Iran: LET’S DO THIS!

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Iran doesn't have to "sustain" a fight.  They only have to increase the risk of transit to close the Straits. 

 

And SAMs aren't magic.  Ever hear of F2T2EA?  Find-Fix-Track-Target-Engage-Analyze.  The basic engagement cycle for any engagement, from bow-and-arrow to nuclear weapons.  The problem in the Gulf and Straits is that the ranges are short enough that it's very easy for the Iranians to either get inside that cycle, or saturate it - i.e. launch close enough that missile flight time is less than the engagement cycle, or launch so many missiles that you overload an aspect of the engagement cycle.  

 

If you study military history, and don't understand that, you stuck at studying military history.  Hell, there's capable computer games (Command & Control, for example) that would let you play this out and, if not give you a completely real-world result, would at least give you an understanding of the variables involved.

The only way we can stop them effectively is to convince them that our response would be too overwhelming for them to consider any attacks. Of course at the ranges we're talking about they could do some damage but the price they'll pay should be prohibitive.

[MILFHUNTER#518]

4 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

Yeah ya can. You don't have to invade to bring a country to their knees. England was almost fought out in WWII without one German soldier stepping foot on the island. It can be done. If the issue is shipping lanes, and you sink their navy, they then cannot contest the shipping lanes. It's really that simple. 

This isnt the 20th century. Iran's military is only part of the puzzle, you are missing the elephant in the room. 

 

Iran is the worlds premier state sponsor of terror. Even if we completely wipe out their entire conventional military,  the Quds force has sleeper cells all over the globe they can activate and wreak all holy hell on our soft targets back home, and then we will have to retaliate, and on and on and on. 

 

And all this for what? What is the real reason for all this nonsense? Tell me, what would we really gain by attacking Iran other than some cool geeky hypotheticals from some deep state thunk tanks in D.C?

[DC Tom]

15 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

The only way we can stop them effectively is to convince them that our response would be too overwhelming for them to consider any attacks. Of course at the ranges we're talking about they could do some damage but the price they'll pay should be prohibitive.

 

If at all possible, what will happen is that the US Navy will respond with what Paul called "pre-boost interdiction."  

 

People tend to forget: while ASMs may be difficult to intercept in the air, they're a lot easier to intercept on the launchers.  And the moment the Iranians launch even one ASM, we will bomb the living **** out of all their military installations.  

[The_Dude]

11 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said:

This isnt the 20th century. Iran's military is only part of the puzzle, you are missing the elephant in the room. 

 

Iran is the worlds premier state sponsor of terror. Even if we completely wipe out their entire conventional military,  the Quds force has sleeper cells all over the globe they can activate and wreak all holy hell on our soft targets back home, and then we will have to retaliate, and on and on and on. 

 

And all this for what? What is the real reason for all this nonsense? Tell me, what would we really gain by attacking Iran other than some cool geeky hypotheticals from some deep state thunk tanks in D.C?

 

I'm not missing that point. Wreck them. Wreck the home country. Disable their government's ability to pay and supply their terrorists. Burn them. Kill 'em. Make an example of them. 

 

But, despite my saying all that, I only believe in a "just war." We have to give them a chance to back down before we attack. 

30 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Iran doesn't have to "sustain" a fight.  They only have to increase the risk of transit to close the Straits. 

 

And SAMs aren't magic.  Ever hear of F2T2EA?  Find-Fix-Track-Target-Engage-Analyze.  The basic engagement cycle for any engagement, from bow-and-arrow to nuclear weapons.  The problem in the Gulf and Straits is that the ranges are short enough that it's very easy for the Iranians to either get inside that cycle, or saturate it - i.e. launch close enough that missile flight time is less than the engagement cycle, or launch so many missiles that you overload an aspect of the engagement cycle.  

 

If you study military history, and don't understand that, you stuck at studying military history.  Hell, there's capable computer games (Command & Control, for example) that would let you play this out and, if not give you a completely real-world result, would at least give you an understanding of the variables involved.

I'll address the boldded numerically.

 

1. I'd bet my mortgage on our navy vs. theirs. And I'm Jon Snow when it comes to boat war. 

 

2. Not tell you typed it. That's a whole lot of jargon to say 'shoot, move, communicate' which I'm sure makes people think it's fancier. War ain't fancy and neither am I. I was a recon type -- that's what we did but if anybody created jargon that long to say it....well no. Hell no. 

 

3. I've played with MILES gear but the only computer game I've ever played is Rome: Total War because of course I have. 

 

 

 

I don't know why a couple of attack subs, and a couple destroyers, and a carrier couldn't wipe out the Iranian navy in a couple of days. It seems to me very possible. But again, I ain't no admiral and I don't understand how the navy pieces fit together. War isn't simple, it's always complex, and I don't know the capabilities. But it's Iran -- we kinda owe them a kick in the ass. Plus, understand for me it's personal. We know where those goddamn IED's were coming from. 

 

14 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

If at all possible, what will happen is that the US Navy will respond with what Paul called "pre-boost interdiction."  

 

People tend to forget: while ASMs may be difficult to intercept in the air, they're a lot easier to intercept on the launchers.  And the moment the Iranians launch even one ASM, we will bomb the living **** out of all their military installations.  

 

What does that mean?

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

I'm not missing that point. Wreck them. Wreck the home country. Disable their government's ability to pay and supply their terrorists. Burn them. Kill 'em. Make an example of them. 

 

But, despite my saying all that, I only believe in a "just war." We have to give them a chance to back down before we attack. 

I'll address the boldded numerically.

 

1. I'd bet my mortgage on our navy vs. theirs. And I'm Jon Snow when it comes to boat war. 

 

2. Not tell you typed it. That's a whole lot of jargon to say 'shoot, move, communicate' which I'm sure makes people think it's fancier. War ain't fancy and neither am I. I was a recon type -- that's what we did but if anybody created jargon that long to say it....well no. Hell no. 

 

3. I've played with MILES gear but the only computer game I've ever played is Rome: Total War because of course I have. 

 

 

 

I don't know why a couple of attack subs, and a couple destroyers, and a carrier couldn't wipe out the Iranian navy in a couple of days. It seems to me very possible. But again, I ain't no admiral and I don't understand how the navy pieces fit together. War isn't simple, it's always complex, and I don't know the capabilities. But it's Iran -- we kinda owe them a kick in the ass. Plus, understand for me it's personal. We know where those goddamn IED's were coming from. 

 

 

What does that mean?

Well it looks like he explained it:

 

"People tend to forget: while ASMs may be difficult to intercept in the air, they're a lot easier to intercept on the launchers.  And the moment the Iranians launch even one ASM, we will bomb the living **** out of all their military installations."  

 

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

I'm not missing that point. Wreck them. Wreck the home country. Disable their government's ability to pay and supply their terrorists. Burn them. Kill 'em. Make an example of them. 

 

But, despite my saying all that, I only believe in a "just war." We have to give them a chance to back down before we attack. 

I'll address the boldded numerically.

 

1. I'd bet my mortgage on our navy vs. theirs. And I'm Jon Snow when it comes to boat war. 

 

It's not their navy we're talking about, knuckle-dragger.  ASMs can be land-based.  

 

4 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

2. Not tell you typed it. That's a whole lot of jargon to say 'shoot, move, communicate' which I'm sure makes people think it's fancier. War ain't fancy and neither am I. I was a recon type -- that's what we did but if anybody created jargon that long to say it....well no. Hell no. 

 

 

War is fancy when you have Radar, ECM, and ECCM in multiple bands doing detection, ranging, tracking, and mid-course and terminal guidance of multiple interceptors on multiple targets, across multiple data-linked ships, in a cluttered non-permissive environment.  

 

And even when it's not...you still went through that engagement cycle, whether you called it that or not.  You really don't know how this **** works, do you?  SAMs aren't "point and shoot."  Guns aren't even "point and shoot," for that matter.  If you think they are, you're doing it wrong.

 

9 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

What does that mean?

 

Means you're a cotton-pickin' moron.  Isn't it obvious?  "Interdiction before the boost phase of a missile launch?"  You fail English?  That's unpossible!

 

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It's not their navy we're talking about, knuckle-dragger.  ASMs can be land-based.  

 

 

 

War is fancy when you have Radar, ECM, and ECCM in multiple bands doing detection, ranging, tracking, and mid-course and terminal guidance of multiple interceptors on multiple targets, across multiple data-linked ships, in a cluttered non-permissive environment.  

 

And even when it's not...you still went through that engagement cycle, whether you called it that or not.  You really don't know how this **** works, do you?  SAMs aren't "point and shoot."  Guns aren't even "point and shoot," for that matter.  If you think they are, you're doing it wrong.

 

 

Means you're a cotton-pickin' moron.  Isn't it obvious?  "Interdiction before the boost phase of a missile launch?"  You fail English?  That's unpossible!

 

Yes, but I studied history and that's not how Hannibal would have done it.

[MILFHUNTER#518]

20 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

I'm not missing that point. Wreck them. Wreck the home country. Disable their government's ability to pay and supply their terrorists. Burn them. Kill 'em. Make an example of them. 

 

But, despite my saying all that, I only believe in a "just war." We have to give them a chance to back down before we attack. 

I'll address the boldded numerically.

 

1. I'd bet my mortgage on our navy vs. theirs. And I'm Jon Snow when it comes to boat war. 

 

2. Not tell you typed it. That's a whole lot of jargon to say 'shoot, move, communicate' which I'm sure makes people think it's fancier. War ain't fancy and neither am I. I was a recon type -- that's what we did but if anybody created jargon that long to say it....well no. Hell no. 

 

3. I've played with MILES gear but the only computer game I've ever played is Rome: Total War because of course I have. 

 

 

 

I don't know why a couple of attack subs, and a couple destroyers, and a carrier couldn't wipe out the Iranian navy in a couple of days. It seems to me very possible. But again, I ain't no admiral and I don't understand how the navy pieces fit together. War isn't simple, it's always complex, and I don't know the capabilities. But it's Iran -- we kinda owe them a kick in the ass. Plus, understand for me it's personal. We know where those goddamn IED's were coming from. 

 

 

What does that mean?

You did not answer the question. What would we gain by attacking this country? Why would we do this?

[The_Dude]

15 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It's not their navy we're talking about, knuckle-dragger.  ASMs can be land-based.  

 

 

 

War is fancy when you have Radar, ECM, and ECCM in multiple bands doing detection, ranging, tracking, and mid-course and terminal guidance of multiple interceptors on multiple targets, across multiple data-linked ships, in a cluttered non-permissive environment.  

 

And even when it's not...you still went through that engagement cycle, whether you called it that or not.  You really don't know how this **** works, do you?  SAMs aren't "point and shoot."  Guns aren't even "point and shoot," for that matter.  If you think they are, you're doing it wrong.

 

 

Means you're a cotton-pickin' moron.  Isn't it obvious?  "Interdiction before the boost phase of a missile launch?"  You fail English?  That's unpossible!

 

1. Navy can be land based too!

2. Ok, fine. Sure. One of the reasons we were so successful; PVS-14's!

3. I'll wager I've walked in more indirect fire than you...so, got it. I also have studied ballistic flight paths of bullets so I'm good there. 

4. They says I learnt all me needs to know on the topic. Further, how many boost phases does a missile have? I would think that some of them have variable speed engines that can give them a boost if they're being locked on? But I don't know much about missiles. I like ground things. I like my feet being firmly on the ground. I stick to them things. 

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said:

You did not answer the question. What would we gain by attacking this country? Why would we do this?

 

1. They deserve it. They were undermining us and funding the Iraqi insurgency the whole time. We knew where those cool IEDs were coming from.

2. They are one of the global leaders in state sponsored terrorism. Let's burn their country to the ground?

3. Protect shipping lanes.

11 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Yes, but I studied history and that's not how Hannibal would have done it.

 

Hannibal is studied still today. His tactics were amazing. He was brilliant. He could win battles, but not the war. There's value in studying and knowing that. There's value in understanding "Fabian" tactics that Rome employed after they got tired of getting killed by Hannibal. There's value in that knowledge. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by The_Dude

[MILFHUNTER#518]

26 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

1. Navy can be land based too!

2. Ok, fine. Sure. One of the reasons we were so successful; PVS-14's!

3. I'll wager I've walked in more indirect fire than you...so, got it. I also have studied ballistic flight paths of bullets so I'm good there. 

4. They says I learnt all me needs to know on the topic. Further, how many boost phases does a missile have? I would think that some of them have variable speed engines that can give them a boost if they're being locked on? But I don't know much about missiles. I like ground things. I like my feet being firmly on the ground. I stick to them things. 

 

 

 

 

 

1. They deserve it. They were undermining us and funding the Iraqi insurgency the whole time. We knew where those cool IEDs were coming from.

2. They are one of the global leaders in state sponsored terrorism. Let's burn their country to the ground?

3. Protect shipping lanes.

 

Hannibal is studied still today. His tactics were amazing. He was brilliant. He could win battles, but not the war. There's value in studying and knowing that. There's value in understanding "Fabian" tactics that Rome employed after they got tired of getting killed by Hannibal. There's value in that knowledge. 

Yes i know full well they were funding the insurgency. I was there in 2004-2006 when they introduced the shaped charges, which forced us to upgrade our armor and when they gave the insurgents higher caliber sniper rifles, which forced us to go from level 3 plates to level 4. Hell, my platoon even engaged and captured almost 15 iranian sf operators (Quds Force, on interpol blacklist my XO verified with MI) in one confrontation. However, that was in the past. Let the sanctions work. They need more time.

 

Shipping lanes. Trump can enact beautiful awesomesauce ROE and blockade the strait of hormuz. I agree with you, our navy can go toe to toe with anyone, much less the iranian flotilla of rubber rafts. Problem solved.

 

I still believe the whole point of this thread is your amusement. I really hope you are not serious.

[DC Tom]

41 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

<admits he's ignorant, argues with me anyway, for some goofy-ass stoner reason>

 

You're an idiot.

[The_Dude]

8 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said:

Yes i know full well they were funding the insurgency. I was there in 2004-2006 when they introduced the shaped charges, which forced us to upgrade our armor and when they gave the insurgents higher caliber sniper rifles, which forced us to go from level 3 plates to level 4. Hell, my platoon even engaged and captured almost 15 iranian sf operators (Quds Force, on interpol blacklist my XO verified with MI) in one confrontation. However, that was in the past. Let the sanctions work. They need more time.

 

Shipping lanes. Trump can enact beautiful awesomesauce ROE and blockade the strait of hormuz. I agree with you, our navy can go toe to toe with anyone, much less the iranian flotilla of rubber rafts. Problem solved.

 

I still believe the whole point of this thread is your amusement. I really hope you are not serious.

No, I’m quite serious on wanting revenge. I’m not joking when I say I hate Haj. I hate Haj. I hate him as in I’ll take any excuse for a cause for war. 04-06, where were ya? I was in Najaf on the summer of 04. From 05-06 I was mostly in the north until we mercifully we got to go to Baghdad. I love that town — never a dull moment. Always something to do. 

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

You're an idiot.

 

I have a habit of believing someone when they say they know something. If I’m uneducated on the topic and curious I ask questions. They call it “learning.” I’m a learner. It’s what I do. I ask questions when I don’t know the answer. Ya know, I could Google and pretend to be an expert. But that’s not my style. 

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, The_Dude said:

I don't know why a couple of attack subs, and a couple destroyers, and a carrier couldn't wipe out the Iranian navy in a couple of days. It seems to me very possible. But again, I ain't no admiral and I don't understand how the navy pieces fit together. War isn't simple, it's always complex, and I don't know the capabilities.

 

My understanding of the difficulty in wiping out the entire Iranian "Navy" is that they can hide the bulk of their fast attack swarm/missile boats in any number of the hundreds of coves and inlets around the Persian Gulf, making them harder to track down and destroy before they can attempt to do some damage.

 

In open water, though, they're !@#$ed.

[The_Dude]

11 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

My understanding of the difficulty in wiping out the entire Iranian "Navy" is that they can hide the bulk of their fast attack swarm/missile boats in any number of the hundreds of coves and inlets around the Persian Gulf, making them harder to track down and destroy before they can attempt to do some damage.

 

In open water, though, they're !@#$ed.

 

That makes sense. I mean, our PT boats in WWII were pretty successful. So that's a similar concept I think. Could be wrong. 

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

My understanding of the difficulty in wiping out the entire Iranian "Navy" is that they can hide the bulk of their fast attack swarm/missile boats in any number of the hundreds of coves and inlets around the Persian Gulf, making them harder to track down and destroy before they can attempt to do some damage.

 

In open water, though, they're !@#$ed.

 

The difficulty is that they're a multitude of small targets, which US weaponry is generally not designed to deal with - you want to engage them with small guns (which you can lay on target faster) and small missiles (which you can carry more of), rather than the usual 5" guns and Harpoon missiles US ships carry. 

 

It's why they created the LCS, with 57mm cannons and Hellfire missiles...only they butchered the "small disposable littoral combatant" design and turned it into a "crippled frigate too expensive to lose."  

[TakeYouToTasker]

22 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

No, I’m quite serious on wanting revenge. I’m not joking when I say I hate Haj. I hate Haj. I hate him as in I’ll take any excuse for a cause for war. 04-06, where were ya? I was in Najaf on the summer of 04. From 05-06 I was mostly in the north until we mercifully we got to go to Baghdad. I love that town — never a dull moment. Always something to do. 

 

Which completely invalidates your opinion.

 

You're incapable of being objective on the topic, and are substituting emotion for reason.

 

In a fog of irony so thick you couldn't navigate it with radar, there's a poster here who might say you're "acting like a woman".

[The_Dude]

24 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Which completely invalidates your opinion.

 

You're incapable of being objective on the topic, and are substituting emotion for reason.

 

In a fog of irony so thick you couldn't navigate it with radar, there's a poster here who might say you're "acting like a woman".

 

Right. I wanna kill people so that makes me a woman. Good thinkin?

[sherpa]

A few comments, and provided from the most humble perspective.

One thing I find interesting in this thread is that people who have served are multiples more aware of Iranian acts of war against the US.

That bit of information is not well known in the US, but they have been responsible for killing our guys for decades, across many state boundaries.

Just an observation.

 

The military problem is, largely, a Navy problem, and it is correct to conclude that we could destroy their navy in very little time.

See what happened to the Iranian navy ship Sahand when it fires a missile at a US Navy A6.

I'll save you the time. An F-18 stuck a laser guided bomb down its stack, and would have sunk it, but was called off.

(My old squadron---Go Shrikes).

The problem is that the distances are so compressed that it makes it difficult to sort of who's who, and mistakes get made, because of that time compression.

See the USS Stark and the USS Vincennes shooting of an Iranian airliner.

 

When you try to protect shipping through that choke point, it is an extremely difficult task when everybody has live weapons.

The Iranians mined the area in the late 80's and we had tremendous difficulty solving that.

 

I've flown in that area, dragging their border trying to bait someone to come out, just outside their 12 mile limit and got the first intercept of an Iranian airplane after they took our embassy-a P3. Had a sidewinder missile, ( a heater), cooled, locked on him and ready. Joined on him, warned him through radio calls and hand signals that I was going to kill him if he threatened our task force, and trailed him for a half hour before he broke off.

Things happen really quick there, and there would be a huge amount of civilian, commercial traffic involved.

 

All the calculus points to very nasty headlines.

Iran is a timing problem. Their radical Islamic component has little support, and let's hope it fails before they have a nuc to threaten Israel, because once Mossad thinks they do, the stuff is going to hit the fan.

 

[The_Dude]

29 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

The difficulty is that they're a multitude of small targets, which US weaponry is generally not designed to deal with - you want to engage them with small guns (which you can lay on target faster) and small missiles (which you can carry more of), rather than the usual 5" guns and Harpoon missiles US ships carry. 

 

It's why they created the LCS, with 57mm cannons and Hellfire missiles...only they butchered the "small disposable littoral combatant" design and turned it into a "crippled frigate too expensive to lose."  

 

We have bombs that lay anti personnel traps. Nasty things. Not sure how’s effective theyd be on amphibious target though. But A-10’s could probably handle them well. 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by The_Dude

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, The_Dude said:

Right. I wanna kill people so that makes me a woman. Good thinkin?

 

Again, you're substituting emotion for reason.

 

I'm almost surprised that you didn't come right out and say that you want to kill them with poison.