Iranian Navy officially suicidal, photographs USS John C. Stennis...

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,779
1,345
693
#1
Hoo boy...


Iran claimed to have successfully taken surveillance footage of a US aircraft carrier near the Strait of Hormuz today as both countries raised the stakes in their standoff over the critical oil route.

The commander of Iran's navy said the reconnaissance mission was proof that his fleet had "control over the moves by foreign forces" but it was unclear what intelligence could be derived from the grainy video, which was played triumphantly on state television.

Admiral Habibollah Sayyari's statement came as Iranian ships, helicopters and submarines continued a 10-day war game exercise designed to give credibility to the country's threat to close the Strait and choke off the world's oil supplies if the West moves ahead with sanctions.

The drill is underway in international waters near the Strait and only a few hundred miles from America's Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet. The US Navy has vowed to prevent any closure of the channel, through which 15 million barrels of oil pass every day.

A Navy spokeswoman would not comment on the footage but confirmed that the USS John C Stennis, one of the fleet's largest carriers, was on a "routine transit" through the Strait to provide support to Nato forces in Afghanistan.

Despite the Fifth Fleet's advantage in firepower, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander vowed yesterday that "Any threat will be responded [to] by threat."

"We will not relinquish our strategic moves if Iran's vital interests are undermined by any means," General Hossein Salami told Press TV.
This afternoon, the US also announced it was selling more than 80 F-15 strike aircraft to Saudi Arabia, an American ally and Iran's main rival for military dominance in the Middle East. Without specifically naming Iran, the State Department said the sale was intended as "a strong message to countries in the region that the United States is committed to stability in the Gulf and broader Middle East."

Barry Pavel, Director of the Brent Scowcroft Centre on International Security at the Atlantic Council, said that Iran's navy was potentially capable of closing the Strait but would be unlikely to do so because of the country's dependence on revenues from oil exports. "It would have to be a very extreme situation for Iran to basically shut down its own economy," he said.

The Iranian threat to close the narrow shipping lane was made after the EU, backed by the US, announced it was tightening sanctions on Iran for pressing ahead with its nuclear programme. Europe buys around 20 per cent of all Iranian oil exports and a full embargo would cause serious damage to Iran's economy.
Link

The Stennis VS. the entire Iran navy? My money is on the Stennis, even if it's escorts just sit on the sidelines and laugh.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,803
18,539
513
Kingdom of Charis
#2
Read this report coming out of Iran about the possibility of closing the Strait of Hormuz. I don't know what's gotten into these fuckers. Do they think closing the Strait might delay an attack on the nuclear facilities because we'd be busy with that shit? I can't see any other possible benefit for them. They are also threatening to attack Gulf vessels if an Iranian oil embargo is declared so that they can't pick up the oil slack.
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,779
1,345
693
#3
Read this report coming out of Iran about preparations to close the Strait of Hormuz. I don't know what's gotten into these fuckers. Do they think closing the Strait might delay an attack on the nuclear facilities because we'd be busy with that shit? I can't see any other possible benefit for them. They are also threatening to attack Gulf vessels if an Iranian oil embargo is declared so that they can't pick up the oil slack.
Yep, Iran is batshit nuts. I'm still betting the 5th Fleet Commander got a kick out of Iran's surveillance attempts. You're not getting within a few hundred miles of a carrier without them letting you.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,803
18,539
513
Kingdom of Charis
#4
Yep, Iran is batshit nuts. I'm still betting the 5th Fleet Commander got a kick out of Iran's surveillance attempts. You're not getting within a few hundred miles of a carrier without them letting you.
The sickening part of all this is listening to people like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda brag about standing up to the same army that defeated the Nazis and dropped atomic bombs. They are just completely clueless of how utterly restrained these wars have been, and how easily we could have just leveled those entire regions if we didn't give a shit and were going all out. That's why we need another all out war. Gotta remind people that it is still possible to obliterate you if you go too far.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,175
12,933
373
Atlanta, GA
#5
Iran is pathetically desperate for attention. It's the fake lesbian college girl of international politics.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,899
15,281
303
#6
Shutting down the Straits to commercial interests and military guys wouldn't be too difficult. They would just mine it and point some Mach 3 missiles in the general direction and whatever wasn't booby trapped there would be fast attack ships with anti-ship missiles and torpedoes.

One thing that has been getting press with this situation was the quarter billion dollar wargaming exercise called Millennium Challenge in 2002. Basically the U.S. Navy got bitch smacked in that one. They objectively lost the Straits battle. 16 military ships as well as a ton of commercial ships were sunk. The fatality count for that would have been north of 20,000 servicemembers dead before accounting civilians. The war "war", providing a restart of the Straits scenario, was won (dictator captured/killed, military surrender) in about a month.

Whatever would happen after that well, wouldn't be pretty.

Americans are right to be proud of their Navy. Hell, have you seen the bill? You might be paying part of it. Yet involvement in Iran would be disastrous. Makes me think of the victories in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Gentleman, one more win like that and we are lost!"
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,803
18,539
513
Kingdom of Charis
#7
Shutting down the Straits to commercial interests and military guys wouldn't be too difficult. They would just mine it and point some Mach 3 missiles in the general direction and whatever wasn't booby trapped there would be fast attack ships with anti-ship missiles and torpedoes.

One thing that has been getting press with this situation was the quarter billion dollar wargaming exercise called Millennium Challenge in 2002. Basically the U.S. Navy got bitch smacked in that one. They objectively lost the Straits battle. 16 military ships as well as a ton of commercial ships were sunk. The fatality count for that would have been north of 20,000 servicemembers dead before accounting civilians. The war "war", providing a restart of the Straits scenario, was won (dictator captured/killed, military surrender) in about a month.

Whatever would happen after that well, wouldn't be pretty.

Americans are right to be proud of their Navy. Hell, have you seen the bill? You might be paying part of it. Yet involvement in Iran would be disastrous. Makes me think of the victories in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Gentleman, one more win like that and we are lost!"
I have no knowledge of this wargame, but even if that were 100% true, wouldn't you think they would have revised their plans in the following decade to minimize those casualties and improve the outcome? Isn't that what wargame exercises are for?
 

Buster H

Alt-F4
Wackbag Staff
Dec 6, 2004
12,244
2,725
678
Lower Bucks Co, PA
#8
nothing spectacular there. I went through the Straits of Hormuz quite a few times on the Eisenhower. Pretty sure it was 6 times, but definitely 4. The entire time, we could see the coast of Iran. With a decent spotting scope, you could probably make out people walking around on the flight deck at the distance we were. There were rumors of there being silkworm missile launchers on land overlooking the strait. With a range of 50 miles, they could have easily attempted an attack on us being that the straits are only about 30 miles wide at some points. I only got topside once during a transit and didn't really see any structures on land.

It is a very narrow area and a suicidal country could easily block off the area temporarily. Wouldn't last long.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,803
18,539
513
Kingdom of Charis
#9
It is a very narrow area and a suicidal country could easily block off the area temporarily. Wouldn't last long.
Yeah. Closing it and keeping it closed are two entirely different things.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#10
They're no threat to us, but if they know they can get away with shit like this; and make no mistake they can right now; they will be aggressive to countries that they can defeat. One carrier battle group could probably defeat half of the world's military forces at one time. There's no excuse for them being embarrassed like this.
 

Buster H

Alt-F4
Wackbag Staff
Dec 6, 2004
12,244
2,725
678
Lower Bucks Co, PA
#11
Shutting down the Straits to commercial interests and military guys wouldn't be too difficult. They would just mine it and point some Mach 3 missiles in the general direction and whatever wasn't booby trapped there would be fast attack ships with anti-ship missiles and torpedoes.

One thing that has been getting press with this situation was the quarter billion dollar wargaming exercise called Millennium Challenge in 2002. Basically the U.S. Navy got bitch smacked in that one. They objectively lost the Straits battle. 16 military ships as well as a ton of commercial ships were sunk. The fatality count for that would have been north of 20,000 servicemembers dead before accounting civilians. The war "war", providing a restart of the Straits scenario, was won (dictator captured/killed, military surrender) in about a month.

Whatever would happen after that well, wouldn't be pretty.

Americans are right to be proud of their Navy. Hell, have you seen the bill? You might be paying part of it. Yet involvement in Iran would be disastrous. Makes me think of the victories in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Gentleman, one more win like that and we are lost!"
Not saying that this would be effective, but prior to passing through the straits and the entire time in the Persian Gulf, all US ships set a heightened level of watertight integrity due to the threat of mines. It was not quite as restrictive as full on general quarters, but any watertight door below the waterline remains closed except to pass through them
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,779
1,345
693
#12
Shutting down the Straits to commercial interests and military guys wouldn't be too difficult. They would just mine it and point some Mach 3 missiles in the general direction and whatever wasn't booby trapped there would be fast attack ships with anti-ship missiles and torpedoes.

One thing that has been getting press with this situation was the quarter billion dollar wargaming exercise called Millennium Challenge in 2002. Basically the U.S. Navy got bitch smacked in that one. They objectively lost the Straits battle. 16 military ships as well as a ton of commercial ships were sunk. The fatality count for that would have been north of 20,000 servicemembers dead before accounting civilians. The war "war", providing a restart of the Straits scenario, was won (dictator captured/killed, military surrender) in about a month.

Whatever would happen after that well, wouldn't be pretty.

Americans are right to be proud of their Navy. Hell, have you seen the bill? You might be paying part of it. Yet involvement in Iran would be disastrous. Makes me think of the victories in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Gentleman, one more win like that and we are lost!"
You do realize that a lot of wargames use ROE to purposefully hobble the blue team, right? The Navy got it's shit pushed in by a retired Marine general, not some pudunk idiot in Iran. Also, much of what happened in that particular exercise was prior to a lot of advances in counter-missile systems that we employ now.

If Iran wanted to play with the US Navy, it will get it's shit pushed in. 5th fleet has more firepower that most to all of the Iranian military, much less their navy.

Iran is pathetically desperate for attention. It's the fake lesbian college girl of international politics.
This, only the lesbian college girl that is Iran will end up getting a big, aircraft carrier shaped US cock up the ass if it keeps it up.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,899
15,281
303
#14
Americans would go batshit. Battleships would be lost. More Americans could die in the first little bit of Straits escalation than have in the past about 18 combined years of Af/Pak and Iraq involvement.

America would lose its MIND if that happened. The scenario of war against Iran has been compared to the continental army against the Brits and the VC against the U.S.

Iran doesn't have to win, it just has to not lose for a while. Iran is really underrated.
 

Buster H

Alt-F4
Wackbag Staff
Dec 6, 2004
12,244
2,725
678
Lower Bucks Co, PA
#15
They're no threat to us, but if they know they can get away with shit like this; and make no mistake they can right now; they will be aggressive to countries that they can defeat. One carrier battle group could probably defeat half of the world's military forces at one time. There's no excuse for them being embarrassed like this.
not sure what you are referring to in the bold part. No excuse for our guys to be embarrassed? I didn't see the video, but hell, if I could see the coast of Iran from the flight deck, I am sure they could get surveillance footage of us
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,779
1,345
693
#17
Americans would go batshit. Battleships would be lost. More Americans could die in the first little bit of Straits escalation than have in the past about 18 combined years of Af/Pak and Iraq involvement.

America would lose its MIND if that happened. The scenario of war against Iran has been compared to the continental army against the Brits and the VC against the U.S.

Iran doesn't have to win, it just has to not lose for a while. Iran is really underrated.
You really are an idiot. Here's a clue, we retired the last battleship in 95, and it was the last one in active service in the world.
 

MurphCO

Well-Known Member
Donator
Dec 13, 2011
1,357
810
298
Parts Unknown
#18
Of any country in the region, Iran has the best chance at a REAL regime change due to western educated youth
 

Buster H

Alt-F4
Wackbag Staff
Dec 6, 2004
12,244
2,725
678
Lower Bucks Co, PA
#19
Americans would go batshit. Battleships would be lost. More Americans could die in the first little bit of Straits escalation than have in the past about 18 combined years of Af/Pak and Iraq involvement.

America would lose its MIND if that happened. The scenario of war against Iran has been compared to the continental army against the Brits and the VC against the U.S.

Iran doesn't have to win, it just has to not lose for a while. Iran is really underrated.
you are right, they would go batshit if we lost a carrier.... i still don't think it's a possibility. Having lived on one of them for 4 years, you learn to appreciate the capabilities.

Even if we did, I don't see the US population going batshit in a "make peace, not war" way. I see it being much like the first Gulf war where anyone involved was treated like a rockstar and the people will rally behind the troops to kick some towel head ass.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,803
18,539
513
Kingdom of Charis
#20
You really are an idiot. Here's a clue, we retired the last battleship in 95, and it was the last one in active service in the world.
But they'll definitely make mincemeat of our Galleons, and our Hunleys are no match for their torpedoes. :icon_cool
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,899
15,281
303
#21
Huge army, more people in Iran than Iraq and Afghanistan put together, well armed, its been outfitting terrorists for a while so some insurgency and guerrilla stuff would be right up its alley.
The military might not be much, but it beats the shit out of Iraq's circa 2002/1003 or so, that is for certain. America has been bankrupted and its military is really fucked up and stressed out over the past decade so we aren't going into this like it was really soon post-9/11. Nothing like Operation Rolling Thunder or anything like that would work. Iran also has tons of biological and chemical weaponry and I think they are suicidal and batshit enough to use it, which is a huge game changer.

So, lets say there is war in Iran for whatever reason and the United States "wins."

What does that entail? Because if it entails more "nation-building" and "hearts-n-minds" and Jeffersonian Puppet Democracy At Rifle Point we will be getting buttfucked in a big time way for a decade over that one.
 

MurphCO

Well-Known Member
Donator
Dec 13, 2011
1,357
810
298
Parts Unknown
#23
We shouldn't have pulled out of Iraq, we should have established permanent bases.


This isn't the type of thing you win in a couple of years through brute force, hearts and minds are won over a long period of time.

Re: Japan, Germany
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,899
15,281
303
#24
Goddammit, stupid fucking nomenclature mistake. Fine, cruisers and carriers. Dammit. You know what I meant. One of those goes down, a few thousand people bite it, and America goes nuts. Occupy nonsense won't have shit on that.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#25
How long could they seriously blockade the area?

I'm guessing the amount of time it takes for their "ships" to sink.


Where there is an aircraft carrier, there are also submarines.