'Three-day blitz' plan for Iran

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Please discuss the topic and not other members.

"three-day-blitz plan"? I think even that last comment was perfectly on topic as we are discussing invasion plans of Iran?

The fact that a mod happens to disagree with you is not relevant to this subject- your views have equal merit and are equally welcome regardless of position, as long as they are expressed with T&C.

As far as i know the T&C does not allow people such specific 'political' organizing and other than that i can not see how this is a 'view' any person who keeps the 'order' should be holding; why don't i ever see any admins suggesting that the US should be invaded to get rid of it's current criminal leadership?

ATS doesn't sanction any one view or require staffers to accept any particular ideology, and that's a good thing.

It's a GREAT thing as long as they do not abuse that right to advocate a war based on the false premise that a given country is 'asking for it'.

If you wish to remove this post i suggest you move it to the complaints forum as think this needs to be discussed somewhere.

Stellar

With military resources so stretched at the moment it would make sense to try and disable the Iranian military in the shortest timeframe possible. No doubt most of the AA systems would be destroyed by missiles from warships in the gulf (which have finished a lot of their business in Iraq and are freed up now) and a lot of the other targets as well.

reply to post by StellarX


If you've got a problem with the fact that the staff are also members and have the right to express their views, which may differ from yours, or if you can cite some specific example of a staff member using official functions in a prejudicial manner, use the complaint feature or U2U me.

Further off topic discussion will be deleted.

Big update: Two other carriers to be near Iran waters by the end of september... so either it's pression, or it's the real deal. With the two others strike groups, there will be 3 by the end of the month, beginning of october.

But IMO, it's too soon, unless they push and accelerate the UN process, I don't see them striking Iran before the UN impose a third round of sanctions or the UN say it was Iran's last chance.

There's also Putin's visite in Iran in october. Also, the general who stopped previous attempt to attack Iran will resign in october. So it will be at least in november, unless Russia make clear threats against the US or something change.

But eh, the neo-cons are crazy, so they could strike and don't give a fark about the UN nor the american people, nor Russia.

reply to post by NuclearPaul


one thing you all ake a mistake at is compareing iran to iraq big differance irn is stronger bigger and has more time to build its army etc also irans ground troops have morale unlike the iraqi troops.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Do you really believe that? Do you think that maybe Israel is trying to hold defensive posture?

No ...

Hezbollah is no match for them if it was an all out war, but Israel is just trying to contain them while protecting their own people.

Sure Hezbollah is no match for the IDF but your wrong to suggest that Israel is doing nothing but protecting it's own people.

Israel is the strongest military wise country in the region that is why adding nukes to the mix would change all that.

Israel has many nuclear weapons and i doubt they will allow any of their neighbours to gain such ability. Even if Iran or Syria gains such weapons there is little chance that they will be able to deliver it by aircraft in the same way Israel can deliver their hundreds...

Korea was a lot like Vietnam where China was backing both and in both wars the US was defensive and had to stay defensive or China would had jump into the battle too,

China invaded Vietnam shortly after the US left so it's just plain wrong to suggest that they would have EVER joined in the attack on the US in any significant way.

and that would had turned a regional war into a world war...good thing we kept it defensive.

There is little chance of that happening in those days as the USSR had still not built up the type of advantage it could risk in a war to protect China from US aggression; it sold arms to those that could pay and that was just about that.

The problem with a defensive war is you cannot win it for you can only try and make the offensive country stop fighting.

Given equal starting resources and forces a defensive posture is naturally superior and can quickly lead to not only tactical superiority but also strategic as the attacker sustains higher casualties.

I would also like to know how you can even compare the US military might that we have today against other countries to our military match-ups during the Korea or Vietnam wars.

Due to the fact that there is no reason not to? The US considered as superior to Vietnam and Korea back in the day as they are now considered superior to other third world nations...

If we fought either of those wars today in an offensive mode they would end rather quickly too.

Right? Like the South Korean invasion of the North never happened and the US was not the party staging the offenses in Vietnam?

Neither do I, but for different reasons.

And since your not stating those reasons....

Once you own the skies you can do anything you want.

In a way you do but the US did not own the skies over Serbia and Kosovo, Korea or Vietnam so i am not altogether sure the near mythical status of the USAF is born out in reality. I think it could be such a force but it wont be while so many forces inside the US government are doing their best to destroy it.

That is what the US Air Force is all about, and that is our part. It is not about a dog fight of fighters it is utter dominance in the air. What ever and who ever we would own the skies.

As i said i believe such is possible but i think the USAF lacks the capacity to arrange such conditions over it's major enemies in the world. Against Iran and Syria it could probably affect limited control of the sky with great losses but what then? What use is such air superiority without the aircraft frames to keep up such interdiction rates given likely attrition rates? Where will the US come up with the half a million or more soldiers a ground invasion against Iran is going to require?

An asymmetrical ground war is another matter for unless we are willing to go all Genghis Khan on them that type of war would go on for a decade or more.

But the US armed forces have probably killed a million Iraqi's by now so clearly not even mass murder really 'helps'.

What it does is but them on defensive and a country that has no power, transportation, C2, clean water or food cannot fight very well.

The people will starve long before the military does as it is too a large extent isolated from such basic infrastructure.

It all depends on what we would want to do with the country. In Iraq we are trying to get out while building them up to they can run their own country. This makes it very easy for the extremist to do their thing until we do like the surge and push very hard militarily.

The US armed forces never intended to leave Iraq as is obvious by the half dozen massive clearly permanent bases they have constructed; the insurgency is growing not because of the way the US is not fighting but because it's killing so many civilians so indiscriminately.

As I said it is not about shooting down their aircraft, hell they only have 266 fighters if they could get them all working. It is about owning the air space, and to do that you also wipe their communication, C2, radar and anything else related out.

Owning air space is not enough when you can not get down low enough to effectively interdict ground forces and it will not help the US if it does any more terror bombing such as it did in Iraq, Afghanistan,Serbia, Korea and Vietnam. It is interesting that the US most always go the route of terror bombing when it's allegedly so superior to it's enemies...

Their fighters are almost useless and most would not even get off the ground. They would be down to shoulder rockets and other very portable weapons.

This is the type of daydreaming that i know you wish to believe in without having the benefit of actual evidence.

Although hard-pressed to maintain their fleet of American-built fighters, Iranian ground crews kept as many as 60 Tomcats mission capable throughout much of the war, despite a lack of parts, normal attrition, and dwindling supplies of material and munitions. Iranian F-14 crews clashed repeatedly with Iraqi MiGs and French Mirage F-Is as the Iraqis attacked Iranian oil platforms and storage facilities. The fact that many of these highly skilled, aggressive Iranian crews had been in prison after the revolution makes their story all the more remarkable. These crews are responsible for the only kills scored by the highly touted Phoenix missile, which, along with the AWG-9 nose-mounted radar, was at the heart of the F14's weapons system. Throughout the book, the Tomcat's capabilities are highlighted in a way not seen in accounts of U.S. Navy operations and are nearly too much to be believed. Iraqi MiG-21 and MiG-23 pilots didn't stand a chance against the big American swing-wing fighter. The equally large and powerful MiG-25-some flown by Soviet instructor pilots-had to rely on its eye-watering speed to disengage from a flight of IRIAF Tomcats.

This book's photos and text abound with surprising details and accounts little known in the Western press, which the authors say was sadly misinformed as to the status and operational readiness of the IRIAF's Tomcat fleet. One unfortunately confusing aspect of the text is the authors' assertion that the names of the pilots whose experiences are featured in the text are not their true identities. Thus, as we read about a particular pilot's success or consult the appendices for details on Tomcat kills, we wonder who the Iranian aviator really was. However, I have since learned that the names given in the list of kills are the actual names. A little confusing, but at least we have some idea of these successful crews' identities.

This work is an entertaining look at an air force and arena that have seldom seen any in-depth exposure.

[Author Affiliation]
By Cdr. Peter B. Mersky, USNR (Ret.)

www.acig.org...

It does Tom Cooper and Farhad Bishop a disservice to compare this book to any other on the aerial aspects of the Iran-Iraq War. The aircraft enthusiast community is a competitive and often bitchy environment, but an attempt to detract from this book should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

The book is meticulous yet written with great passion. Literally dozens of forgotten episodes of this fascinating air war are brought to light for the first time. Only serious investigative research, including exclusive primary evidence gathered during in-country interviews, can generate the level of detail and colour contained in this book. Cooper and Bishop maintain an enviable contact book that many aviation journalists can only dream of. In a profession of bluffers, they are real experts. This is the reason for much of the criticism they face.

I can attest that the book is slowly getting read and recommended onwards amongst military and regional specialists in Washington and throughout the US military community. The reason is obvious. The book shows, in detail, how developing world countries (and particularly Iran) can use the highest levels of military technology and even improve on their employment through local innovation. If you were wowed by laser-guided bombs and electronic warfare in the wee hours of 17 January 1991, then spare a thought for those who were fighting that kind of war from 1980-1988. This is what Cooper and Bishop have so expertly done.

Dr Michael Knights
Washington Institute for Near East Policy

www.amazon.com...

The USN and air force still tracked formations of 16 or more Iranian F-14's in 2005 and 2006 with many more taking to the air for special occasions and flying CAP... If they can maintain F-14's acquired in the 70's to this day who will argue about their capacity to keep their Phantoms and Mig's flying?

Picture this...once we own the air EVERY military vehicle that moves in the country is destroyed.

The US did supposedly own the air over Kosovo and Serbia yet...

Continued



[edit on 12-9-2007 by StellarX]

An antiseptic war, fought by pilots flying safely three miles high. It seems almost too good to be true-and it was. In fact-as some critics suspected at the time-the air campaign against the Serb military in Kosovo was largely ineffective. NATO bombs plowed up some fields, blew up hundreds of cars, trucks and decoys, and barely dented Serb artillery and armor. According to a suppressed Air Force report obtained by NEWSWEEK, the number of targets verifiably destroyed was a tiny fraction of those claimed: 14 tanks, not 120; 18 armored personnel carriers, not 220; 20 artillery pieces, not 450. Out of the 744 "confirmed" strikes by NATO pilots during the war, the Air Force investigators, who spent weeks combing Kosovo by helicopter and by foot, found evidence of just 58.

www.geocities.com...

Despite the heavy bombardment, NATO was surprised to find afterwards that the Serbian armed forces had survived in such good order. Around 50 Serbian aircraft were lost but only 14 tanks, 18 APCs and 20 artillery pieces.[12] Most of the targets hit in Kosovo were decoys, such as tanks made out of plastic sheets with telegraph poles for gun barrels. Anti-aircraft defences were preserved by the simple expedient of not turning them on, preventing NATO aircraft from detecting them but forcing them to keep above a ceiling of 15,000ft (5,000m), making accurate bombing much more difficult. Towards the end of the war, it was claimed that carpet bombing by B-52 aircraft had caused huge casualties among Serbian troops stationed along the Kosovo–Albania border. Careful searching by NATO investigators found no evidence of any such large-scale casualties.

www.answers.com...

Things are not as clear cut as some would like to believe and Iran wont be nearly that easy.

Think of 100s of Apaches, A-10s, and other air to ground attack aircraft littering the roads with 1000s of destroyed vehicles with little threat to them.

The US armed forces have suffered nearly 100 helicopters lost in combat since 2001 including more than two dozen Apache's so i am not so sure things will go ANY better against the Iranians...

About 3 days to destroy their infrastructure to bring the country to a complete halt after that it is a turkey shoot much like The Highway of Death that was quoted.

If it can't be done to Serbia i don't see how it's going to happen to Iran; call Iraq a fluke if you like and even in Iraq it took far longer to accomplish such goals with far greater forces.

In the end, as noted above, enemy SAM fire brought down only two aircraft (both American), thanks to allied reliance on electronic jamming, towed decoys, and countertactics to negate enemy surface-to-air defenses.37 However, NATO never fully succeeded in neutralizing the Serb IADS, and NATO aircraft operating over Serbia and Kosovo were always within the engagement envelopes of enemy SA-3 and SA-6 missiles—envelopes that extended as high as 50,000 feet. Because of that persistent threat, mission planners had to place such high-value surveillance-and-reconnaissance platforms as the U-2 and JSTARS in less-than-ideal orbits to keep them outside the lethal reach of enemy SAMs. Even during the operation’s final week, NATO spokesmen conceded that they could confirm the destruction of only three of Serbia’s approximately 25 known mobile SA-6 batteries.38

In all events, by remaining dispersed and mobile, and by activating their radars only selectively, the Serb IADS operators yielded the short-term tactical initiative in order to pre-sent a longer-term operational and strategic challenge to allied combat sorties. The downside of that inactivity for NATO was that opportunities to employ the classic Wild Weasel tactic of attacking enemy SAM radars with HARMs while SAMs guided on airborne targets were “few and far between.”39 Lt Gen Michael Short, the Allied Force air commander, later indicated that his aircrews were ready for a wall-to-wall SAM threat like the one encountered over Iraq during Desert Storm but that “it just never materialized. And then it began to dawn on us that . . . they were going to try to survive as opposed to being willing to die to shoot down an airplane.”40

www.airpower.au.af.mil...

Maybe the Iraqi' just did something terribly wrong?

The bad part for them is our abilities are much better now than then with vastly better equipment and tactics.

There is only so much precision guided munitions can do when there are not enough airframes to deliver them with and this is not something you should have trouble validating.

The big question is what then? That is why we would not attack them unless they attacked first and then we would only destroy their military and infrastructure from the air and then sit back and let them make the next move.

Well i am quite convinced that neither Iran or Syria will strike first...

Stellar

Of course the world stands on the brink of World War 3 with Iran.

The big fallacy here though is the suggestion that if we shut our eyes and do nothing it will all just go away. It is Iran who has created this threat and who has underscored it with explicit threats to destroy other nations. It is Iran who was secretly enriching bomb grade uranium whilst telling the IAEA that they only want nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. It was Iran who salvaged scrapped Soviet SS-4 missiles to make their own copies. It was Iran who imported tons of tributylphosphate in 1992 to separate Plutonium from spent reactor fuel. It was Iran who were caught with undeclared separated Plutonium at Tehran university's Heavy Water Reactor by IAEA.

Why knock out Iran's navy and AA systems ?

Because again, Iran threatens their use against it's gulf neighbours and Gulf shipping in the event it's nuclear infrastructure is attacked.

Do we hate the Iranian people ?

No we don't. They are prisoners in their own land in many respects. That is why any strike will be either against strategic military targets or the nuclear infrastructure only.

Can we avoid this ?
No we can't. In August 2005 the European Union offered Iran nuclear power stations which did not require uranium enrichment, if they would abandon uranium enrichment. Iran refused.

Iran has already chosen this confrontation.



[edit on 12-9-2007 by sy.gunson]

US Military tactics invariably are modified & changed after each war. New weapon systems are deployed & utilzed. Seemingly fewer troops are being placed in combat zones.

It is not a matter of "if" Iran will be attacked, but rather "when." The choice of "who" will initiate & sustain the attack is left up to two countries: 1) Israel 2) USA. The first answer is incorrect because of obvious reasons. The USA must do the bidding. Not to worry however, the Israelis will have their "walk on part in the war," only you will not see them but rather their handiwork. The lasting after effects of Israeli specialized operation teams gives me chills. Oh, & do not think the Syrians will only loose some sleep during this "game show" either. They are long over due for their misdeeds of late.

It is sad to say, but, the Kurds may be the trade off victims here. Let's hope for the best

I have a very strong inclination that this up and coming "war" will be totally unlike anything known to mankind. It will be so swift & complete that the phrase "shock & awe" will equate to a dusty clay tablet. It's time that people begin to think outside the "sand box." After all, that's what the American tax payer buys, is it not?

When Iran is done, will Saudi Arabia be next? I mean, most of the 9/11 hi-jackers are saudis. That country also covertly funds all sorts of terrorism cells and madrassas all over the world.

You don't think all those "suicide bomber's family fund" comes from no where do you? The saudis are hell bent on converting the world to islam.

Er... It seems that the tone of this thread has taken on a bit of a 'hawkish' aspect. I know it's a bit rose tinted of me but who exactly have Iran threatened? So far all the threats seem to be going one way - towards Iran. And the vilification of Iran has started in the media. First the propaganda war... What makes anyone convinced that Iran is any more likely to use nuclear weapons in a war situation than, say, the US for example? Oops the US already did! In fact aren't they historically the ONLY nation to use nukes in war so far? Since when did the US become the world police? The only reason Iran is standing up and responding is because they are being thretened. By a huge bully that has already taken the lunch money from one of the other kids in the middle east playground. OIL is what this is about, people. OIL is what Bush wants and he'll quite happily destroy a country to get it, or control it...
So we're fighting an illegal war in Afghanistan, occupying a sovereign state under the banner of 'liberation' in Iraq and plans are being drawn up to invade another sovereign state under the banner of 'protecting the free world'. The protectors are the ones who worry me.
Whatever the 'allies' decide to do I can't see Iran rolling over and playing dead. I think whatever fight happens there will be huge loss of life on both sides. Unlike Iraq after 10 years of economic and military sanctions following the complete destruction of their infrastructure, Iran are motivated, united and well equipped. No doubt in another couple of years following the cessation of hostilities the 'allies' will still be dying in their hundreds due to the actions of 'insurgents'. I have commented before that if France were to invade the UK as an act of 'liberation' would those of us fighting for our country be termed 'insurgents' by the French media? Peace...

reply to post by chickeneater


and you know that for sure huh?

...By a strange and spooky coincidence Sky News last night ran a story that America's elder statesman of Finance has gone on record as saying that Iraq WAS about the oil! I know I don't know much (and as I get older I realise I know even less) but when senior US politicians come out and say it then there must be some truth to it surely?
I don't know where all the other oil is in the Middle East but I'm sure Mr. Bush does (or the people who pull his strings at least). Iran come on down! You need liberating from your natural resources!
Cynical? Moi?
Peace...

[edit on 16-9-2007 by Howie666]

reply to post by Howie666


yes i saw that but they also were cleary trying to hint out we should attack iran 5 to midnight thing that is all directed to iran

Originally posted by chickeneater
When Iran is done, will Saudi Arabia be next? I mean, most of the 9/11 hi-jackers are saudis. That country also covertly funds all sorts of terrorism cells and madrassas all over the world.

You don't think all those "suicide bomber's family fund" comes from no where do you? The saudis are hell bent on converting the world to islam.

In my opinion you completly miss the point and who the people are who want to bomb Iran by this comment.

Saudi is a monarch like the US, they like each other, as long as Saudi keeps selling oil and keeping its extreamist in total fear with torture and oppression our government loves them.

It is not a religious war, it is an economic war, Saudi is on our side and a part of the global government.

Our government does not care about where terrorist come from, we attacked Iraq remember.

The only thing Bush does not like about Saudi is he is jealous that their royal family gets the actual title.

[edit on 19-9-2007 by Redge777]