View Full Version : Shouldn't we move our carriers out of missile range?
Battleships, aircraft carriers, minesweepers and submarines from 25 nations are converging on the strategically important Strait of Hormuz in an unprecedented show of force as Israel and Iran move towards the brink of war.
Western leaders are convinced that Iran will retaliate to any attack by attempting to mine or blockade the shipping lane through which passes around 18 million barrels of oil every day, approximately 35 per cent of the world’s petroleum traded by sea.
A blockade would have a catastrophic effect on the fragile economies of Britain, Europe the United States and Japan, all of which rely heavily on oil and gas supplies from the Gulf.
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most congested international waterways. It is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point and is bordered by the Iranian coast to the north and the United Arab Emirates to the south.
In preparation for any pre-emptive or retaliatory action by Iran, warships from more than 25 countries, including the United States, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, will today begin an annual 12-day exercise.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9545597/Armada-of-British-naval-power-massing-in-the-Gulf-as-Israel-prepares-an-Iran-strike.html
Heavy Metal
09-16-12, 17:03
They have numerous missle defenses.
And those defenses are infallible?
The carries can stand off a few hundred miles and still launch strikes. I do not see the benefit of having carriers within 50 miles of the Iranian coast.
The point is to scare the hell out of them. That's done a lot more easily when they're closer to the shore. Plus the defenses of an entire carrier strike group are pretty damn solid. And if they really did launch at us, that would be one hell of a reason for an epic retaliation.
Doc Safari
09-16-12, 17:21
The point is to scare the hell out of them. That's done a lot more easily when they're closer to the shore. Plus the defenses of an entire carrier strike group are pretty damn solid. And if they really did launch at us, that would be one hell of a reason for an epic retaliation.
The words "Tonkin Gulf" suddenly flashed before my eyes.
The words "Tonkin Gulf" suddenly flashed before my eyes.
Valid point haha.
Magic_Salad0892
09-16-12, 17:33
The words "Tonkin Gulf" suddenly flashed before my eyes.
That's what I thought of when I read that too.....
Nightvisionary
09-16-12, 17:37
During the Gulf war the Iraqis had Chinese Silkworm and other anti-ship missiles capable of causing significant damage provided they could score a hit. Every time the Iraqis turned on their targeting radar they received a HARM missile in return.
They became so fearful of turning on their targeting radars that they resorted to firing the Silkworms at night using optical sights.
Doc Safari
09-16-12, 17:44
The thought has also occurred to me that all of this so-called public feuding between Barry and Netanyahu could just be a massive put-up job. They've known for months that Israel is going to attack with the US providing cover for their six. Barry needs the foreign policy hawk cred and an October surprise.
Call it a conspiracy if you will, but I call it pretty smart tactics if that's what they're up to.
Much as I despise Obama, he is not a dumb man, just inexperienced.
I personally think Barry is pro-Muslim and anti-Israel, but here's posting that I hope I'm wrong.
VooDoo6Actual
09-16-12, 17:51
Doesn't matter as some people want to, are trying to foment a War.
Get it ?
Yep interesting conundrum indeed. Obozo (the Muslim despite American people who can't/won't believe it or wrap their heads around his own words on camera) trying to appease his fellow Muslims by not catering to Israel. Pretending to be snubbing Netanyahu or not reacting w/ Israel in case they attack Iran while usurping Syria another Muslim dominated ME country under the guise/cover of a tyrranistic dictator leader who murders his citizens. You can't make this stuff up.
Think of this, we have people defending his religious faith of the month because they can't/won't believe he's a Muslim. He's says he's a Christian. So we already know he's a liar outright, but we are to believe he's telling the truth about his religious faith despite his own words decreeing Muslim faith in interviews, audio/video tapes. You can't have it both ways.
The hypocrisy is deafening. Follow the bouncing ball keeping your eyes on all the targets.
I'm pretty sure the skippers of our carriers and the battle group commanders know more about how to properly employ them than all the members of this site combined.
I'm pretty sure the skippers of our carriers and the battle group commanders know more about how to properly employ them than all the members of this site combined.
Absolutely no doubt about it. And as you mention, they are almost always part of a group.
I'm pretty sure the skippers of our carriers and the battle group commanders know more about how to properly employ them than all the members of this site combined.
That was probably true on December 6, 1941 as well.
Nightvisionary
09-16-12, 22:48
I'm pretty sure the skippers of our carriers and the battle group commanders know more about how to properly employ them than all the members of this site combined.
Prior to the gulf war U.S. carrier groups did not operate in the confines of the Persian Gulf because battle group commanders thought that was a bad idea.
During the Gulf war the Iraqis had Chinese Silkworm and other anti-ship missiles capable of causing significant damage provided they could score a hit. Every time the Iraqis turned on their targeting radar they received a HARM missile in return.
They became so fearful of turning on their targeting radars that they resorted to firing the Silkworms at night using optical sights.
I'd imagine that coastal artillary and mines will also be deployed by the Iranians. There are plenty of guns that can cover the 20-25 mile Strait. I'd be curious to know what the Russians and Chineses have sold Iran over the past decade...
That was probably true on December 6, 1941 as well.
HUH ? they were not deployed they were attacked in a harbor ?
so not the same at all IMHO
HUH ? they were not deployed they were attacked in a harbor ?
so not the same at all IMHO
This. Idle ships at port =/= deployed ships in combat or ready for it. Plus, our defense systems are a little more advanced than they were in '41.
Honestly though, this shit is getting pretty intense right now. Did I read that right that even the Sauds are against Iran? Or are they just "getting in the party"?
I have actually been in the water in that area and was within a few nautical miles of Iran when we went up the Shatt-al Arab. The Iranians do have fast moving gun boats that could possibly strike our vessels in the area. Primarily because they are hard to hit on the water unless you have assets that can do so.
The Navy lacks in this capacity which is why the USCG was sent to the Northern Arabian Gulf along with their 110' foot cutters.
I'd be curious to know just how accurate this whole report really is. I think we should have allowed Israel to strike Iran long ago.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
09-17-12, 01:29
I was deployed to that region from Nov 2011 to June 2012, was the second US Naval ship through the Strait after the Carl Vinson during the "Iran has shut down the Strait of Hormuz" incident. We went in with an LSD, LPD, a DDG, and I can only assume (hope) sub escorts. The Navy had SOP's for all of it, and we were manned up on Stingers with LAAD, 240's and SMAW's on the decks, and a few other things I won't mention until I know its ok to talk about. The Iranians were out in full force, with a faux-blockade and about 10-20 small boats. They were brazen enough to circle our ships, get extremely close, try to cut the LPD off from the group, etc. Honestly, I think it was just a show of force, a reminder that it wouldn't take a whole lot of work to shut down the strait, and that they weren't afraid of the big bad US either. If something had gone down that day, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the entire Iranian Navy would be in Davy Jones locker within days, but at a very high cost of allied ships due to the close proximity to Iranian shores.
Navy leadership seems to know what its doing most of the time, Im going to go ahead and trust that they know more than 500 Grains does...
HUH ? they were not deployed they were attacked in a harbor ?
so not the same at all IMHO
Professionals make mistakes. Navy leadership makes mistakes. Pearl Harbor is just one glaring example.
Littlelebowski
09-17-12, 09:15
And those defenses are infallible?
The carries can stand off a few hundred miles and still launch strikes. I do not see the benefit of having carriers within 50 miles of the Iranian coast.
You should contact the Joint Chiefs.
I have actually been in the water in that area and was within a few nautical miles of Iran when we went up the Shatt-al Arab. The Iranians do have fast moving gun boats that could possibly strike our vessels in the area. Primarily because they are hard to hit on the water unless you have assets that can do so.
The Navy lacks in this capacity which is why the USCG was sent to the Northern Arabian Gulf along with their 110' foot cutters.
I'd be curious to know just how accurate this whole report really is. I think we should have allowed Israel to strike Iran long ago.
That makes sense to me. My understanding is that the Iranians have prepared a fleet of small attack craft and torpedo boats for hit-and-run strikes on oil shipping to affect a blockage. In addition, they have thousands of mines that can be very difficult to deal with from the air. All this requires that the navy be capable of a physical presence within the Gulf to insure safe passage of these ships. It can't be done only from the air. Remember, a single tanker being sunk would be a media fiasco.
I still have not heard a legitimate explanation of why carriers need to be within range of Iranian artillery, let alone missiles. Mine sweepers? Sure. Destroyers? Yup. But carriers look like a big fat target.
Or maybe that is what the commander in chief wants.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
09-17-12, 21:55
I still have not heard a legitimate explanation of why carriers need to be within range of Iranian artillery, let alone missiles. Mine sweepers? Sure. Destroyers? Yup. But carriers look like a big fat target.
Or maybe that is what the commander in chief wants.
Whats your Naval Warfare/Exp. Warfare history and experience?
On an aside; the last time we went through the Strait of Hormuz, we went unaccompanied at night. In my mind, I knew that no one in their right mind would attack a US Naval ship as it equates to sovereign US territory. Looking at the Libyan Ambassador debacle, Im starting to think that people are going to care less and less about what our retaliation may be. We are projecting softness all over the globe.
Looking at the Libyan Ambassador debacle, Im starting to think that people are going to care less and less about what our retaliation may be. We are projecting softness all over the globe.
Just curious, what immediate retaliatory response would you have opted for, if you were commander in chief?
Professionals make mistakes. Navy leadership makes mistakes. Pearl Harbor is just one glaring example.
I would say from that statement you dont know the history around Pearl Harbor or the relationship of Japan and US at that time ?
Your statement is a bit like saying you made a mistake when you come home from work and find your house vandalized ?
Some things you have no control over and are not mistakes at all !
Do you blame our military leaders over 9/11 ? Cause using your logic that is their mistake also !
Have you ever been to that part of the world? I guess not. Get a map out an start looking at the straits. Concentrate on the lenght and width.
Not to mention the Iraqi oil terminals of ABOT and KBOT are very close to Iran and we are still providing most of the protection to them. That means we have to be close.
We will also need to provide protection to ships passing through or they will be targets for Iran. Sailing vessel from point A to B is not like getting in your car and going to Burger King.
And those defenses are infallible?
The carries can stand off a few hundred miles and still launch strikes. I do not see the benefit of having carriers within 50 miles of the Iranian coast.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
09-18-12, 00:12
Just curious, what immediate retaliatory response would you have opted for, if you were commander in chief?
I'll readily admit that I'm the least qualified CIC we would ever have, but here's what I would've liked to have seen:
A simple hardline response. Something along the lines of, "There is no excuse for violence, no excuse for extremism/terrorism, and no excuse for tonight's actions. Because there is no excuse, we will hunt down each and every person responsible for murder of our citizens in Benghazi, and with the assistance of the Libyan government, will bring them to swift justice. This is a message for anyone out there seeking to harm Americans at home or abroad: if you touch a single American citizen, attack sovereign territory, or hurt one of our diplomats, we will come for you."
IS that what needed to be said? In my mind, yes. Is that the right move in political chess? I don't know, but it certainly would've been reassuring for me to hear.
As far as retaliation: UNBIASED intelligence investigations, followed by snatch and grabs and surgical strikes. Then announce to the world that, "we got em."
I still have not heard a legitimate explanation of why carriers need to be within range of Iranian artillery, let alone missiles. Mine sweepers? Sure. Destroyers? Yup. But carriers look like a big fat target.
Those big fat targets have about 70 aircraft on board with lots of bombs, plenty of shipboard missiles ready to go, the CIWS, etc. If Iran were to attack one of our carriers we would decimate them within minutes.
That doesn't include the subs lurking under water and all the other good guys we have in the area. Basically it would amount to suicide of a nation on their part.
ETA - CVN-72 97' - 01' w/2 WestPacs and numerous other deployments including being in the Gulf when the USS Cole got hit.
I would say from that statement you dont know the history around Pearl Harbor or the relationship of Japan and US at that time ?
!
Anyone with their eyes open while reading the history knows that a military conflict was predictable as early as the 1920s, and the situation had clearly come to a head in 1941. The President and his commanders were asleep at the switch.
Have you ever been to that part of the world? I guess not. Get a map out an start looking at the straits. Concentrate on the lenght and width.
Not to mention the Iraqi oil terminals of ABOT and KBOT are very close to Iran and we are still providing most of the protection to them. That means we have to be close.
We will also need to provide protection to ships passing through or they will be targets for Iran. Sailing vessel from point A to B is not like getting in your car and going to Burger King.
OK, your point seems to be, "You are stupid."
I will pass on that.
But you still have not explained why CARRIERS need to be close to Iranian forces. Doctrine for defense of Taiwan includes keeping carriers to the east of Taiwan, not within 40 miles of the Chinese coast. Why are things being done differently in the PG?
If you know, please tell me.
Doc Safari
09-18-12, 11:08
I am genuinely interested in the logistics of this so please can we not turn this into a pissing match.
Just saying. ;)
Anyone with their eyes open while reading the history knows that a military conflict was predictable as early as the 1920s, and the situation had clearly come to a head in 1941. The President and his commanders were asleep at the switch.
AHHH OK got it now ships can never return to harbor for work or any other needs !
got it ;)
hmmmm so how are the resupply ships going to get supplies then ? hmmmmm
Honu, you receive high marks for being disingenuous.
Here is an interesting article on the subject:
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_battle-stations-in-the-strait_1741580
As for why this is different from doctrine against China... I would surmise it's because going to war against China and Iran are completely different situations. If the U.S. is the New England Patriot, then China would be the New York Giants. But Iran would be a pee-wee football league of 6 year olds.
I would also presume that the ISR we can accomplish over Iran is much better than over China. I suspect we know already where all the important places are (missile launchers, etc.), and already have them dialed in. Between the AEGIS cruisers, the subs, and the weapon systems aboard all our various ships and aircraft, the Iranians will be hard pressed to make any move without us knowing immediately.
As for Pearl Harbor, there is no correlation... in this case today, we are ready for a shooting war with Iran, and have made appropriate preparations. Different time, different mentality, and 11 years of war have us in a very different place than 1941.
Yes, prior to Desert Shield/Storm we did not send carriers into the Persian Gulf. We have been sending them in there since that time (1990/91) and they have been operating in there routinely ever since. If the commanders felt the risk was too great, they would not do it. The sensors we have (shipboard, satellite, UAV's, etc.) allow for a much better ability to see and anticipate enemy movements. Our situational awareness is significantly better than 20 years ago.
Thank you, that is very good information.
Professionals make mistakes. Navy leadership makes mistakes. Pearl Harbor is just one glaring example.
True, but it's 2012, it aint 1941. A LOT has changed with our current technology, mistakes are far less likely to occur today than they were in 1941. The advances in technology over the last 25 years has changed warfare dramatically, so bringing up 1941 is a bit silly in this scenario.
Just curious, what immediate retaliatory response would you have opted for, if you were commander in chief?
Not that its appropriate in this incident, but I certainly liked Reagan's response the last time Libya killed our people. It was a very clear 12 minute message.
Honu, you receive high marks for being disingenuous.
thanks :)
when you say stuff like
Professionals make mistakes. Navy leadership makes mistakes. Pearl Harbor is just one glaring example.
sorry I would rather be disingenuous than completely clueless and arrogant !
do you know we retaliated to Pearl Harbor on February 17, 1944 with hailstorm
as they say the Japanese could do nothing and we attacked them for two whole days !!!!!
they were prepared ! but again when attacking a harbor their is not much you can do !
that icon pic is part of that aftermath and I worked down their in Chuuk happen to know quite a bit about Pearl Harbor and WWII in the Pacific !
sorry but your ignorance of Pearl Harbor and blaming the leaders leads me to be disingenuous with you since you dont seem to understand anything about naval operations.
Doesn't matter as some people want to, are trying to foment a War.
Get it ?
Yep interesting conundrum indeed. Obozo (the Muslim despite American people who can't/won't believe it or wrap their heads around his own words on camera) trying to appease his fellow Muslims by not catering to Israel. Pretending to be snubbing Netanyahu or not reacting w/ Israel in case they attack Iran while usurping Syria another Muslim dominated ME country under the guise/cover of a tyrranistic dictator leader who murders his citizens. You can't make this stuff up.
Think of this, we have people defending his religious faith of the month because they can't/won't believe he's a Muslim. He's says he's a Christian. So we already know he's a liar outright, but we are to believe he's telling the truth about his religious faith despite his own words decreeing Muslim faith in interviews, audio/video tapes. You can't have it both ways.
The hypocrisy is deafening. Follow the bouncing ball keeping your eyes on all the targets.
Assad is not murdering "his citizens". Those guys are Al Qaeda elements financed by the West. We have admitted it, the UN has admitted it. The Brits have admitted it.
Also, if one were to take the prodigious amount of time to actually study both the Bible and Koran it would be blatantly obvious they have far more in common than is being told.
VooDoo6Actual
09-18-12, 17:31
Assad is not murdering "his citizens". Those guys are Al Qaeda elements financed by the West. We have admitted it, the UN has admitted it. The Brits have admitted it.
Also, if one were to take the prodigious amount of time to actually study both the Bible and Koran it would be blatantly obvious they have far more in common than is being told.
Re-read it S-l-o-w-l-y Dawg.
"Syria another Muslim dominated ME country under the guise/cover a tyrranistic dictator leader who murders his citizens. You can't make this stuff up."
Moose-Knuckle
09-18-12, 18:05
The President and his commanders were asleep at the switch.
Maybe they weren't, Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (http://www.amazon.com/Day-Of-Deceit-Truth-Harbor/dp/0743201299).
:ph34r:
Thought I'd repost this for those that haven't read it. I found it to be an intriguing read.
As the war games were about to commence on July 18 2002, Gen. William "Buck" Kernan, head of the Joint Forces Command, told the press that the operation would test a series of new war-fighting concepts recently developed by the Pentagon, concepts like "rapid decisive operations, effects-based operations, operational net assessments," and the like. Later, at the conclusion of the games, Gen. Kernan insisted that the new concepts had been proved effective. At which point, JOINTFOR drafted recommendations to Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, based on the experiment's satisfactory results in such areas as doctrine, training and procurement.
But not everyone shared Gen. Kernan's rosy assessment. It was sharply criticized by the straight-talking Marine commander who had been brought out of retirement to lead Force Red. His name was Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, and he had played the role of the crazed but cunning leader of the hypothetical rogue state. Gen. Van Riper dismissed the new military concepts as empty sloganeering, and he had reason to be skeptical. In the first days of the "war," Van Riper's Force Red sent most of the US fleet to the bottom of the Persian Gulf.
Not all of the details about how Force Red accomplished this have been revealed. The Pentagon managed to keep much of the story out of the press. But a thoroughly disgruntled Van Riper himself leaked enough to the Army Times that it's possible to get at a sense of how a much weaker force outfoxed and defeated the world's lone remaining Superpower.1
The Worst US Naval Disaster Since Pearl Harbor
http://rense.com/general64/fore.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
I am trying to have a productive discussion, not trade insults. If you would like to return to the conversation, then feel free to do so.
thanks :)
when you say stuff like
sorry I would rather be disingenuous than completely clueless and arrogant !
do you know we retaliated to Pearl Harbor on February 17, 1944 with hailstorm
as they say the Japanese could do nothing and we attacked them for two whole days !!!!!
they were prepared ! but again when attacking a harbor their is not much you can do !
that icon pic is part of that aftermath and I worked down their in Chuuk happen to know quite a bit about Pearl Harbor and WWII in the Pacific !
sorry but your ignorance of Pearl Harbor and blaming the leaders leads me to be disingenuous with you since you dont seem to understand anything about naval operations.
http://rense.com/general64/fore.htm
That is a good read.
It so happens that the most vulnerable ship in the US fleet is none other than the flagship itself, the big Nimitz-class carriers. This underscores the significance of Force Red's victory during Millennium Challenge. Just think: If Van Riper could accomplish what he did with Silkworms, the lowly scuds of the cruise missile family, imagine what could happen if the US Navy, sitting in the Gulf like so many ducks, should face a massed-attack of supersonic Yakhonts missiles, a weapon that may well be unstoppable.
It would be a debacle.
I did not say you are stupid simply that you have no experience and you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to this matter. I'm not going to sit here and spoon feed you the information you just need to figure it out for yourself. It seems as if you intend on just arguing with everyone about everything.
OK, your point seems to be, "You are stupid."
I will pass on that.
But you still have not explained why CARRIERS need to be close to Iranian forces. Doctrine for defense of Taiwan includes keeping carriers to the east of Taiwan, not within 40 miles of the Chinese coast. Why are things being done differently in the PG?
If you know, please tell me.
got a nice PM from 500 grains
I decided to take this offline rather than tell you in public that you are an idiot.
I think they called it battleship row because battleships were parked there for extended periods of time, not because they were there for a brief resupply stop.
In the future you may wish to provide facts rather than just calling name and slinging insults.
Also, you should learn how to spell.
OK I can spell just fine I have a problem with grammar :)
as far as idiot ? whatever you think :)
I am not the one asking why and people telling me then refusing their answer !
I know more about Pearl Harbor than you ever will !!
and I never said they were in Pearl Harbor for a brief resupply ?
the Pearl Harbor thing I am one of only a few civilians to ever dive and take photos on the USS Arizona :)
I also happen to know quite a bit about Pearl Harbor and what happened their and the retaliation in Hailstorm where I also was working doing photography
and even being lucky enough to talk with people that were there on both sides and down in Micronesia etc..
so if thats stupid to you so be it ;)
Doc Safari
09-18-12, 23:57
"Can't we all just get along?"--Rodney King
Sent from my Thingamajig with my Whatchacallit.
That was probably true on December 6, 1941 as well.
I'd reckon the technological divide is much larger now. a carrier group has some crazy shit. launching anything at one is suicide.
Re-read it S-l-o-w-l-y Dawg.
"Syria another Muslim dominated ME country under the guise/cover a tyrranistic dictator leader who murders his citizens. You can't make this stuff up."
Uh, no. The rebels are pouring in from all over. Immediately after those hell bound bastards toppled Libya they were being transported into Syria.
VooDoo6Actual
09-19-12, 09:33
Uh, no. The rebels are pouring in from all over. Immediately after those hell bound bastards toppled Libya they were being transported into Syria.
Somehow there's a disconnect. Not sure why your not tracking.
Somehow there's a disconnect. Not sure why your not tracking.
Got it. We're on the same wavelength now.
I'd imagine that coastal artillary and mines will also be deployed by the Iranians. There are plenty of guns that can cover the 20-25 mile Strait. I'd be curious to know what the Russians and Chineses have sold Iran over the past decade.... Yup that's a serious thought.
Whats your Naval Warfare/Exp. Warfare history and experience?
On an aside; the last time we went through the Strait of Hormuz, we went unaccompanied at night. In my mind, I knew that no one in their right mind would attack a US Naval ship as it equates to sovereign US territory. Looking at the Libyan Ambassador debacle, Im starting to think that people are going to care less and less about what our retaliation may be. We are projecting softness all over the globe.
We need to hear something like. The people who knocked these buildings down will be hearing from us soon!
Just curious, what immediate retaliatory response would you have opted for, if you were commander in chief?
I would have asked for some targets and killed some of them. Doing nothing is showing weakness.
I'll readily admit that I'm the least qualified CIC we would ever have, but here's what I would've liked to have seen:
A simple hardline response. Something along the lines of, "There is no excuse for violence, no excuse for extremism/terrorism, and no excuse for tonight's actions. Because there is no excuse, we will hunt down each and every person responsible for murder of our citizens in Benghazi, and with the assistance of the Libyan government, will bring them to swift justice. This is a message for anyone out there seeking to harm Americans at home or abroad: if you touch a single American citizen, attack sovereign territory, or hurt one of our diplomats, we will come for you."
IS that what needed to be said? In my mind, yes. Is that the right move in political chess? I don't know, but it certainly would've been reassuring for me to hear.
As far as retaliation: UNBIASED intelligence investigations, followed by snatch and grabs and surgical strikes. Then announce to the world that, "we got em."
Not that its appropriate in this incident, but I certainly liked Reagan's response the last time Libya killed our people. It was a very clear 12 minute message.
Then who may be tougher now but then the message we sent then was very clear. You **** with us we will kill you, quickly.
arizonaranchman
09-20-12, 19:02
None of their junk could come anywhere near our ships.
In return they'd be pulverized. No worries.
Heavy Metal
09-20-12, 19:42
I'd reckon the technological divide is much larger now. a carrier group has some crazy shit. launching anything at one is suicide.
I bet they also have the ability to jam a 25 year old Chinese radar-guided missile with relative ease.
A point to consider is that when one talks about maneuvering a carrier, one is not talking about just one ship, but a half dozen or more vessels, that depending on the type of operation require quite a bit of ocean to maintain their station or position in the screening formation, the entire Task Force being spread across several miles of ocean. Now, the Gulf may look like a large body of water but when one factors in the very shallow water to the west, and the north and south traffic lanes for the high volume of tanker traffic, there just aren't that many options for having enough open sea to maneuver a Carrier Task Force. Remember too that not all members of a CTF are surface vessels and the deep (relative) water in the Gulf is on the eastern, or Iranian side of the waterway.
Not sure this guy is an expert but PBS thinks so:
“Putting vulnerable carriers in the Persian Gulf is not a good idea, as it would facilitate crisis instability, not crisis stability,” said John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago. “They are just too vulnerable, and thus having them in the Persian Gulf would create powerful incentives for us to strike quickly at the Iranian military assets that threaten those carriers.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/09/aircraft-carrier.html
It must suck knowing the answers to most/all of the issues raised here but not being able to mention them due to OPSEC/classification.
I'm not in the Navy and I know nothing about ships or carrier strike groups. But their presence is most likely destabilizing the situation, much like placing missiles on Cuba destabilized the Cold War.
alienb1212
09-21-12, 09:50
Google CWIS.
Friend used to work on them ~10 years ago in the Navy, he detailed their capabilites to me one time, quite impressive, and I'm sure the technology has improved since he was fixing them.
From his rough description they are a fully autonomous, radar-tracking auto-aimed close-in defense system that can track, anticipate, and destroy the vast majority of incoming missiles and larger projectiles with a pretty good success rate. Obviously the best situation would be to avoid being shot at to begin with, but I can imagine these are pretty effective.
CarlosDJackal
09-21-12, 20:49
Shouldn't we move our carriers out of missile range?
And that would be about... Antarctica? :rolleyes:
Google CWIS.
Friend used to work on them ~10 years ago in the Navy, he detailed their capabilites to me one time, quite impressive, and I'm sure the technology has improved since he was fixing them.
From his rough description they are a fully autonomous, radar-tracking auto-aimed close-in defense system that can track, anticipate, and destroy the vast majority of incoming missiles and larger projectiles with a pretty good success rate. Obviously the best situation would be to avoid being shot at to begin with, but I can imagine these are pretty effective.
It's essentially the same, if not the exact same thing, that we had posted up all over Iraq that could shoot down incoming rockets and mortar rounds. They weren't 100% effective but a big anti ship missile is a hell of a lot easier to hit than a ****ing mortar round.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.