US Navy nearly fires on Iranian Ships

[Viking]

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by AKIron
BS

Your continued ignorance of fact is consistently noticed.  

Somehow you think that the 5th Fleet has anywhere near enough defensive missile strength to negate the thousand or so anti ship missiles the Iranians have.  

Those and the "hyper fast" torpedoes that Iran developed, which our Navy admits there is "no countermeasure" for.  

Perhaps, you, like Mr. Bush, believe that god will strike down any missiles launched at our majestic golden fleet.

You need to base your opinion on fact.  

The fact is, the Iranians have prepared for a conflict with the United States comparatively well.  There will be no US carriers sitting offshore.... Not because the Iranians sank them, but because they won't be sailed into that environment.  Aegis was proven to have a 20% miss rate in a saturated environment, and CIWS (Phalanx) was old ten years ago.  Against the old versions of anti-shipping missiles, phalanx failed to down up to 25%... and that number went up quickly when it was faced with multiple inbound threats.

[rabbidrabbit]

Originally posted by MORAY37
Your continued ignorance of fact is consistently noticed.  

Somehow you think that the 5th Fleet has anywhere near enough defensive missile strength to negate the thousand or so anti ship missiles the Iranians have.  

Those and the "hyper fast" torpedoes that Iran developed, which our Navy admits there is "no countermeasure" for.  

Perhaps, you, like Mr. Bush, believe that god will strike down any missiles launched at our majestic golden fleet.

You need to base your opinion on fact.  

The fact is, the Iranians have prepared for a conflict with the United States comparatively well.  There will be no US carriers sitting offshore.... Not because the Iranians sank them, but because they won't be sailed into that environment.  Aegis was proven to have a 20% miss rate in a saturated environment, and CIWS (Phalanx) was old ten years ago.  Against the old versions of anti-shipping missiles, phalanx failed to down up to 25%... and that number went up quickly when it was faced with multiple inbound threats.

Sources for your facts?

[AKIron]

Originally posted by MORAY37
Your continued ignorance of fact is consistently noticed.  

Somehow you think that the 5th Fleet has anywhere near enough defensive missile strength to negate the thousand or so anti ship missiles the Iranians have.  

Those and the "hyper fast" torpedoes that Iran developed, which our Navy admits there is "no countermeasure" for.  

Perhaps, you, like Mr. Bush, believe that god will strike down any missiles launched at our majestic golden fleet.

You need to base your opinion on fact.  

The fact is, the Iranians have prepared for a conflict with the United States comparatively well.  There will be no US carriers sitting offshore.... Not because the Iranians sank them, but because they won't be sailed into that environment.  Aegis was proven to have a 20% miss rate in a saturated environment, and CIWS (Phalanx) was old ten years ago.  Against the old versions of anti-shipping missiles, phalanx failed to down up to 25%... and that number went up quickly when it was faced with multiple inbound threats.

Your ignorance is not surprising nor is your arrogance. The US Navy along with all other branches of the US military keep a few secrets up their sleeves. I'm no expert but I believe one or two tactical nukes detonated between these "hundreds" of inbound Iranian missiles would at least fry their guidance systems. I've probably spent more time underwater than you have too. Is there anything you really know something about?

[Bodhi]

My thought is that the first launch plumes detected in Iran will result in the GPS system being shut down immediately in that area.  

There might be a small problem after that with those missiles finding their targets.

[Furball]

Originally posted by Viking


“The Yingji-82 or YJ-82 (Chinese: 鹰击-82, literally "Eagle Strike"; NATO reporting name: CSS-N-8 Saccade) is a Chinese anti-ship missile first unveiled in 1989 by the China Haiying Electro-Mechanical Technology Academy (CHETA), also known as the Third Academy. Due to the Yingji-82 missile's small radar reflectivity, low attack flight path (only five to seven meters above the sea surface) and strong anti-jamming capability of its guidance equipment, target ships have a very small chance of intercepting the missile. The hit probability of the Yingji-82 is estimated to be as high as 98 percent. The Yingji-82 can be launched from airplanes, surface ships, submarines and land-based vehicles, and has been considered – along with the US Harpoon missile – as among the best anti-ship missiles of its generation.[1] Its export name is the C-802.”

This is the missile Hezbollah used in 2006 to attack an Israeli corvette. Probably supplied by Iran or Syria. Iran has 60 of these in Qeshm. With a range of 120 kilometres the the C-802 covers much of the gulf, and also the estuary to the gulf.


In addition Iran has over 300 Exocet missiles, also covering most of the gulf. An unknown number of “Sunburn” missiles…

“The Raduga Moskit “Sunburn” anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world. The MOSKIT is designed to fly as low as 9 feet at over 1,500 miles per hour, faster than a rifle bullet. The missile uses a violent pop-up maneuver for its terminal approach to throw off Phalanx and other anti-missile defense.”

…and an unknown number of the Sunburn’s replacement, the Yakhonts 26 with a range of 250-300 kilometres.

Iran also produces an indigenous version of the Silkworm missile with a range of 150 kilometres. Hundreds of these are in service.


Any US ship operating in the Gulf is literally sailing under the guns of the Iranian missile forces.

How can you continue to argue the point, against such a well thought out, researched and structured argument as "BS"?

[AKIron]

I doubt Iran is stupid enough to launch an attack as proposed. Since we're dealing with far fetched scenarios it isn't unreasonable to plant a sub or two with an airburst tactical nuke quick launch capability just off shore in the event of a massive attack.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by AKIron
Your ignorance is not surprising nor is your arrogance. The US Navy along with all other branches of the US military keep a few secrets up their sleeves. I'm no expert but I believe one or two tactical nukes detonated between these "hundreds" of inbound Iranian missiles would at least fry their guidance systems. I've probably spent more time underwater than you have too. Is there anything you really know something about?

AK, I really doubt that a Nuclear weapon of any sort will be used for any reason in that situation.

However, I do notice that while the anti-shipping missiles' seem to be there, what is protecting the missiles? What air-defence assets? Anything offensive undertaken by the U.S. Navy won't be FFG's blundering right into the straights' of Hormuz, It will be from the Carrier air wings' wiping the Anti-ship missile batteries' out before they can come into play. And I doubt that the Iranian air force can do anything to stop it. There won't be 'swarms' of missiles, only the odd one or two that might have been missed. Phalanx and it's replacement, Goalkeeper, can handle that.

[Viking]

Originally posted by AKIron
Your ignorance is not surprising nor is your arrogance. The US Navy along with all other branches of the US military keep a few secrets up their sleeves. I'm no expert but I believe one or two tactical nukes detonated between these "hundreds" of inbound Iranian missiles would at least fry their guidance systems. I've probably spent more time underwater than you have too. Is there anything you really know something about?

That is just beyond silly. Nuking the little pond your fleet is in? Yeah that's really smart.

[Viking]

Originally posted by Bodhi
My thought is that the first launch plumes detected in Iran will result in the GPS system being shut down immediately in that area.  

There might be a small problem after that with those missiles finding their targets.

These missiles do not use the GPS system. No non-NATO weapon does. These missiles use inertial guidance, mid-course radio/satellite guidance and active radar terminal guidance. As for targeting and mid-course guidance the Iranians launched its first recce satellite in 2005. They know exactly where your ships are at any given moment.

[Viking]

Originally posted by AKIron
I doubt Iran is stupid enough to launch an attack as proposed.

Originally posted by Viking
Spare me your "then we'd nook 'em" knee jerk response. The point is that if Iran wanted to attack your ships they wouldn't do it with speedboats. Over the years USN ships have attacked and sunk Iranian naval vessels and even shot down one of their airliners while violating Iranian waters. I think Iran have shown remarkable restraint in their response to your aggressions.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Viking
That is just beyond silly. Nuking the little pond your fleet is in? Yeah that's really smart.

If it came to suffering some burnt out electronics vs sunk ships I think the emp is vastly preferrable. We're talking miles separation here and relatively low yeild weapons. It would be a drastic measure but would also likely be successful. Iran would not be afforded a second attempt.

[Viking]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
However, I do notice that while the anti-shipping missiles' seem to be there, what is protecting the missiles? What air-defence assets? Anything offensive undertaken by the U.S. Navy won't be FFG's blundering right into the straights' of Hormuz, It will be from the Carrier air wings' wiping the Anti-ship missile batteries' out before they can come into play. And I doubt that the Iranian air force can do anything to stop it. There won't be 'swarms' of missiles, only the odd one or two that might have been missed. Phalanx and it's replacement, Goalkeeper, can handle that.

The Iranians have been busy modernizing its air defenses, but I don't think they can withstand a prolonged air campaign from the USN/USAF. But that is beyond the scope of my premise: An Iranian attack on US ships already in the gulf.

They don't need to drop "boxes" from speedboats.

[Viking]

Originally posted by AKIron
If it came to suffering some burnt out electronics vs sunk ships I think the emp is vastly preferrable. We're talking miles separation here and relatively low yeild weapons. It would be a drastic measure but would also likely be successful. Iran would not be afforded a second attempt.

Modern missiles and military equipment are EMP shielded. Have been since the early '90s. All you need is some metal mesh.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Viking
The Iranians have been busy modernizing its air defenses, but I don't think they can withstand a prolonged air campaign from the USN/USAF. But that is beyond the scope of my premise: An Iranian attack on US ships already in the gulf.

They don't need to drop "boxes" from speedboats.

To stay in the scope or your premise, then...as can be seen from this latest incident, they will have 2 or 3 U.S. Navy ships' which they can attack. So, let's say they do, being able to sink all 3. This is where my argument comes into play. We get a few days' of smart-bomb camera footage on Fox and CNN, and the Missile batteries' are a memory. The CV air group in the area chalks' up some more kills, and diplomacy (or further military action) Take it from there.