Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz

Originally posted by Submarines
Don't you see any flaws in land commanders commanding a naval force?

That would be like a submarine commander deploying land, tank forces. The commander would not have the faintes idea on how to deploy those troops.

And, if any of this wargame was played in reality, who were the oppsoing forces? Was it a US force against another US force? Who fought who?

edit on 1/3/2012 by Submarines because: finishing thought

Land commanders always work in conjunction with the commanders of sea, land and air. The simulation was not just to test US attack and defence capabilities. But how commanders plan and use their assets in war a scenario.

It is wrong to blame the land command, because they act on the best advice from sea, land and air commanders.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

The SSN 21 Seawolf could sink all of Iranian submarines easily.

The Iranians would probably shoot about 20 Chinese silkworm antiship missiles instead.

I'm sure the admirals in charge have a contingency plan already in place.

The SSN 21 is in reality a deep water sub, and is not designed to hunt small Iranian subs in the shallow Straight. The SSN 21 is designed to hunt large Russian subs in open sea.

Iran wont use its subs to attack the Fifth fleet unless the fleet is within the Straight of Hormuz. The small Iranian subs are designed to hide close to shore. And its purpose is to attack from cover of shallow waters along the shore lines.

The US subs also have a weakness compared to the Iranians, The US subs have to hunt, and that means that the US subs have to be moving around. The Iranian subs would be hidden and silenced. Iran wont use its subs to hunt. They are not designed for hunting other subs in open water. They are designed for ambushing what ever moves in the water in front of it.

Iran also have stationary underwater torpedo containers, And Torpedoes stationed in hardened shelters along the cost line. These torpedoes can be activated and guided by prepositioned underwater sensors. These torpedoes alone can threaten any US sub hunting Iranian subs in the Straight, or of the coast of Oman.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Iran cannot claim the entire Strait of Hormuz as their own.

Legally, they don't have a leg to stand on at the United Nations.
Iran is free to start a war in the Strait of Hormuz. The US Military will finish it very quickly.

I advise the Iranians to use their power of free will wisely.

reply to post by spy66


You are correct, but the deployment of assets is given to those in command of those particular assets for a big picture coordination of a fight. This is not what took place according to the documents. Looking at some of the bibliographic info, this was not an open war game, but was a strickly scripted excercise. It was also done mostly with the computer simulations as well.

On that note, it really don't understand what the game was trying to accomplish. I also read that it was administered by an Admiral. I can only guess that it was to look further into tactical theory of both land and sea actions, for updating rules of engagement in the future. Seems more like a waste of cash to me.

reply to post by Rocky Black


First of; the US would station its carrier fleet way outside the reach of Iranian patrol boats and anti ship missiles. Iran will not attack a carrier fleet with patrol boats doing 50-90 knots. That is bloody stupid. The patrol boats will be patrolling close to shore making it difficult for the Fleet to come close to Iran and the Straight Of Hormuz.

The carrier fleet dont have a problem with the patrol boats, they have a problem with the anti ship missiles that have a 200km range which they carry.

Originally posted by Submarines
reply to post by spy66

 

You are correct, but the deployment of assets is given to those in command of those particular assets for a big picture coordination of a fight. This is not what took place according to the documents. Looking at some of the bibliographic info, this was not an open war game, but was a strickly scripted excercise. It was also done mostly with the computer simulations as well.

On that note, it really don't understand what the game was trying to accomplish. I also read that it was administered by an Admiral. I can only guess that it was to look further into tactical theory of both land and sea actions, for updating rules of engagement in the future. Seems more like a waste of cash to me.

It is usually land command who receives orders from "political staff" to draft and test ideas. This simulation is probably just one of many drafted simulations tests. This simulation does not prove anything of the capabilities the US would have in a real scenario. It just proved that this draft was insufficient.

One thing people have to keep in mind, it is not a weakness to fail a simulation. It is better to fail a simulation and to learn from it, than is to fail the actual test. That is why we have simulators, to pinpoint weaknesses, so that they can be fixed.

For all you war mongers out there, i suggest you to go to Google earth.... zoom on Iran ....then on Persian gulf .then try to find your little toy carrier and his watch dogs in there some where.....take a good look at it......Then Zoom back and look up Iran again......try to grasp the comparison ....then hopefully you would not be fantasizing about your tool and its capabilities so much!..........It will be good for you and the rest of the world to just take your medications on time so no one will suffer the out comes! ,,, ........You know its your culture of '' bend over and shut up it'll be over soon''' That cracks me up every time......Just because the other guys did not smash your balls,does'nt mean that we dont!! ..............We sure dont like doing that, but if you insist..........Be our guests.....

Originally posted by shapur
For all you war mongers out there, i suggest you to go to Google earth.... zoom on Iran ....then on Persian gulf .then try to find your little toy carrier and his watch dogs in there some where.....take a good look at it......Then Zoom back and look up Iran again......try to grasp the comparison ....then hopefully you would not be fantasizing about your tool and its capabilities so much!..........It will be good for you and the rest of the world to just take your medications on time so no one will suffer the out comes! ,,, ........You know its your culture of '' bend over and shut up it'll be over soon''' That cracks me up every time......Just because the other guys did not smash your balls,does'nt mean that we dont!! ..............We sure dont like doing that, but if you insist..........Be our guests.....

We will use all force necessary to silence the hostile Iranian military.

There is no reason to overreact. It won't take much. We have 20/20 vision and we see all
of the targets. It won't take long.

Originally posted by shapur
For all you war mongers out there.

-------
We have better things to do than blow up Iranians .

Maybe you should stick to just playing chess.

edit on 3-1-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Eurisko2012


If we had 20/20 vision we woulda seen and stopped the 911 attacks
If we had 20/20 vision we woulda seen and stopped the Pearl Harbor attacks
If we had 20/20 vision we woulda seen and stopped the USS Cole attacks
If we had 20/20 vision we woulda seen and stopped the USS Liberty attacks
If we had 20/20 vision we woulda seen and stopped the USS Stark attacks
If we had 20/20 vision we woulda seen and stopped the 4000 dead US Soldiers in Iraq
If we had 20/20 vision we woulda seen and stopped the 1500 dead US Soldiers in Afghanistan
Shall I go on..

reply to post by Eurisko2012

Iran cannot claim the entire Strait of Hormuz as their own.

Legally, they don't have a leg to stand on at the United Nations.
Iran is free to start a war in the Strait of Hormuz. The US Military will finish it very quickly.

I advise the Iranians to use their power of free will wisely.

Iran is not claiming ownership over the Strait of Hormuz. They are using it as a bargaining device. Iran dosent have a real interest of closing of the Strait, but they will do so if they are attacked.

If you look at who is threatening who at the moment. It is the US who is leading on with threats through UN sanctions and with political terror rhetoric at home, Iran is just responding. Its a very natural reaction. This is a exact copy from how the US sanctioned Iraq before they attacked them in 1991.

I am not sure if the US will win this war, because that depends on what is classified as victory in the end. And what portion of our society that will benefit from the so called victory.
This war will cost the people dearly when it comes to spending. And with the balance sheets the US and EU are working with at the moment. I dont see how a defeat over Iran can be seen as a victory by beating them militarily.

Beating Iran militarily will cause debt problems beyond our present understanding.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

If we had 20/20 vision we woulda seen and stopped the 911 attacks
If we had 20/20 vision we woulda seen and stopped the Pearl Harbor attacks
If we had 20/20 vision we woulda seen and stopped the USS Cole attacks
If we had 20/20 vision we woulda seen and stopped the USS Liberty attacks
If we had 20/20 vision we woulda seen and stopped the USS Stark attacks
If we had 20/20 vision we woulda seen and stopped the 4000 dead US Soldiers in Iraq
If we had 20/20 vision we woulda seen and stopped the 1500 dead US Soldiers in Afghanistan
Shall I go on..

20/20 vision means we have real time spy satellites. We see everything.


Didn't have the spy satellites December 7, 1941.

The Stark failed to turn on their CIWS. The CO was at fault.
It was also a friendly fire event. The Iraqi pilot thought it was an Iranian ship.
BTW, we put the fire out and saved the ship.

Nobody is perfect but we do our best.
We have learned from our mistakes.

Originally posted by fiorano
To be frank- the simulation was in 2002- which means in 10 years time since, I am sure the USN has worked out the bugs.
The carrier group fights with not only ships but a myriad of aircraft, and these will certainly help out, the scenario is interesting, and a big ship may get crippled, but the Battle group won't the USN is not a bunch of untested amateurs, this is not unknown technology, this would bring the hurt.
I have much family who served in Iraq/Afghanistan/Serbia/ Bosnia and there is crap the military has, no official news media has any idea exists, there is some trick stuff, it isn't just big boats and big guns.
there have been missteps in the US foreign policy in the past administrations, but I have full faith in what this country is aiming to accomplish and how they do it, I am not a sheep, but I am invested in the land I live in in my neighbors and family and simply I believe in what they can accomplish when the goal is set.
..

I concur. Just remember that the purpose of these tabletop exercises is to develop lessons learned and therefore prevent the dire results of the said Ex. 10 years since, I am sure they have held many of these exercises since then. So OP you cannot take this one Ex. and extrapolate the endgame to fit your scenario.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Iran cannot claim the entire Strait of Hormuz as their own.

Legally, they don't have a leg to stand on at the United Nations.
Iran is free to start a war in the Strait of Hormuz. The US Military will finish it very quickly.

I advise the Iranians to use their power of free will wisely.

Iran is not claiming ownership over the Strait of Hormuz. They are using it as a bargaining device. Iran dosent have a real interest of closing of the Strait, but they will do so if they are attacked.

If you look at who is threatening who at the moment. It is the US who is leading on with threats through UN sanctions and with political terror rhetoric at home, Iran is just responding. Its a very natural reaction. This is a exact copy from how the US sanctioned Iraq before they attacked them in 1991.

I am not sure if the US will win this war, because that depends on what is classified as victory in the end. And what portion of our society that will benefit from the so called victory.
This war will cost the people dearly when it comes to spending. And with the balance sheets the US and EU are working with at the moment. I dont see how a defeat over Iran can be seen as a victory by beating them militarily.

Beating Iran militarily will cause debt problems beyond our present understanding.

If Iran attacks an aircraft carrier that is passing through the Strait of Hormuz, you will
be handing us a green light to after the entire Iranian military AND the uranium enriching
centrifuges.

The United Nations will not look the other way if Iran starts shooting anything that moves
in the Strait of Hormuz.

reply to post by Eurisko2012

If Iran attacks an aircraft carrier that is passing through the Strait of Hormuz, you will
be handing us a green light to after the entire Iranian military AND the uranium enriching
centrifuges.

The United Nations will not look the other way if Iran starts shooting anything that moves
in the Strait of Hormuz.

If a US carrier fleet is sailing in the Strait Of Hormuz, It will be a clear indicator to everyone that there is no imminent threat present that Iran will attack the Fleet.

The US would never be that stupid to sacrifice its fifth fleet and 15 000 sailors, by sailing through the Strait if there was a imminent threat that Iran would attack the fleet. The Fifth fleet wouldn't stand a chance in hell if it was attacked in the narrow Strait.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Satellites cant see underground, Iran can blind CIA spy satellites,which is why they had to resort to drones, which subsequently got hacked. No amount of spy satellites can see everything.

If we learned from our mistakes, why did seal team six get smoked and burnt to a crisp?

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Oh please....See who's talking about hostility!........don't even start me on that .............And of course you have better things to do..That's why you are not'' doing it'' ...or maybe you know something that the rest of us don't know!......... you have a 20/20 ....good ....so try to watch and enjoy the show because that's all you can do...

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

If Iran attacks an aircraft carrier that is passing through the Strait of Hormuz, you will
be handing us a green light to after the entire Iranian military AND the uranium enriching
centrifuges.

The United Nations will not look the other way if Iran starts shooting anything that moves
in the Strait of Hormuz.

If a US carrier fleet is sailing in the Strait Of Hormuz, It will be a clear indicator to everyone that there is no imminent threat present that Iran will attack the Fleet.

The US would never be that stupid to sacrifice its fifth fleet and 15 000 sailors, by sailing through the Strait if there was a imminent threat that Iran would attack the fleet. The Fifth fleet wouldn't stand a chance in hell if it was attacked in the narrow Strait.

The aircraft carrier already went through.

A single cruiser was the escort.

It looks like the Iranians are all bark and no bite.

I guess they see the truth. We shoot back.

--------
Want to shoot at our aircraft carrier? Go ahead. Watch what happens.

I can speak to wargames with relevance to this situation. I have designed wargames and played them for more than 20 years. I have actually played a very similar game involving the US and Iran as the original post. The wargame system used was Harpoon a set of rules designed by Lt. Cmd Larry Bond. Bond is retired from the USN and writes fiction in the veign of Clancy. Harpoon is a set of rules that leans more toward simulation rather than game. It is probably as accurate as a non computer set could be. In this particular game I was one of the Iranian commanders. I was very much aware of Von Ripers performance in the original simulation and took his tactics into account when planning my attack. In the game I played my assault task force was able to inflict damage on several US ships but it was a suicide run. We lost every boat to US air power. This was even after we had preped the airspace by informing the US that Iran would be conducting large scale air exercises in the area and thus giving us a reason to have a significant number of our fighters in the air at the time. The US task force was escorted by a number of F-18's and they had plenty of time to put more in the air after the attack. Even with the potential speed of small boats crossing larger bodies of water at any level of sea state is tough and limits your speed. We made attack runs and then ran as quickly as we could to get back under the umbrella of SAM coverage on the coast and we were still plastered. The responding Hornets cleared the Iranian air cover rather quickly At that point the US shifted to punitive responses and destroyed everything that even looked like a target on the coast. They lost aircraft but the majority of it was done systematically with Tomahawks clearing the Surface to Surface missle sites and Air defence and then Air strikes to mop up the rest.
If you think this game was somehow not realistic then you dont understand the nature of information available to modern wargamers. A significant amount of data can be obtained about countries and their military capabilities. Granted this does not preclude the ability of Iran to obtain a new weapon system or tactic in secret. Getting a system and deploying it in significant numbers are two different things. If you just get the system and only have enough to use it once or twice then its not really a factor. Someone mentioned the Falklands and Exocet missles. Yes Argentina had them but they only had a small number. They also only had a small number of Super Entendards that could shoot them. They did indeed sink British ships with them BUT and here is the big BUT. They VASTLY underestimated the will of the British to respond to those attacks and continue the fight. We have a very good assesment of what the Iranian navy has in its inventory. We are aware that they have issued threats to close the straights and have today told us not to enter with aour carrier group. That in itself is provocation as the Straight is an open waterway and thus this closure would violate maritime law. Von Ripers attack was depending on surprise and stealth. Since we know the current state of Iranian saber rattling the US carrier group will not be going into things with its eyes closed.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

If we learned from our mistakes, why did seal team six get smoked and burnt to a crisp?

You ignored my question when I asked what this has to do with anything, as it has nothing to do with a Navy fleet.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


All they need to do is just launch EMP missles or bombs and the war gets brought back to the 1930's....

which evens the playing field considerably........

They don't want us citizens to realize we could have an effective army for about 1 billionth of the cost.

wow we are dumb.