Does this article speak of the future well in the Gulf?

Soundbreaker Welch? · 01-05-2007, 02:05 AM

It certainly doesn't bode well if you believe it. It's a bit chilling to think of being whopped in this manner.

Iran: A Bridge too Far?

Well P-38 pilot, I think it might be wiser to be wary of the Russians than hate them. But does Putin really have the grudge the article claims he has? Bush claimed to "know" his soul, and he didn't say anything bad about him!

I suppose it would be foolish to think that Putin has the best interests of the US at heart. And the World seems to think that America is the new Imperial Rome, so if our carriers were disintegrated........

Except for the fact China will then force everyone in the World to buy high priced toys and cars from them all year long every week. Hey, a lot of Americans already do just that!

President of Russia Vladimir Putin throwing a sparring partner at a Sambo wrestling training session in Novo-Ogaryovo. Maybe someday the guy being thrown will be us!

mkloby · 01-05-2007, 01:15 PM

I read that article with a grain of salt. I'm sure he has intimate knowledge of how Russian Anti-Ship missile technology is a decade ahead at least of US technology??? He's right, we must hand over the "Deepening crisis in iraq" and future problems to the UN, and promise not to veto.

plan_D · 01-14-2007, 11:58 AM

While I wrote a lot of the article off almost instantly, especially that of the Russian anti-ship missile tech. being a decade ahead of the U.S, it did make me think about the Persian Gulf.

I think there's a valid point in that any ships in the Persian Gulf would be caught in a trap. And any U.S vessels in there would probably be destroyed by Iranian missiles.
But the idea of all shipping being cut off is beyond unreasonable; if Israel really was the aggressor and the Persian Gulf was seperated, the U.S could force supplies through Saudia Arabia or the Med.

Iran wouldn't have much chance of stopping a lightning U.S ground offensive into Iran with anti-ship missiles.

syscom3 · 01-14-2007, 12:18 PM

Too much faith is being put on the cruise missle as being the do all to end all wonder weapon.

Dangerous? Yes. Impossible to defend against? No.

plan_D · 01-14-2007, 12:21 PM

The U.S Navy would suffer losses against the anti-ship missiles, syscom. The Exorcet did massive damage to the Royal Navy during the Falklands and that was air-launched.

The only true way the U.S could stop the launches would be to attack the launch sites and destroy them all.

mkloby · 01-14-2007, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

The U.S Navy would suffer losses against the anti-ship missiles, syscom. The Exorcet did massive damage to the Royal Navy during the Falklands and that was air-launched.

The only true way the U.S could stop the launches would be to attack the launch sites and destroy them all.

Yeah - the exocets did take their toll on the RN... thank God that they only had, what was it 5 of them? It was over 20 years ago... The threat is real - yet some loopy individuals believed cruise missiles would make the mililtary virtually obsolete

Hardly! I do wonder, however, what cutting edge anti shipping missile technology the USN has under development today... under wraps. I also think about what type of lock one would get onto the "stealth" ship that I think it was Grumman is developing.

plan_D · 01-14-2007, 03:56 PM

I'm far from the belief that cruise missiles will make the military obselete; the MoD had the deluded vision in the 1950s that SAM missiles would make the interceptor obselete. I've always thought that as silly and naive.

But to write off the anti-ship missile of today as anything less than a massive threat is also naive. While I'm certainly not blaming any of the older people on this site of being this, there are too many ego driven lunatics that believe the United States forces are invincible. And this vision is what gets people killed.
I hope for the sake of the U.S personnel; that the US High Command is thinking of ways of stopping any anti-ship missile the Iranians might have. Because they are deadly gentlemen; the British believed it may have had something to counter the Exorcet - but we didn't. And it cost lives.

syscom3 · 01-14-2007, 04:43 PM

A cruise missle hitting a small escort vessel is certeinly going to do some damage. But a single cruise missle hitting a carrier doing some significant damage? I dont think so.

The main threats the surface fleet will encounter are high speed torpedo's and stealthy mines.

plan_D · 01-14-2007, 05:20 PM

One could knock a carrier out of action.

mkloby · 01-14-2007, 05:26 PM

I don't think it's a matter of writing them off. Far from it. It's a valid threat. Especially since a well equipped enemy would likely launch many at a single high value target. I don't know a lot about naval equipment in that respect, but I would have to imagine that they correctly understand the threat and are dealing with it. The experience of the RN from the Falklands is fresh in their minds. But - the missle must have a means to acquire the target, track, update it's course and intercept a moving ship - all the while dealing with any countermeasures that the ship is executing. It's not an easy task...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-14-2007, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

A cruise missle hitting a small escort vessel is certeinly going to do some damage. But a single cruise missle hitting a carrier doing some significant damage? I dont think so.

A well placed cruise missile hitting a carrier could take it out. Nothing is unsinkable syscom. Even if it does not sink the ship, it can knock it out of action, disabling its ability to launch and recover aircraft. You hit the AV gas storage....Boom!

Trust me syscom there are cruise missiles out there than can do serious damage to a Carrier and with only one hitting them.