Such a strategie does not have to succeed, its main purpose is to weaken Iran. Backed by american airpower and weapons like the Norther Alliance in Afghanstan it would not take a strong force under those circustances to overthrow the Iranian Goverment. I expect we are doing that already along with supporting democracy in Iran. America would be a fool if they are not. I do expect US air bases in Iraq as long as Iraq approves.
While i understand what your saying i think your underestimating the Iranians they arent a tribal culture really they can be very nationalistic when attacked.
The Israeli attack was just pre amble to put life into a debate on the threats facing western warships. But I would have assumed tankers and fighter cover so i don't think an attacking force of 6 is so unrealistic if you say 8 carried out the Iraqi bombing, the detail is not important....its a Naval threadI'm late to this thread, but I read it while grilling some things the other day and I dared not carry on attempting to type a response using an iPod Touch and expect the food to remain unburnt.
So let's assume you aspire to be a budding Tom Clancy.You need to fact-check your scenario a bit if your intent is to make it a compelling possibility. I'm not trying to undermine your scenario, I'm just trying to point out some places where it falls down in plausibility.
The Israelis would never send only six aircraft against an Iranian target. For starters, Iran is further away from Israel than Iraq, and it took fourteen aircraft in the historical strike on the Iraqi Osirak reactor - eight F-16A strikers and six F-15As for air cover. Even with F-15Is (the export Strike Eagle), the US would have to turn a blind eye since the most direct and least contested path from Israel to Iran would be through Iraqi airspace. We're assuming the brief flight past Jordan and SA is somehow missed by those nations. Barring another 9/11 type event that militantly polarizes US opinion against Iran, the US could not allow this to happen without significant fallout with the more moderate Arab nations. The Israelis would have to balance spoiling the relationship with their only reliable ally in return for a one-time attack. Scenario section = D-.
The last attempt by Iran to sow mines in the Strait of Hormuz was during the Tanker Wars in the 80s. The old horned horror (contact mine) is definitely still a threat, never mind more sophisticated models. But you did not look at the geography. In order to completely close the Straits of Hormuz, Iran needs to lay a static minefield about 25 miles in width (basically from the 14 fathom line and deeper) and deep enough West into the Strait to make mine-hunting a slow affair, impacting shipping delays. This would take, by all optimistic estimates, about a dedicated week of uninterrupted seeding. In the meantime, traffic would flow through the unmined parts and nominal surveillance at tactical and strategic levels would continue, thereby increasing the chances of that activity being detected. Burkes are not expected to be in the transit lanes where mines would be most effective; they stick close to the Carrier Strike Groups because they're now part and parcel of the AAW umbrella. The CSG would not hang around the mouth of the Strait itself - it will either enter the Gulf or remain outside to conduct maritime surveillance and strike operations. Given the recent Fokker-27 flyover incident, the focus on aerial force protection is understandable, if short-sighted (full dimension force protection is paramount, not just one axis). So they're nowhere near those mined lanes. It's more likely that commercial traffic would be struck first. Also, this doesn't take into account how 155mm shells could reach that far to damage any of the Aegis facings on the destroyer - no type commander worth his/her stripes would be caught anywhere within 66% effective range of gun-based shore batteries. Good try, but needs more work. Scenario section C-.
Anti-ship batteries versus shipping traffic. Okay, that's good. The INS Hanit incident is a good example, although it was more of a one-time affair, but plausible when scaled up. What's missing from this equation is how you designate the targets for the missiles - this means active radar or more sophisticated LIDAR. Active radar means EW and suppression missions can easily locate the designators. SSM effectiveness is also reduced by the sheer clutter near the Straits - it's not a flat seascape and there are many terrain features that will confuse an ASM. You also assume this is a single-dimension threat or defense only. Additional ships would be dispatched in response to a sinking, but aircraft would be first on the scene to conduct SAR and ISR before committing slower and more vulnerable surface combatants to the rescue. Add in-theater reconsat and you have the beginnings of an ATO that shows where the hostile batteries were last located. I posit that the immediate battle occurs in the air, rather than on the surface, as naval air strikes are sent in to suppress the most threatening batteries first. If the Iranians are smart, they will have moved up their few but effective S400s to maximize damage against Western planes. Where you really stumbled is an artillery duel between ships and shore batteries. The USN retired their battlewagons and no type commander will bring his/her ship that close to shore to conduct shellfire runs (see point above). 127mm guns won't do a whole lot, especially since there's only one of them per CG/DDG. Scenario section = C-.
Before we even get to the point about where the Tomahawks are going, let's ask the first question - why are they being fired in the first place? You have to posit what the response is by the US to a perceived attack against commercial shipping. Remember, we've discounted the possibility that part of the CSG was struck by mines. So even if the merchant struck was US flagged - is the response a measured retaliation against the cause (missile shore batteries) or a wider escalation against Tehran? In order to be the latter, the US would need a mandate from the UN. However, if it's a measured retaliation to eliminate the immediate threat of SSM batteries, that's more palatable in the fuzzy world of international politics if taken as a unilateral step. I would argue that TLAM use against near targets is tactically unsound and wasteful. Remember, this is the new face of warfare. The prolifigate spending of munitions during WW2 will not be seen again. The warfighter has to think (sadly) about the cost of each major fire being used, in addition to it's effectiveness and lethality. Again, naval aviation strike makes more sense against mobile targets. Scenario section = F.
The idea that the islands between Bandar Abbas and Oman needing to be seized long-term is good. That's definitely a plausible scenario. I think you need to take into account the political aspects of America invading Arab soil - again. There will be deep sensitivity (and there is no doubt now given the continuing war in SWA) to foreign invaders, even if Iran is found to be internationally culpable in it's criminal behavior. In keeping with Naval Operations Concept 2010, it makes more sense to see if Oman or Saudi Arabia would be willing to take on the assault instead. This dovetails with the Maritime Security Cooperation concept, and is more palatable than having infidels storming the beaches. Therefore, no terrible sinking of an amphib ship. Scenario section = ehh B-.
So - your final tally:
D- = 60 = 1.0
C- = 70 = 1.5
C- = 70 = 1.5
F = 59 = 0.0
B- = 80 = 2.5
Average for scenario totality = D+ = 68 = 1.3 GPA
Just remember, this is all open-source, but you need to think harder not just about WHAT happened, but the reasons WHY, and CAN it happen. If there are big disconnects between the three, the plausibility drops way down.
When you conjecture upon a reality, you're telling a story. Be prepared for people to ask you questions about the story, which means detail. And with all due respect, this discussion board prides itself on putting up not just conjecture, but reasonable conjecture. If you wish to be that dismissive about content, that's your business, but expect people to call you on it.
You don't need to keep me happy, but honestly, if the ship in distress radios they've been struck by a mine or a missile, responding ships will not immediately head towards the point of attack until they have reasonable assurance that the threat is either over or nullifed. They are going to stand off. It's simply a calculus of risk. If I'm a type commander of a surface combatant equipped with air assets (or even a civilian vessel - say a hydrography ship with a survey helo) , I'm going to send the air first (with cautions for any Surface-to-Air threats), because A) the asset can respond FASTER than a boat, and B) they can provide an initial SCOUTING report as to the general state not only of the victim ship but the immediate surrounding area - if it looks clear, then I can bring my vessel in to render assistance. That is SOP for most navies. Sucking in first responders to increase the casualty count isn't a new trick.
Let's temper that with a bit of fudge-numbers (okay not so fudgie - maybe brownie - definitely ballpark though). Forget guided shells - even the West is having challenges making LRAP work, so let's talk about arty in general. Some of the finest 155mm guns in the world (not some super duper tube from a dead crazy-brilliant Canadian scientist) have a max range of 30km or 18 miles. That's max - you're tossing the shell as far as you can without regard to accuracy at that point. Most weapons, to be effective with a measure of accuracy, need to be fired WITHIN their max range. For combat rule-of-thumb, that's 60% of your max range. To make it even more beneficial for your scenario, let's crank it to 70% - for 18 mi that's about 13-14 mi. Great. That'll definitely reach into the Strait. But wait - how do you hit the target? You need someone to call in the corrections or an electronic system to designate and control fire. Conventional shellfire as corrected by an artillery spotter is amazingly ineffective against targets that are moving fast (not to mention zig-zagging). See my previous responses earlier in the thread about the hazards of using targeting radars, etc. In addition, lobbed artillery is more effective as an area-effect weapon - against a point target you need several consecutive hits, which cannot be predicted in advance. The more you fire or the longer you designate, the solution just gets better for the target to call in counter-fire, from say, strike aircraft.
Again, let's put that into perspective. We're talking about the few islands in the Strait (your scenario), not the mainland. So that limits the number of defenders and types of defenses to overcome. I did not state that they would invade independently. In fact, the easiest way to take the islands by proxy is to let Western forces pound the island defenders into near-submission using Strike aircraft and tactical missiles. The coastal defences on the mainland would also be part of the suppression. Can be done - not easily but it's within the realm of good possibility. Then let the SA forces come in via AIR. They have two parachute battalions. Vertical envelopment, something the Iranians have not trained to defend against, nor experienced in their decades of warfare against Iraq. And for the record regarding an AMPHIB assault, why are you discounting them? The Omanis have a 10,000 ton amphib transport and two landing ships. What makes you believe they could not pull off a small-scale operation? All told, the effective ground they would need to occupy wouldn't even fill half a county of Los Angeles. That's not a lot of ground to sieze and they have enough troops to do it.
The best open intel estimates of the Kilos in Iranian possession put them in very low material condition. The crew training would also have to be taken into account as well - with poorly maintained boats, what's their training op-tempo like? Are they more at sea or is it constantly in the yard? An amphib carrier isn't going to hang around in the Strait or at the approaches. It's going be either further into the Gulf or out towards the Indian Ocean. The speed the Task Force will be operating at is high enough to challenge a poorly maintained diesel-electric. For an SS, everything is predicated on battery power - for sprints and submerge time especially. Once that's exhausted, he's got to snorkel for recharge; he's making more noise and he's more vulnerable.
I expect from a military standpont Irans a disaster, that is why they are so desperate to develope nuclear weapons. I am of the opinion that because of the division of their resourcxes between the revolutionary guard and the real military that are disorganized and poorly trained and armed or motivated.
AMERICNMAN what sources tell you that the Iranian military is so pathetic????
This is the first time I've ever heard it suggested that the North Korean military is 'unorganised'. I'm afraid you're wrong. The North Korean military is short of fuel & probably a lot of other consumables, has mostly ancient equipment, & its pilots & other personnel whose training consumes material resources have few opportunities to practice, but it is very organised indeed. From all accounts, North Korean troops are highly trained (as far as they can be within material constraints) & very disciplined indeed.
Hold on lets put their achievement into perspective. The Subs that Iran has managed to indigenously produce are not advanced. They look like they'd be at home in the battle of the Atlantic circa. 1941. Yes they'll be a little more advanced than that but I highly doubt that means they can do everything necessary to keep a Kilo going well. They may be able to handle the basics, but I doubt that the electronics, sonar, anechoic tiles etc will have been maintained fully. Add to that the NATO anti-sub systems will now be a generation ahead of even a fully operational Kilo and it looks less than promising for the Iranians.1805 said:
+1. I wouldn't want to have to scrap it out with NK infantry. Their downfall is not their skill, it is that they aren't backed up by the appropriate technology or force multipliers.
I can't agree that the Iranians are disorgainzed, poorly trained, armed or motivated. Outside of Israel I would have said the most capable in the Middle East. Yes Saudi has all the latest equipment money can buy, but do they have resolve?
Jane’s Defense Weekly offers this overall assessment of Iran’s military:
GlobalFirepower ranks Mexico ahead of Spain, Australia, & a few others one would think far more powerful militarily. I don't trust its methodology. It says of Mexico 'it scored a good balance across the board in all major categories' - except, of course, combat aircraft, armour, artillery, PGMs, & a lot more. Mexico has armed forces equipped for internal security & EEZ protection only - but still gets ranked higher than Spain, which has larger & far better-equipped .armed forces, & the same size economy.
Sorry I didn't include Turkey in my thinking, I would certainly rate them over Iran. I think Egypt is capable but not greater than Iran. Defence budgets can be deceptive as labour rates vary so greatly for example if US/European spends a £1bn on indigenous development, it doesn't go very far, if China/India they generally get greater value.
Egypt has the largest air force in the Arab world, with over 550 airplanes, more than half of which are of Western origin, Iran has 80, Egypt has US Abrams tanks, Iran cant play in the leage.
I am not disputing the numbers or quality of the equipment; Saudi also possesses that kit. Egypt has in most of its modern wars enjoyed equipment superiority (numbers & quality) over the Israelis and yet still lost. In fact I think it was little old Jordan with the poorly equipped Arab Legion that inflicted the most causalities of the three Arab combatants in 1967. Additionally Egypt is brittle and could simply collapse into an Islamic revolution.
have they kept them operational??
Some consideration too needs to be given to the fact Irans population was 70 million vs Iraqs 30 million,,,and that at the time of the Iran Iraq war Irans equipment was not all that old or out of date. Iran was willing to allow massive numbers of its population to be killed down to the age of 12 years old..