Iranian "stealth" fighter F-313 qaher begins taxi tests.

a reply to: intrptr

I heard they let the aussies win some. WHy you ask? because they had to be given a HANDICAP. the US navy was under a handicap to make it fair.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: haman10

The corollary of that is don't OVER estimate your own capabilities.

DING DING DING winner. Haman Im not overestimating our abilities or underestimating Irans. Simple technical fact is Iran would be crushed militarily,and THATs why i suggest starving the people because you have to break a proud people like that. Soldiers are no good when thirsting and starving to death and burning up in th eday and freezing at night because we destroy the infrastructure,refineries,roads,bridges,airstrips,hospitals(total war would be the correct way to handle Iran because Iran coudnt get over to the US to retaliate for hospitals.)

Iraq..launching from Kurd territory would work. Straight of hormuz? After bombing it to remove the defenses woudnt be a issue. Using ships to block the way? Demolotion teams and or weapons would clear that out easily.

Point is both sides will take damage but Iran would be worse off. And those proxies... yeah. most will hide as they always do when things get really bad.

There wouldn't be a need to fight Iran. There would be a decapitation strike and the rest will fall quickly. Remove the head from the snake, so to speak.

a reply to: intrptr

So now it's submarines...

Not those oh so invincible drones and aircraft? You really need to make up your mind.

As yuppa rather succinctly explained it, there's a vast difference between peacetime operations, and wartime operations. I'll leave it to you to figure out the differences.

Diesel subs are not silent, especially not the older ones such as the Kilo-class subs that Iran bought from Russia, and the smaller littoral subs they've home built that are thought to be much like the North Korean Yugo boats, Yono subs, and Sang-O Class coastal submarines. They've not the range, nor the speed, to tackle a carrier task group.

Please do not compare the Aussies, who've been at the submarine game as long as anyone, with the Iranians. In levels of institutional expertise, and equipment, there is no valid comparison. Not one anyone other than you would believe, anyway...

...and would you care to lay odds that it would ever happen again?? It is, after all, why they do these exercises: To learn, and improve.

originally posted by: swedy13
a reply to: anzha

Stuff like this just makes me want to know what kind of weaponry we have that isn't publicized.

NK with nukes. Iran with a stealth fighter. China with a second aircraft carrier.

What do we have? It's gotta be more than Elon Musks Falcon 9

I think the US has a level above some of the equipment in use now that isnt publicized. Barry obama did send the iranians one of out stealth drones and 150 billion$ so they should be able to build something.

a reply to: haman10

They're both a recipe for disaster. If you over estimate your capabilities you put yourself into a situation where you're going to push too far one day, because you think you can handle anything.

If you under estimate your opponent, then you put yourself into a position to get hammered, because you don't bring enough to the table when you need it.

a reply to: yuppa

Thats some descriptive for winning wars. Of course your logic is superimposed by the fact the US hasn't won in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, (Syria as well), lets not forget tiny Vietnam and Korea, either. In Iraq, victory is been declared several times and yet, (t)here we are.

Maybe unending endless war is winning, for the Factories for war anyway, maybe they prefer it that way.

a reply to: seagull

The gulf is a lake, bottle necked, the Iran coastline is a thousand miles long. They have had plenty of time to prepare.

Like an elephant hunt, the hunters lays ambush, loose a flurry of arrows; the elephant stomps, trumpets and kills some hunters, but the hunters persist and the arrows keep coming until, finally spent, the elephant collapses from exhaustion.

An elephant can't hide, neither can a carrier.

The arrows being multitudes of anti ship missiles, salvo firing them (blind even) keeps ship defenses busy. No planes are launched or recovered during attacks which could go on piecemeal for protracted periods. Iranians using all their resources like fast attack boats, shoreline missile batteries, aircraft, subs, mines in unison. All the carrier fleet can hope to do is steam around, warding off the 'arrows'.

Stomping, trumpeting and flailing about in defiance.

a reply to: intrptr

uhmmm...

Couldn't and wouldn't the united states just attack from bases in Iraq and Afghanistan?

And leave the Navy out around Oman launching strikes or just making sure no Iranian ship left the area.

a reply to: grey580

Couldn't and wouldn't the united states just attack from bases in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Attack What? Thats the beauty of an anti shipping missile launcher, it needs no jet to delver it, no runway or carrier to take off from, no base to bomb, just a thousand launchers spread out over a thousand miles of shoreline; on a truck, a train car, a cave, small boat, a shack...

The air assets in Iraq and Afghanistan would already both be busy with diversionary attacks of their own.

a reply to: intrptr

...and just how many of these super missile launchers, obviously invisible to satellites, do you proclaim Iran has???

Let's see here... In the event of a conflict, unlikely though it may be, the carrier battle group(s) are just going to be sitting in the Persian Gulf waving their little red capes saying "shoot me, here I am!!"? Air bases in Afghanistan. Air bases in Quatar. Air bases in several other places, including on the other side of the globe at Tinker AFB, or Diego Garcia, or any number of other bases that aircraft with global reach can stage out of...

Nope, they're just gonna sail right into the Persian Gulf and sit there. Uh-huh.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: yuppa

Thats some descriptive for winning wars. Of course your logic is superimposed by the fact the US hasn't won in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, (Syria as well), lets not forget tiny Vietnam and Korea, either. In Iraq, victory is been declared several times and yet, (t)here we are.

Maybe unending endless war is winning, for the Factories for war anyway, maybe they prefer it that way.

Maybe Trump will take my advice again and draw up a similiar plan hmm? Iraq war 1 was WON. Korea wasnt originally a US war it was a police action on behalf of the french. Vietnam WOULD had been a victory IF the US would had stayed 4 more weeks but the president was covering his arse. the VC were almost crushed according to their commander.

Afghanistan. the original mission was won. the US should had left after and let them rebuild themselves.
If we drop back to WW2 doctrine wars will be won again.

And Carriers just float around on their own..Wonder why they are called "Battle Groups?"

a reply to: Blackfinger

...and apparently they wait around to be shot at as well.

a reply to: intrptr

Attack what?

Infrastructure, airfields, convoys, government buildings, bunkers, power plants, transmission towers, radar installations etc.

BTW those anti shipping missiles launched from shoreline are useless unless they can see what they are shooting at.

You're assuming that the US Navy is gonna waltz close to shore and make an easy target.

a reply to: anzha taxi test or parade float? wwhen it actuall takes off and flys now that will be something to see

Aircraft carriers don't hide and they don't attack any aircraft that comes near it. I intercepted an Iranian P-3 that went about 1 mile along the Port side of the carrier I was living on. We knew it was coming for hours. HOURS. A P-3 flyby is not a threat to a carrier Strike Group. A drone is not a threat to a carrier strike group.

Should any of those aircraft commit a hostile act during said fly by, the reaction would be swift and strong. The elephant doesn't freak out because a fly approaches him.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: intrptr

BTW those anti shipping missiles launched from shoreline are useless unless they can see what they are shooting at.

You're assuming that the US Navy is gonna waltz close to shore and make an easy target.

The aptly named "Persian Gulf"...

...is an Iranian single-stage solid-propellant, supersonic anti-ship quasi ballistic missile---

The missile has an operating range of (190 mi)--

is equipped with a 650-kilogram (1,430 lb) explosive warhead that uses a combination of guidance systems to prevent interception---

The Persian Gulf has an advanced electronic system that allows the missile to discover and navigate to the target. The missile relies on its own internal navigation system, allowing it to travel without radio interference---

Israeli expert Uzi Rubin describes the missile as a game changer if used against US carriers in the Strait of Hormuz===

February 2011 when the Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, announced that it is being mass-produced---

(Persian Gulf)

Just one of their variants, not even the newest. You think their own factories for war aren't busy mass producing theses and stashing them everywhere along the coast?

a reply to: seagull

...and just how many of these super missile launchers, obviously invisible to satellites, do you proclaim Iran has???

And just how many do you proclaim they don't have?

The basic technology has been around since the Exocet missile was deployed in 1981. Improved upon by a host of companies since then, the basic response by nations who have the money to build defensive measures against the one known threat in the world, The US aircraft carrier. I can't think of another LST so obsolete and yet still depended upon by US to impose its will upon the planet.

What a bunch of dummies ...

a reply to: intrptr



200 mile range for the missile.

I went on google maps and ran a 200 mile line from Iran, past the Gulf of Oman and out into the Arabian Sea.

As long as our ships don't cross the red line. They should be safe from any missiles.

Iran on the other hand won't be. Navy cruise missiles have a range of 800+ miles.

And f-18's have a 2k mile range.

There's no reason for navy ships to go into the gulf of oman or the persian gulf.