Could Iran "Win" in the Straight of Hormuz?

[georgephillip]

I was at another very active forum when the Millennium Challenge 2002 report came out, we discussed it there.


again, no, if you want specifics, I am not going to engage in a what I am sure will turn into a circular argument, the take away is the Iranian armed forces that could interdict the straits would have a very active but bottom of the funnel life for oh, a week, maybe if they are lucky and we are incredibly stupid, 10 days. there after some sporadic efforts may yield some trouble but, every platform, sea air land that reveals itself would be pummeled in short order.

thats my take and thats why its a hollow threat; they know it , we know it, whats more; they know we know they know it.

If the Iranians sink a US aircraft carrier during that week to ten days of active interdiction their threat becomes significantly less hollow. The US normally instigates shock and awe at a time of its own choosing. Do we know what happens if Iran shocks first?

You need to check up on your weapons data there Georgie. The best Iranian missile is roughly equivalent to a first generation Harpoon that we use. They are hell on wheels vs thin skinned vessels and will quite happily blow one of those in two.

Our carriers on the other hand are quite hard, so hard in fact that you could hit a carrier with 10 to 15 missiles and the most you would do is knock out the electronics, for a while, and tons of cosmetic damage.

But they can do no damage to her machinery or flotation.

Do these numbers sound credible to you?

"Iran’s Short Range Ballistic Missiles (range < 1,000 km)
Table 1. Short Range Ballistic Missiles
Missile Range Payload CEPa Estimated
Numbers
CSS-8 150 km 190 kg unknown 200
M-11 280 km 800 kg 600 m 30-50
SCUD-B 300 km 985 kg 450 m 100-400
SCUD-C 500 km 600 kg 700 m 100-170"

If one hundred Iranian missiles lit up a US carrier, wouldn't we see hundreds of dead servicemen and women followed by hundreds of thousands of dead Persian civilians?

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/39332.pdf

 

[georgephillip]

A carrier is a damn big target.

We will lose one sometime if we keep up the replacement act for the USSR long enough.

One would be tempted to think their size would work against their chances for survival in a narrow waterway like the Hormuz Straits or the Suez Canal?

 

[georgephillip]

One carrier group could do the job, and will, if Iran starts anything after Obama is gone from the White House.......

From the Persian perspective, Iran isn't starting anything:

"The maritime traffic that goes through the Strait of Hormuz has always been in contact with Iranian naval forces...

"In fact, Iranian naval forces monitor and police the Strait of Hormuz along with the Sultanate of Oman via the Omani enclave of Musandam.

"More importantly, to transit through the Strait of Hormuz all maritime traffic, including the U.S. Navy, must sail through Iranian territorial waters.

"Almost all entrances into the Persian Gulf are made through Iranian waters and most exits are through Omani waters."

The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz: Could the U.S. Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A carrier is a damn big target.

We will lose one sometime if we keep up the replacement act for the USSR long enough.

One would be tempted to think their size would work against their chances for survival in a narrow waterway like the Hormuz Straits or the Suez Canal?

The Strait of Hormuz is 34 miles wide at its narrowest point, how big do you think a carrier is?

 

[Mr. H.]

Our full house trumps their strait.

 

[georgephillip]

A carrier is a damn big target.

We will lose one sometime if we keep up the replacement act for the USSR long enough.

One would be tempted to think their size would work against their chances for survival in a narrow waterway like the Hormuz Straits or the Suez Canal?

The Strait of Hormuz is 34 miles wide at its narrowest point, how big do you think a carrier is?

Considerably smaller but well within range of hundreds of Iranian missiles.

 

[westwall]

If the Iranians sink a US aircraft carrier during that week to ten days of active interdiction their threat becomes significantly less hollow. The US normally instigates shock and awe at a time of its own choosing. Do we know what happens if Iran shocks first?

if they sink an aircraft carrier? dude, what the fuck are you smoking?

Possibly "sink" is too extreme.
Let's say they smoke a US carrier to the same relative degree Israel smoked the USS Liberty:

"Following their torpedo attack, the (Israeli) torpedo boats moved up and down the length of (Liberty) (both the port and starboard sides), continuing their attack, raking the ship with cannon and machine gun fire.[21]

"In Malta, crewmen were later assigned the task of counting all of the holes in the ship that were the size of a man's hand or larger. They found a total of 861 such holes, in addition to 'thousands' of .50 caliber machine gun holes."

Instead of "thousands of .50 caliber machine gun holes" imagine thousands of Iranian missiles used against a US carrier operating in Iran's territorial waters.

USS Liberty Memorial: Summary of Events

The Liberty was a very soft skinned merchant ship.

 

[westwall]

Obviously, most of the posters here dont have a freaking clue of the awesome capabilities of a US Naval Carrier Task force. It would shut down Irans naval forces within hours and then call in the Air force to slam the Irainian infrastrucure and command and control capabilites. It would be boom pow pow, all over. Even with barry in charge it would be easy.

"Western naval vessels would have the defensive capabilities to cope with Iranian anti-ship missiles in a hypothetical engagement in open waters, but the Strait of Hormuz is a different operating environment.

"Missiles fired from shore-based batteries may be picked up late and counter-measures not deployed in time - particularly if the target is operating close to land.

"Hence, Iranian land-based anti-ship missiles would present a clear danger to both naval and merchant vessels operating close to shore and in the narrow sea lanes of the Strait."

How dangerous are Iran

Look at how NATO dealt with Libya for a analog for how the USN will deal with Iran.

 

[zzzz]

As you can see ships travel much closer than 50 miles to Iran.

 

[westwall]

If the Iranians sink a US aircraft carrier during that week to ten days of active interdiction their threat becomes significantly less hollow. The US normally instigates shock and awe at a time of its own choosing. Do we know what happens if Iran shocks first?

You need to check up on your weapons data there Georgie. The best Iranian missile is roughly equivalent to a first generation Harpoon that we use. They are hell on wheels vs thin skinned vessels and will quite happily blow one of those in two.

Our carriers on the other hand are quite hard, so hard in fact that you could hit a carrier with 10 to 15 missiles and the most you would do is knock out the electronics, for a while, and tons of cosmetic damage.

But they can do no damage to her machinery or flotation.

Do these numbers sound credible to you?

"Iran’s Short Range Ballistic Missiles (range < 1,000 km)
Table 1. Short Range Ballistic Missiles
Missile Range Payload CEPa Estimated
Numbers
CSS-8 150 km 190 kg unknown 200
M-11 280 km 800 kg 600 m 30-50
SCUD-B 300 km 985 kg 450 m 100-400
SCUD-C 500 km 600 kg 700 m 100-170"

If one hundred Iranian missiles lit up a US carrier, wouldn't we see hundreds of dead servicemen and women followed by hundreds of thousands of dead Persian civilians?

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/39332.pdf

Iranian missiles can have all the range they want, they don't have a payload capable of doing serious damage to a carrier. As I stated earlier, the Iranian missiles can do a ton of cosmetic and surface damage but they can't do anything serious. The crew will take cover behind armor and after the missiles have impacted (if they do) they come out and carry on with their duties.

No matter how much you try to villify the American military they really have no desire to kill thousands of anyone. Kill those trying to kill them? Of course, but innocent folks? Nope, not one bit.

 

[georgephillip]

"TEHRAN (Reuters) - An Iranian nuclear scientist was blown up in his car by a motorbike hitman, prompting Tehran to blame Israeli and U.S. agents but insist the killing would not derail a nuclear program that has raised fears of war and threatened world oil supplies.

"The fifth daylight attack on technical experts in two years, the magnetic bomb delivered a targeted blast to the door of 32-year-old Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan's car during Wednesday's morning rush-hour. The chemical engineer's driver also died, Iranian media said, and a passer-by was slightly hurt."

Bomb kills Iran nuclear scientist as crisis mounts - Yahoo! News

 

[Obamerican]

If the Iranians sink a US aircraft carrier during that week to ten days of active interdiction their threat becomes significantly less hollow. The US normally instigates shock and awe at a time of its own choosing. Do we know what happens if Iran shocks first?

You need to check up on your weapons data there Georgie. The best Iranian missile is roughly equivalent to a first generation Harpoon that we use. They are hell on wheels vs thin skinned vessels and will quite happily blow one of those in two.

Our carriers on the other hand are quite hard, so hard in fact that you could hit a carrier with 10 to 15 missiles and the most you would do is knock out the electronics, for a while, and tons of cosmetic damage.

But they can do no damage to her machinery or flotation.

Do these numbers sound credible to you?

"Iran’s Short Range Ballistic Missiles (range < 1,000 km)
Table 1. Short Range Ballistic Missiles
Missile Range Payload CEPa Estimated
Numbers
CSS-8 150 km 190 kg unknown 200
M-11 280 km 800 kg 600 m 30-50
SCUD-B 300 km 985 kg 450 m 100-400
SCUD-C 500 km 600 kg 700 m 100-170"

If one hundred Iranian missiles lit up a US carrier, wouldn't we see hundreds of dead servicemen and women followed by hundreds of thousands of dead Persian civilians?

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/39332.pdf

From Wiki:

In addition to the aircraft carried onboard, the ships carry defensive equipment for direct use against missiles and hostile aircraft. These consist of either three or four NATO RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missile launchers designed for defense against aircraft and anti-ship missiles as well as either three or four 20 mm Phalanx CIWS missile defense cannon. USS Ronald Reagan has none of these, having been built with the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile system, two of which have also been installed on USS Nimitz and USS George Washington. These will be installed on the other ships as they return for Refueling Complex Overhaul (RCOH).[3][14] Since USS Theodore Roosevelt, the carriers have been constructed with 2.5 in (64 mm) Kevlar armor over vital spaces, and earlier ships have been retrofitted with it: Nimitz in 1983–1984, Eisenhower from 1985–1987 and Vinson in 1989.[2][21]
The other countermeasures the ships use are four Sippican SRBOC (super rapid bloom off-board chaff) six-barrel MK36 decoy launchers, which deploy infrared flares and chaff to disrupt the sensors of incoming missiles; an SSTDS torpedo defense system; and an AN/SLQ-25 Nixie torpedo countermeasures system. The carriers also use Raytheon AN/SLQ-32(V) electronic warfare systems to detect and disrupt hostile radar signals in addition to the electronic warfare capabilities of some of the aircraft on board.[22][23]
The presence of nuclear weapons on board U.S. aircraft carriers since the end of the Cold War has neither been confirmed nor denied by the U.S. government. As a result of this, as well as concerns over the safety of nuclear power, the presence of a U.S. aircraft carrier in a foreign port has occasionally provoked protest from local people, for example when USS Nimitz docked in Chennai, India, in 2007. At that time, the Strike Group commander Rear Admiral John Terence Blake stated that: "The U.S. policy is that we do not routinely deploy nuclear weapons on board Nimitz."[24][25]

This is not counting the Carrier Group that surrounds any given US Aircraft Carrier. If the Iranians attacked the carrier group they would get their asses handed to them. Is this a for sure scenario? Of course not. Let's see if the Iranians are stupid enough to try it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One would be tempted to think their size would work against their chances for survival in a narrow waterway like the Hormuz Straits or the Suez Canal?

The Strait of Hormuz is 34 miles wide at its narrowest point, how big do you think a carrier is?

Considerably smaller but well within range of hundreds of Iranian missiles.

You, again, have no idea what a CVBG can do.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAcBC7X-vG0]BMD tests AEGIS+SDI+SM-3, USS Lake Erie - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui5J9B__w1U&]Firepower - Warship (Part 1/2) - YouTube[/ame]

Aegis cruisers can remotely coordinate fire contol of the entire battle group, and handle multiple incoming threats at the same time. Even if Iran actually fired hundreds of missiles, and they all worked perfectly, they would be detected, and intercepted, before they got to the carrier. They would see multiple radar targets generated by EWS systems. The ones that do not go off track would be targeted by missiles. The ones that get past that would then have to get past the CIWS.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppI367_v5xY]Mk 15 Vulcan Phalanx CIWS - YouTube[/ame]

CIWS can track, and target, helicopter rotors. It has two radar systems, one of which tracks outgoing shells to correct the trajectory. Carriers are hard to hit in the first place, and harder to sink. The biggest threat to a carrier is a submarine, which is why most of the CVBG is dedicated to setting up an ASM picket around the ship, not to mention that there are US subs that operate as part of the CVBG when they are really worried about submarine threats.

 

[SFC Ollie]

And a carrier group can still sit back 500 miles and be as effective as being right in the straits.......

 

[SayMyName]

Iran could not win in any attempt to close the Strait. They might be able to raise oil prices for awhile, but the response, with unanimous support of every nation in the gulf region, would be behind a massive air attack on anything and everything of value along their coast. It would be a devastating decision for Iran to close the Strait, and they know it. They are simply saber rattling.

Besides, it would perhaps lead to just the right moment for Israel to slip in under the radar and at last take out their nuclear facilities.

The would be handing them exactly what they want.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Do you accept the following demographics?

"By 1948, there were approximately 1.35 million Arabs and 650,000 Jews living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, more Arabs than had ever lived in Palestine before, and more Jews than had lived there since Roman times."

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

Your numbers are bullshit, as you well know. Even so, it's irrelevant. The Arabs left on the promise of the Arab league to eradicate the Jews. The PROMISE was that Jordan, Syria and Egypt would swoop in and kill every last Jew, man, woman, and child. But the Jews fought back - which pisses you and the other genocidal fucks off. You've been trying to pres your genocide for over 50 years - yeah, that does make you a blood-thirsty savage.

 

[georgephillip]

Do you accept the following demographics?

"By 1948, there were approximately 1.35 million Arabs and 650,000 Jews living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, more Arabs than had ever lived in Palestine before, and more Jews than had lived there since Roman times."

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

Your numbers are bullshit, as you well know. Even so, it's irrelevant. The Arabs left on the promise of the Arab league to eradicate the Jews. The PROMISE was that Jordan, Syria and Egypt would swoop in and kill every last Jew, man, woman, and child. But the Jews fought back - which pisses you and the other genocidal fucks off. You've been trying to pres your genocide for over 50 years - yeah, that does make you a blood-thirsty savage.

Wrong, again.
If you can find a different ratio of Jews/non-Jews in 1948 Mandate Palestine, post it.
Since you can't you're just another apologist for ethnic cleansing.
See Moses v. Canaanites for kosher precedents.
Slave.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wrong, again.
If you can find a different ratio of Jews/non-Jews in 1948 Mandate Palestine, post it.

Your red herring isn't a concern. The fact that is important is that the Arabs planned complete genocide. Even you can't deny it.

Since you can't you're just another apologist for ethnic cleansing.
See Moses v. Canaanites for kosher precedents.
Slave.

Ethnic cleansing? Like the planned eradication of the Jews, that the Arabs attempted?

Seriously, fuck you. Israel has the moral right to defend itself with deadly force against those who seek genocide against them.

I know, you demand they just die.

 

[georgephillip]

Wrong, again.
If you can find a different ratio of Jews/non-Jews in 1948 Mandate Palestine, post it.

Your red herring isn't a concern. The fact that is important is that the Arabs planned complete genocide. Even you can't deny it.

Since you can't you're just another apologist for ethnic cleansing.
See Moses v. Canaanites for kosher precedents.
Slave.

Ethnic cleansing? Like the planned eradication of the Jews, that the Arabs attempted?

Seriously, fuck you. Israel has the moral right to defend itself with deadly force against those who seek genocide against them.

I know, you demand they just die.

Seriously, the demographics of 1948 Palestine are neither irrelevant nor distracting from the crimes committed by the founding of the state of Israel. 711,000 non-Jews left, fled, or were expelled from their homes at the point of a Jewish bayonet.

You and Moses obviously have no problem with that.
Civilized human beings do.

The Arab armies you mention took defensive positions around the portions of Palestine slated for Arab control. Had those armies not intervened, the Jews would have reached the Jordan River a generation before they eventually did.

Israel has every right to defend itself and no right to steal the land, water, and freedom of her neighbors.
But you already knew that, right?

 

[usmcstinger]

Our weapons are far superior than anything the Iranians have.
It will be short .