would bet on it.

No one thinks they're completely secure...I just don't think Iran has the testicular fortitude to try anything.

(01-24-2012 09:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:35 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:32 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 11:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  This is not good. We are going to be bottled up. Assuming our ships are invulnerable is a very, very bad mistake. This is putting our sailors in harm's way - big time.

Agreed when you take a blue water navy into an area that confined you increase the risk significantly.

I think you underestimate the capability of a carrier battle group...

I think you underestimate how many caves are on the east coast of that Gulf and just how portable land to ship missile launchers get.

Not saying they could take the whole group but only a fool thinks the group is completely secure and only the heir to the kingdom of fools would bet on it.

Believe me anytime they are close to the coast every AEGIS radar on the escorts is radiating and there are Airborne Early Warning aircraft up.

The second US Electronic Warfare picks up tracking radar signals from an Iranian antiship missile site you will have multiple Surface to Air Missiles just one command from launch

And at what point would we let Iran's neighbors fight their own battles?

(01-24-2012 09:59 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  And at what point would we let Iran's neighbors fight their own battles?

Maybe you should ask Obama...apparently he's in charge.

(01-24-2012 09:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I think you underestimate how many caves are on the east coast of that Gulf and just how portable land to ship missile launchers get.
Not saying they could take the whole group but only a fool thinks the group is completely secure and only the heir to the kingdom of fools would bet on it.

The carrier doesn't have to get that close to the coast. Something portable that can be hidden in a cave isn't going to have that much range. And to launch anything with range beyond visual they are going to have to illuminate with fire control radar, and the second you detect that you put something on top of them. Plus my experience with the then Imperial Iranian Navy and Army was that they weren't the sharpest crayons in the box, at least not the best trained, and I doubt that their training has improved in the last 30 years.

That being said, if I were doing the planning I'd keep the carriers south of Hormuz. They can operate far enough south to have plenty of room and still get aircraft over the straits in 10 minutes or less. I think running a carrier inside the Gulf is more show the flag than anything else. That maybe leaves you vulnerable at the top of the Gulf, but if a shooting war looks like starting, I'm guessing the Saudis would welcome us to operate from their facilities. And we do have a presence at Qatar.

(01-24-2012 10:08 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:59 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  And at what point would we let Iran's neighbors fight their own battles?

Maybe you should ask Obama...apparently he's in charge.

*sigh...

(01-24-2012 10:09 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 10:08 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:59 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  And at what point would we let Iran's neighbors fight their own battles?

Maybe you should ask Obama...apparently he's in charge.

*sigh...

Oh wait...was I the first one to point that out? So much for the neocon theory...unless Obama is a neocon.

(01-24-2012 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I think you underestimate how many caves are on the east coast of that Gulf and just how portable land to ship missile launchers get.
Not saying they could take the whole group but only a fool thinks the group is completely secure and only the heir to the kingdom of fools would bet on it.

The carrier doesn't have to get that close to the coast. Something portable that can be hidden in a cave isn't going to have that much range. And to launch anything with range beyond visual they are going to have to illuminate with fire control radar, and the second you detect that you put something on top of them. Plus my experience with the then Imperial Iranian Navy and Army was that they weren't the sharpest crayons in the box, at least not the best trained, and I doubt that their training has improved in the last 30 years.

That being said, if I were doing the planning I'd keep the carriers south of Hormuz. They can operate far enough south to have plenty of room and still get aircraft over the straits in 10 minutes or less. I think running a carrier inside the Gulf is more show the flag than anything else. That maybe leaves you vulnerable at the top of the Gulf, but if a shooting war looks like starting, I'm guessing the Saudis would welcome us to operate from their facilities. And we do have a presence at Qatar.

I had not considered the logistical support in the Gulf, good point..

(01-24-2012 10:10 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 10:09 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 10:08 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:59 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  And at what point would we let Iran's neighbors fight their own battles?

Maybe you should ask Obama...apparently he's in charge.

*sigh...

Oh wait...was I the first one to point that out? So much for the neocon theory...unless Obama is a neocon.

A bad decision by a good person is still a bad decision (and vice versa).

(01-24-2012 10:18 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 10:10 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 10:09 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 10:08 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:59 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  And at what point would we let Iran's neighbors fight their own battles?

Maybe you should ask Obama...apparently he's in charge.

*sigh...

Oh wait...was I the first one to point that out? So much for the neocon theory...unless Obama is a neocon.

A bad decision by a good person is still a bad decision (and vice versa).

Good person...

(01-24-2012 10:21 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 10:18 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 10:10 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 10:09 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 10:08 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Maybe you should ask Obama...apparently he's in charge.

*sigh...

Oh wait...was I the first one to point that out? So much for the neocon theory...unless Obama is a neocon.

A bad decision by a good person is still a bad decision (and vice versa).

Good person...

You know, when the President isn't busy throwing christian babies into a woodchipper to make his wife's facial cream.

(01-24-2012 10:25 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 10:21 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 10:18 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 10:10 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 10:09 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  *sigh...

Oh wait...was I the first one to point that out? So much for the neocon theory...unless Obama is a neocon.

A bad decision by a good person is still a bad decision (and vice versa).

Good person...

You know, when the President isn't busy throwing christian babies into a woodchipper to make his wife's facial cream.

Lots of crappy leaders had constituents who believed they were good people...

For the record I'd be ok with her facial cream if they were Muslim babies.

(01-24-2012 10:32 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  For the record I'd be ok with her facial cream if they were Muslim babies.

Yeah, but who'd buy it? Nothing firms and tightens like that perfect mixture of holy spirit and original sin.

(01-24-2012 10:34 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 10:32 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  For the record I'd be ok with her facial cream if they were Muslim babies.

Yeah, but who'd buy it? Nothing firms and tightens like that perfect mixture of holy spirit and original sin.

I would as long as they could get some ashes of a burnt Quran in there to help with the crows feet...