Author Topic: Iranian navy no match for US battlegroup (Read 1775 times)

omedAFG · « **on:** December 30, 2011, 03:01:35 AM »

http://rt.com/politics/iran-us-russia-strait-hormuz-919/

reza18 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 30, 2011, 09:35:48 AM »

But Iran won't engage the US navy in the open seas..It's all about the missiles baby!! Iran's navy's just for mopping up after the missiles do their job

maydayfire · « **Reply #2 on:** December 30, 2011, 10:14:28 AM »

Quote from: omedAFG on December 30, 2011, 03:01:35 AM

http://rt.com/politics/iran-us-russia-strait-hormuz-919/

no official in Iran claimed that in conventional warfare Iran can match US navy. It is just the unconventional asymmetric tactics and anti-ship missiles that keeps the albinos guessing and hesitant to poke Iran!

YMJ · « **Reply #3 on:** December 30, 2011, 10:15:28 AM »

Don't forget the submarines, which can carry hoot!

Ich · « **Reply #4 on:** December 30, 2011, 10:22:28 AM »

It's a commercial blabla.

Nazer · « **Reply #5 on:** December 30, 2011, 10:22:50 AM »

Quote from: omedAFG on December 30, 2011, 03:01:35 AM

http://rt.com/politics/iran-us-russia-strait-hormuz-919/

I think you should think in this way that while Iran has studied US NAVY weakness and adjust her war doctorine how to engage them the US NAVY have done the same think. I think the best senario is to have no conflict. I think they can loose a number of warship, maybe an aircraft career, but they are more experience than us when is come to attaking from the sea.
Also we are less resouced and much dependent on the outside world than they are.
However I think all this talk of sactinoing Iran oil must be related to Syria. There are twisting Iran arm to drop its support for Syria but Iran knows better that once the take care of Syria, Iran will be next.

reza18 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 30, 2011, 11:02:33 AM »

With generals like this, no wonder NATO doesn't give a damn what Russia thinks..They're all defeatists..

Bolbol · « **Reply #7 on:** December 30, 2011, 11:17:07 AM »

This is the post-Soviet regime, what did you expect they were going to say.

maydayfire · « **Reply #8 on:** December 30, 2011, 11:40:19 AM »

Quote from: Nazer on December 30, 2011, 10:22:50 AM

I think you should think in this way that while Iran has studied US NAVY weakness and adjust her war doctorine how to engage them the US NAVY have done the same think,I think they can loose a number of warship, maybe an aircraft career, but they are more experience than us when is come to attaking from the sea.

Yes albinos are smart and so are the Iranians. Every side knows their weaknesses and their strength. However, the Navy of the albinos is based on cold-war era scenarios against soviets where wars are fought conventionally and symmetrically on an equal level. The US Navy is now too big and over-trained to go back and change/adjust its entire doctrine to confront the Iranian threat. I am sure you are aware of the war simulation the US navy conducted 5 years ago against Iran where their conventional tactics failed completely against asymmetric warfare against Iranian's barrage of anti-ship missiles. Their big warships in the Persian Gulf are just big sitting ducks begging to get hit. US knows its weakness of its fleet against coastal defense missiles but they are not dumb and that is why in case of war all their fleet will station in the northern part of the Indian ocean to stay away from the missile threat of Iran. Persian Gulf and the sea of Oman is a trap for them and they know it. They know that they can not take control of the straight of Hormuz with their naval presence there which means they can only take control of the straight through Air which would turn the whole conflict into one out of control, meaning that all their military bases neighboring Iran are exposed to Iranian surface to surface missiles and before you know it the whole region is turned into chaos and a potential world war III. It is very naive to think that because the straight of Hormuz is related to the Naval forces, any confrontation to take control of the straight will be limited to the Naval forces of both sides ( It is time that people throw away the symmetric/one dimensional way of thought, i.e. you can not expect in a fight that if someone punches you in the face you can only punch him back as well, no maybe he is guarding his face and you can kick him in the balls!)

reza18 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 30, 2011, 12:13:30 PM »

NATO's strength lies in the communications (GPS etc)..Jam it and they can't function effectively and will be in the dark..In Libya, their first wave of attack was to jam all Libyan forces' communications and that put the Libyan army in disarray..

I think Iran already have the capability to jam their com centres..In fact, a lot of their weapons systems depend on their com centres...

ahriman46 · « **Reply #10 on:** December 30, 2011, 02:13:25 PM »

its true but Iran doesnt need to use their navy to destroy US shits in Persian gulf!

BTW Iran's navy is among the strongests in the world.. but american navy is just too strong..

berislac · « **Reply #11 on:** December 30, 2011, 03:06:08 PM »

What means:has entered the area of an Iranian naval exercise??This Americans are really pushing it.They could leave Iran to finish its war games in peace but no they need to involve an complicate situation even further.I hope that Iranian admirals will have steel nerves and not to react to this provocation.For American sake.

the8march · « **Reply #12 on:** December 30, 2011, 03:17:30 PM »

Well this retired russian admiral born in 1928 simply belongs to an outdated school of tactics. He cannt really comment on this issue. There are new ways to make war these days that even the younger russian generals dont know. Anyway it would be more helpful if he explains to the russian navy how to take care of their rusty subs that are burning alone or exploding in peace times. Too much Vodka !

Ich · « **Reply #13 on:** December 30, 2011, 10:33:30 PM »

Hehe....."Na sdorowje!"

Nazer · « **Reply #14 on:** December 31, 2011, 05:37:32 AM »

Quote from: maydayfire on December 30, 2011, 11:40:19 AM

Yes albinos are smart and so are the Iranians. Every side knows their weaknesses and their strength. However, the Navy of the albinos is based on cold-war era scenarios against soviets where wars are fought conventionally and symmetrically on an equal level. The US Navy is now too big and over-trained to go back and change/adjust its entire doctrine to confront the Iranian threat. I am sure you are aware of the war simulation the US navy conducted 5 years ago against Iran where their conventional tactics failed completely against asymmetric warfare against Iranian's barrage of anti-ship missiles. Their big warships in the Persian Gulf are just big sitting ducks begging to get hit. US knows its weakness of its fleet against coastal defense missiles but they are not dumb and that is why in case of war all their fleet will station in the northern part of the Indian ocean to stay away from the missile threat of Iran. Persian Gulf and the sea of Oman is a trap for them and they know it. They know that they can not take control of the straight of Hormuz with their naval presence there which means they can only take control of the straight through Air which would turn the whole conflict into one out of control, meaning that all their military bases neighboring Iran are exposed to Iranian surface to surface missiles and before you know it the whole region is turned into chaos and a potential world war III. It is very naive to think that because the straight of Hormuz is related to the Naval forces, any confrontation to take control of the straight will be limited to the Naval forces of both sides ( It is time that people throw away the symmetric/one dimensional way of thought, i.e. you can not expect in a fight that if someone punches you in the face you can only punch him back as well, no maybe he is guarding his face and you can kick him in the balls!)

I agree with must of you just wrote, however it is simplistic to assume they have sat on their hands and did not develop a way to counter asymetric warfare. I am not saying they will succed but they must have plans and traning to improve their chance in such situation. As you said 5 years ago their war simulation showed them they are not ready, so do you think they went to bed and did nothing to improve their chances. If What I read mostly in IMF (and I like very much to be true) is that how Iran going to do this and that. I think it is fair to also discuss the possiblity of all things goes wrong and we can not succeed. Like what you say they pool all their ships from Persian Gulf and stay away and bomb Iran from whole month and okay we fire hundereds (or thousands ) of missiles during that month. Then after this month who has more chance to continue and block the Hurmoz. All our fast boats have been sunk and our Navy is disroyed.
I think of Super Power like US are like a monster who can do anything for their absolute dominant.
I speak for myself and I can say that (from comfort of my house without being in touch with reality out there much) things dose not look easy or simple to predict. I very much hope I am wrong.
At last I disagree with the Russian ex-navy admiral.

reza18 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 31, 2011, 07:40:02 AM »

Quote

I agree with must of you just wrote, however it is simplistic to assume they have sat on their hands and did not develop a way to counter asymetric warfare. I am not saying they will succed but they must have plans and traning to improve their chance in such situation. As you said 5 years ago their war simulation showed them they are not ready, so do you think they went to bed and did nothing to improve their chances. If What I read mostly in IMF (and I like very much to be true) is that how Iran going to do this and that. I think it is fair to also discuss the possiblity of all things goes wrong and we can not succeed. Like what you say they pool all their ships from Persian Gulf and stay away and bomb Iran from whole month and okay we fire hundereds (or thousands ) of missiles during that month. Then after this month who has more chance to continue and block the Hurmoz. All our fast boats have been sunk and our Navy is disroyed.
I think of Super Power like US are like a monster who can do anything for their absolute dominant.
I speak for myself and I can say that (from comfort of my house without being in touch with reality out there much) things dose not look easy or simple to predict. I very much hope I am wrong.
At last I disagree with the Russian ex-navy admiral.

You do have a very good point which I think is a realistic analysis of the issue..But it's also naive to think the US will come out unharmed.I don't think Iran's navy is not aware of the potential damage the US navy can do to them..But look at it this way, for Iran, all they have to do is survive a US onslaught.The US, however, due to their arrogance, won't be able to survive the sinking or damage to their careers/warships. And like I said earlier, Iran's navy knows it cannot win or expect to survive in an open sea confrontation with the US navy - much like the US airforce. It's almost suicidal. What Iran will do is/will be difficult for the US to escape unharmed..A few well placed missiles fired from the many bases along the long stretched shores of Iran or from deep locations inland. Iran also have the means to jam US navy communications. If one's been paying attention, the navy commander have been stressing Iran's capabilities in the electronic warfare environment. In fact, most of this latest drill is to test that capability.

Bottom line, in the event of any attack, Iran will manage to survive. The US on the other hand WILL either lose a carrier and or some warships and a big damage to their image as the "protectors" of the PGCC dictators.

maydayfire · « **Reply #16 on:** December 31, 2011, 09:45:35 AM »

In an asymmetric war, the destruction is also going to be asymmetric but the winner of the war is NOT declared by the amount of destruction!. think in context of the Israel-Hezbollah 33 day war of 2006. Yes Hezbollah's whole infrastructure and buildings of south Lebanon including their TV stations was destroyed and in return about 100 Merkava Israeli tanks were destroyed. In terms of destruction in number and cost Israeli inflicted more damage but in terms of breaking the symbols and signs, Hezbollah did more damage. The Merkava Tanks were symbols of Israeli ultimate power and invulnerability and when Hezbollah broke those symbols with ease, the outcome of the war was victory for Hezbollah. The same thing is true about US's Navy and their Military bases which are symbols of their power as "rulers of the world". Since WWII no one has ever broke US' symbols of dominance over the world. All Iran needs to do is to break these symbols and it is going to win ultimately even to the cost of more damage to its infrastructure.

reza18 · « **Reply #17 on:** December 31, 2011, 10:08:11 AM »

Iran will not fight the US navy on US navy's terms and rules of engagement..What most Arab armies do is to react to their opponents head-on.This is a waste of resources and eventually run the entire operation down.While the US navy pound Iranian navy targets and military assets.Iran may also decide to pound US assets in Afghanistan and their massive target rich embassy in Baghdad where the US cannot react quickly..It's called asymmetric warfare. When fighting a bigger opponent,one needs to strike where the opponent is weak and can't react quickly..Another is to prolong the fight to ware him down..As it's been observed over the years..NATO cannot stand a prolonged war..They prefer short, quick and decisive strikes that can guarantee and "easy win".The war in Afghanistan is a clear example..The Taliban are clearly winning and the US is now suing for peace talks with them.

Since the US depends on military bases and oil dumps to run wars..A few mortar/missile attacks on any specific oil dumps and installations will cripple them eventually..

Mr-Babak-S · « **Reply #18 on:** January 05, 2012, 06:55:48 PM »

Quote

Also we are . . . much dependent on the outside world than they are.

Maybe we are more dependent on the outside world; but don't forget that the USA is also very dependent on the outside world.
I've heard that some of the parts they use in their military technology are outsourced to China.
Also, some of the rare earth minerals / metals come mostly from China, for instance.

The USA may be less dependent, but it is not totally independent.

As for the USA adapting the assymetrical warfare tactics, that is possible that they will try and succeed, but it is also possible that they will fail to do so as they failed to do so in Vietnam.

Pasdar · « **Reply #19 on:** January 05, 2012, 08:05:39 PM »

In an oceanic battle away from Iran, a one of one battle between the Iranian navy and the US navy, would mean our defeat. However, in a battle close to Iranian coastline (e.g. the Persian Gulf, Sea of Oman), I would expect so many missiles to rain on the US navy ships that they would really impress me if they don't all sink to the bottom.

Arash · « **Reply #20 on:** January 07, 2012, 04:55:22 AM »

I've been reading posts on this forum for a while and it appears that there is a repeating trend. When faced with a problem weather it be sea or air we always assume that our missiles will be able to handle everything, which is fine however what if they can't?

Do we have a backup plan in case our missiles prove to be ineffective against certain targets?

Arash

reza18 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 07, 2012, 07:53:45 AM »

Quote

Do we have a backup plan in case our missiles prove to be ineffective against certain targets?

Arash

The backup will be to destabilize the whole region through blowing up all oil installations in the region..If the world don't leave Iran to live in peace, the world would also not leave in peace...

Mr-Babak-S · « **Reply #22 on:** January 07, 2012, 07:49:15 PM »

Quote

we always assume that our missiles will be able to handle everything, which is fine however what if they can't?

All Iran has to do is to damage a single Saudi oil tanker.

That alone will cause oil prices to increase dramatically.

Iran's options are virtually endless:

Lob missiles unto Saudi oil fields,

Use the older, outdated silk-worms against Saudi tankers

Hire Saudi citizens to plant bombs on Saudi oil equipment,

Have Iranian commandos board a Saudi tanker, evacuate the crew, and then drive it into a US carrier,

Have Iranian commandos board a Saudi tanker, evacuate the crew, and then sink it while it is in the middle of the Strait of Hormuz (with the length of the ship across the strait, that is, with the butt of the ship pointing to Oman and the front of the ship pointing to Bandar Abbas).

Use spies / commandos inside of Iraq and Afghanistan to lob mortars on US bases / ambush US supplies, etc.

[/list]

Just like the Vietnamese, Iran can lose all or most of the battles and still win the war.

Oil is the oxygen of Western industry and transportation.

Oil is made into plastics, refined into jet fuel, automobile and truck gasoline / diesel.
Gas is used to power many electrical utilities.

Gasoline is needed to transport groceries and dairy products and meats from the farms and rances to the stores.
Electricity is needed to refrigerate the groceries and dairy products and meats.

The bottles that hold the milk are made from plastics derived from oil.

The carotid artery to Wall Street runs through Saudi Arabia.
The vertabrae of main street is also Saudi Arabia.

Bruise Saudi Arabia, and you cripple the USA.

Gottfrid · « **Reply #23 on:** January 08, 2012, 03:30:26 AM »

the alliance against Iran is far too great, and If Iran is not out matched in quality, it is in quantity.

A strategy based on hindering oil trade is far too limited in scope, and it would not correspond with any of Iran's neighbour's interests to let it go on, but it would pit more nations against Iran. The threat of closing the straits is only valuable as a deterrence.

Hinderance would last a short while at best unless Iran is somewhat capable of destroying all of the U.S' airstrike capability.

There's hope that Iran's increased war time readiness, superior anti-naval missile (to Iraq's exocet and styx) and greater sized navy and costal assets would help, intially.. but the opposing side, being a combo of nations, would be far more resourceful.

Whilst Iran could be hell in ground war, Iran is only going to be attacked by an air and naval campaign.

SAMS are too limited in scope, and in previous wars, they've been of limited use and are eventually destroyed.

my fear is that Iran suffers greatly from infiltration, given that Iran has a fair amount of subjects deluded enough to sell out the nation to 'free it'..

The explosion at the Iranian missile facility is key example of possible infiltration, which Iran would have to deny as such an act of war would demand a response.

But the worst of it all is that the whole affair could become Iran's desert storm, god forbid, and Iran would have their conventional capabilities destroyed, repeating the cycle of western nations taking down middle eastern countries.

Iran's defensive strategy is effective in making a 'surgical strike' by israel useless, but the U.S is a different matter.

In the long run, Iran's military manufacturing capabilities could be destroyed whereas the U.S, thousands of miles away would be left unscathed.

They will never let Iran win, and if Iran did win, it would come at a heavy price.

Airstrikes are largely unavoidable. Iranian air capability will be destroyed and once the U.S has complete air dominance, they'll be free to do as they wish. Also, there's limited defence against tomohawk missile attacks. 700+ were used in the Iraq war, and that was against a military that was already defeated a decade back.

- Iran needs to protect its defensive capabilities such as missiles from special forces and air attack.
- Iran needs to protect its boat swarm from air attacks (f-18 and helicopter)
- Iran needs a massive amount of costal anti-ship missiles on a heightened state of alert, and more sophisticated targets such as an Aircraft carrier that would have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile and the R2D2 would need to be attacked by a barrage from different levels, from underwater torpedo, to cruise missile, and, from above such as the Persian gulf missile
- Can Sejjill be used against distant naval carriers?? (they wouldn't be able to defend from that)
- Iran needs to follow U.S naval assets. especially with sub, and Kilos would be useful in following more distant ships in the Arabian sea, no?

Emirzaad · « **Reply #24 on:** January 08, 2012, 06:36:46 AM »

Asymmetric warfare can be adapted once Irans first line of defense fails .... Look how Talibans have beaten the hell of out of Americans in their region ... In my opinion IRGC's size should be increased with special units for this kind of warfare ...

Still I believe that War is a totally different theater with alot of other factors involved .. Political maneuvering is one of them , Something that iran is very good at .