CDZ Outdated military thinking and an internal resistance to change

[Onyx]

Dont think their antiship missiles have the range to hit a carrier.....

Then you would be wrong. Their missile technology has the capability to hit Israel. Not a theory; its been tried and tested.

any surface ship wouldnt last long enough to get close which leaves you with their old and dated subs

Not true either. Frigates have small radar signatures, are fast and cheap. A US carrier group usually only has several destroyers or frigates attached to it.

What you said about their AF sorta outs ya as having bought a line...

On the contrary, you sound like you learned military theory from Tom Clancy.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Dont think their antiship missiles have the range to hit a carrier.....

Then you would be wrong. Their missile technology has the capability to hit Israel. Not a theory; its been tried and tested.

any surface ship wouldnt last long enough to get close which leaves you with their old and dated subs

Not true either. Frigates have small radar signatures, are fast and cheap. A US carrier group usually only has several destroyers or frigates attached to it.

What you said about their AF sorta outs ya as having bought a line...

On the contrary, you sound like you learned military theory from Tom Clancy.

Ballistic missiles?? Wrong type of missile to hit a carrier with.....Ever hear of AWACS.....JSTARS......satellites....nothing would move without us knowing about it.....

 

[Onyx]

Thoughts?

I'd just add that what you are describing is a change in COIN theory. The US has really only done counter-insurgency operations in the past 63 years, and has not faced a conventional modern war since then.

As much as Americans will deny it, a war with Iran wouldn't be like Afghanistan or Vietnam. It would involve large scale aerial skirmishes, naval engagements, tank battles, missiles exchanges, and facing an overwhelming number of infantry.

 

[Onyx]

Ballistic missiles?? Wrong type of missile to hit a carrier with.....Ever hear of AWACS.....JSTARS......satellites....nothing would move without us knowing about it.....

Naval delivery systems are often designed similarly. The firing technology and delivery system just needs to be re-calibrated to a smaller kind of missile designed to penetrate armor.

Conventional ballistic missiles have been incorporated into naval defense strategies, such as that of China.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Ballistic missiles?? Wrong type of missile to hit a carrier with.....Ever hear of AWACS.....JSTARS......satellites....nothing would move without us knowing about it.....

Naval delivery systems are often designed similarly. The firing technology and delivery system just needs to be re-calibrated to a smaller kind of missile designed to penetrate armor.

Conventional ballistic missiles have been incorporated into naval defense strategies, such as that of China.

Iran is not China...and I dont even think the Chinese have demonstrated the capability........I know they claim it...dont think they have tested on an actual moving target

 

[fncceo]

As much as Americans will deny it, a war with Iran wouldn't be like Afghanistan or Vietnam. It would involve large scale aerial skirmishes, naval engagements, tank battles, missiles exchanges, and facing an overwhelming number of infantry.

Initially, you're correct. But the Iranian Navy and Air Force are no match of a US Military unleashed -- neither are the naval and air forces of China or Russia. Once the big-ticket warfare is completed, we will go right back to COIN operations. Same scenario. Who honestly believes we could pacify Iran in a ground occupation the same we we defeated Germany or Japan?

 

[Onyx]

Iran is not China...and I dont even think the Chinese have demonstrated the capability........I know they claim it...dont think they have tested on an actual moving target

The relevant modern day example would be Yemen. Houthis has managed to hit destroyers from long ranges with conventional missiles, and even when they miss it is within a small proximity of the target. No doubt they could hit an aircraft carrier, four times the size.

It's also worth nothing that a carrier group wouldn't remain mobile at all times. In fact, it has to stay stationary when launching air missions or refueling/repairing/rearming.

 

[heil hitler]

This was a very large exercise. The logistics involved in any exercise is insane. An exercise this large was unequal in scope. During exercises, inputs change constantly. When large exercises such as this take place leadership has to take advantage of the manpower by throwing every situation under the sun at them if they deem it necessary.
Additionally, exercise scenarios mimic assumed conditions presented by enemy militarys both present and future predicted. "Practice like you fight"
What is the issue here?

 

[Manonthestreet]

Iran is not China...and I dont even think the Chinese have demonstrated the capability........I know they claim it...dont think they have tested on an actual moving target

The relevant modern day example would be Yemen. Houthis has managed to hit destroyers from long ranges with conventional missiles, and even when they miss it is within a small proximity of the target. No doubt they could hit an aircraft carrier, four times the size.

It's also worth nothing that a carrier group wouldn't remain mobile at all times. In fact, it has to stay stationary when launching air missions or refueling/repairing/rearming.

OMG,,,,,,carriers dont remain stationary launching or recovering,,,,you dont even know basic stuff,,,,,,how old are you

 

[Onyx]

Initially, you're correct. But the Iranian Navy and Air Force are no match of a US Military unleashed

Only a small portion of the US military would actually be mobilized for a war with Iran. The pentagon could never sustain the aircraft, infantry, and armor needed to successfully invade Iran. They on the other hand can produce an endless number of soldiers, tanks, anti-aircraft guns. and missiles.

The only way I can envision the US winning a war against Iran, is if they had a lot of allies and/or internal support from some Iranians.

Who honestly believes we could pacify Iran in a ground occupation the same we we defeated Germany or Japan?

I don't believe the US could occupy Iran in the first place. Take into account that Iran could levy well over a million armed soldiers, in which at least 300,000 of them would be modernized.

How much personnel do you believe the US could mobilize? 200,000 tops IMO, and that's probably being generous.

 

[Manonthestreet]

As much as Americans will deny it, a war with Iran wouldn't be like Afghanistan or Vietnam. It would involve large scale aerial skirmishes, naval engagements, tank battles, missiles exchanges, and facing an overwhelming number of infantry.

Initially, you're correct. But the Iranian Navy and Air Force are no match of a US Military unleashed -- neither are the naval and air forces of China or Russia. Once the big-ticket warfare is completed, we will go right back to COIN operations. Same scenario. Who honestly believes we could pacify Iran in a ground occupation the same we we defeated Germany or Japan?

Who knows how large opposition in country is.........wouldnt be surprised if Obama colluded with Iran to help eliminate as many as possible......

 

[Onyx]

OMG,,,,,,carriers dont remain stationary launching or recovering,,,,you dont even know basic stuff,,,,,,how old are you

I like how you question my age, while at the same time saying OMG and using improper punctuation.

You are partially correct though. Aircraft carriers do not remain completely stationary, but they do travel at a reduced speed.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Youve said enough to make it clear you dont know much about the subject other than some mythical sinking

 

[Onyx]

What is the issue here?

Where do I begin?

- Giving one side technology that wasn't predicted to exist at the time of the scenario
- Magically restoring a carrier group that was fairly destroyed
- Restricting the defenders from firing on the invading enemy transports
- Banning one side from using their full arsenal mid-game

And those are just the highlights...

 

[Onyx]

Youve said enough to make it clear you dont know much about the subject other than some mythical sinking

I'll treat this as your concession

 

[heil hitler]

What is the issue here?

Where do I begin?

- Giving one side technology that wasn't predicted to exist at the time of the scenario
- Magically restoring a carrier group that was fairly destroyed
- Restricting the defenders from firing on the invading enemy transports
- Banning one side from using their full arsenal mid-game

And those are just the highlights...

As I said. The logistics of these EX are staggering. Even digitally based movement. When all of the components are in place they must be utilized to their fullest. Additionally since this was a computer based war game the scenario could be changed in real-time with minimal real world downtime for re-config.
The beauty of computer based scenario driven EX lay in their interchangeability across the battle space because it's all VR at the end of the day. Well minus your cyber warfare teams.
You gotta love digital.

 

[Toronado3800]

Initially, you're correct. But the Iranian Navy and Air Force are no match of a US Military unleashed

Only a small portion of the US military would actually be mobilized for a war with Iran. The pentagon could never sustain the aircraft, infantry, and armor needed to successfully invade Iran. They on the other hand can produce an endless number of soldiers, tanks, anti-aircraft guns. and missiles.

The only way I can envision the US winning a war against Iran, is if they had a lot of allies and/or internal support from some Iranians.

Who honestly believes we could pacify Iran in a ground occupation the same we we defeated Germany or Japan?

I don't believe the US could occupy Iran in the first place. Take into account that Iran could levy well over a million armed soldiers, in which at least 300,000 of them would be modernized.

How much personnel do you believe the US could mobilize? 200,000 tops IMO, and that's probably being generous.

I had the same worries as we prepared for Gulf War 1.

Right now, I dunno. I'd rather not end up in a war with Iraq but they would REALLY rather not end up in a war with the U.S. I have a feeling.

Is this debate over if they could sink a carrier btw? Sure, I'll give it to em. They could get lucky or have a decent plan and sink a carrier.

 

[Onyx]

I had the same worries as we prepared for Gulf War 1.

Right now, I dunno. I'd rather not end up in a war with Iraq but they would REALLY rather not end up in a war with the U.S. I have a feeling.

Iraq? We're talking about Iran.

There were a lot of reasons why Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 were turkey shoots. Saddam Hussien's military had virtually no airforce, navy, armor, anti-air defenses, and had just lost a catastrophic 8 year border war that had left them exhausted and depleted. What troops he had remaining were either cowardly or disloyal, having joined solely for the free food and shelter.

The pentagon and American public are under the impression that those were conventional wars, which has made them overzealous. Were the US to attack a nation like Iran, this grave misconception would be their unraveling.

Is this debate over if they could sink a carrier btw? Sure, I'll give it to em. They could get lucky or have a decent plan and sink a carrier.

No, a carrier battle group. A carrier by itself is defenseless with the exception of several anti-air guns.

I think it's absurd that MarathonMike believes Iran is incapable of doing this. I know a little bit about Iran's naval composition and defense strategy, and they have more than enough attack ships, missile craft, and bombers to take out several CVBGs. They have enough ground missiles where a naval engagement might not even be nessecary right away.

The doctrine of next generation naval warfare will be the light of small attack craft, submarine warfare, and anti-ship missiles (delivered from air, sea, or land). The pentagon acts like it is still 1945.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Why does all this matter? It confirms a lot of my thoughts

That may be, but that just makes it matter to you because it confirms what appears to be a bias you are predisposed to have.

US military thinking is outdated,

Well, you've remarked upon a wargame from 2002. Military thinking, tactics and tech have without question advanced over the past 15 years.

• The Doctrine of Military Change: How the US Army Evolves
  
• AN ARMY TRANSFORMED: THE U.S. ARMY’S POST-VIETNAM RECOVERY AND THE DYNAMICS OF CHANGE IN MILITARY ORGANIZATIONS

I'm not saying the U.S. military doesn't make mistakes and have relative weaknesses. I'm saying your commentary is woefully inadequate for the argument it attempts (badly) to make. (Red Team:How to Succeed By Thinking Like the Enemy)

​

(Unrelated: I don't really like to buy/keep Emmental cheese because while a pound of cheese is a pound of cheese, there's still less cheese in a slice of Emmental than there is is other Swiss cheeses I like -- e.g., Appenzeller, Gruyere, and Vacherin.)​

Even considering below-requested levels of increased military spending over the past lustrum or so, to say nothing of that of the decade preceding that...

...the U.S. still outspends, by a huge margin, every other nation on the planet. From an equipment standpoint alone, recognizing that equipment is just one dimension of many as goes this topic, you'd need to at least show that the U.S. equipment is inferior in relation to both the quantity and quality of that of, in the case of your Iran example,

The entire game was rigged to give the US military good PR

Even as it's highly implausible, I suppose that is possible in some "universe," but given the press the simulation garnered, it wouldn't appear that was an outcome....That said, it's highly unlikely that even the U.S. military would spend $250M on an exercise in order to get good PR when simply spending $250M on a PR campaign to get good PR would without question could yield no worse an outcome and not involve some 13K+ people. The extent of sheer idiocy it'd take to orchestrate a simulation like MC02 for the purpose of generating "good PR," particularly only a decade or so after Gulf War I's successes, is beyond even the U.S. military's level of incompetence, but apparently not yours.

if the US were to ever go with Iran (which is far more powerful now than the pentagon ever projected it would be), it will face the same embarrassing defeats that they did in the 2002 Millennium Challenge

Jumping to Conclusions

No lessons were learned

That's an absurd and, as presented by you, empty assertion; however, it's an claim you may show to be accurate if you are willing and able to demonstrate that U.S. military doctrine and strategy has remained unchanged since 2002 and that its operational leaders have not learned from their mistakes. You may want to begin that process by analyzing the changes in U.S. asymmetric warfare doctrine over the past 20 years or so.

• ASYMMETRIC WARFARE: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
  
• How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict
  
• GLOBALIZATION AND ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE
  
• Unorthodox Thoughts about Asymmetric Warfare
• THE LEGAL BATTLE TO DEFINE THE LAW ON TRANSNATIONAL ASYMMETRIC WARFARE

As one can tell from the links above, it's not at all hard to find content from the start of this millennium. Obtaining credible information that's vastly more recent is a totally different matter, unsurprisingly. That notwithstanding, the BLUFOR defeat in MC02 isn’t an embarrassment; it provided the opportunity to lean how to better handle multiple aspects of combatting non-linear, non-traditional/-conventional, asymmetric threats.

Look how many experiments it took to discover we dwell in a heliocentric system, or to determine that there is such a thing as gravity, or how many atoms were smashed to no avail while looking for the Higgs, or even just how to ride a bike or skate on ice. Sometimes experiments produce their desired outcomes and other times they do not. It happens, even with the military, and MC02 is one of those experiments that failed in its primary objectives, yet it yielded other lessons learned.

 

[usmbguest5318]

...the U.S. still outspends, by a huge margin, every other nation on the planet. From an equipment standpoint alone, recognizing that equipment is just one dimension of many as goes this topic, you'd need to at least show that the U.S. equipment is inferior in relation to both the quantity and quality of that of, in the case of your Iran example,

Correction:

....you'd need to at least show that the U.S. equipment is inferior in relation to both the quantity and quality of that of, in the case of your Iran example, Iran. You haven't even come close to producing such a comparative analysis nor have you referenced anyone else's credible analysis of that nature.

• United States of America Military Strength