British Sailors Captured By Iran

Remove all ads!

T2,
the Iranian aircraft you listed are about the numerical equivalent of three US carrier combat groups, probably less. And that does leave out the technical edge the US have. You really expect the Brits to rush into war with Iran without the US, who are practically itching for it?

As for the missile and small boat threat, it's very real. However, I think if it gets hot the real fight will be for the US supply lines in sourth Iraq.

 

I actually agree with Ragusa on this one. Of all the planes you listed, all of them are really old, and not really used anymore by anyone with better than a second rate airforce, with the possible exception of the MiG-29.

I also completely agree that there's no way that a war between the UK and Iran is happening, and certainly not happening without direct help from the US. Heck, we dragged them into a war in Iraq, the least we can do is help them out in return. One unfortunate point that I must concede is that with Bush in power for another year and a half, it leaves more than ample time for one last grand F-up, which a war with Iran would certainly qualify.

 

I have never said the Iranians would be able to stand against a coalition force. Merely that the UK is not capable of defeating them on their own -- which was the main premise of the thread. I also believe the US is not in a position to help much.

Although many of the aircraft are old, they have been extremely well kept -- as evident by sightings recently of the F-14's in air. These are planes that the US has not allowed spare parts to be shipped to Iran since Ollie did it in the 80's. All Iranian aircraft are believed to be retrofitted with very modern weaponry (and only a fool would ignore such intel). The pilots are very well trained and highly motivated.

I agree with Ragusa in that a three carrier battlegroup may be able to take them out if totally focused on Iran-- but the two carriers in the gulf (along with support from a Wasp class and a British carrier) would have quite a fight on their hands between trying to protect the fleet from the coastal raiders, dodging all the missiles (both surface-to-surface and surface-to-air), the Iranian Air Force, AND the current hostilities in Iraq.

 

Think about this...so we go to war with Iran...to what end (we being a coalition of the UK and US)? Are we just going to try to stand of and ruin them? Are we going to invade and replace the Iranian Gov't?

If we just stand off and kick them in the teeth we are just going to have a bigger long term problem to deal with, and no guarantee to ever see the British Sailors. If we invade...I don't even want to think about it, but it will make the situation in Iraq look minor. The entire ME will think that we are incrementally taking over the entire region, and even if the neighboring Gov'ts don't actively participate, they will lend aid to insurgents and resistance at a level the dwarfs what is going on in Iraq.

Other than a surgical strike to remove the prisoners there is no military option here.

 

That's what I thinking about (the last sentence). To show we're powerful and not to be ****ed with in such a way, send in a crack squad. Two minutes, in, out, back in time for breakfast, sends exacvtly the right message. "Who Dares Wins".


[No getting around the censoring software with sneakily accented vowels please] - dmc

[ March 28, 2007, 00:02: Message edited by: dmc ]

 

Hmm.. sound vaguely familiar. My ex-brother-in-law was part of the last attmept to rescue people from Iran. It didn't go so well then.

I doubt all the prisoners are being kept in the same location.

 

Another very huge advantage of the US are their AIM-120 AMRAAM BVR-AAM, MIDS/ JTIDS and the APS-145/ ALR-73 PDS combo ...
Mwahahaha Whoever understands that garble (it isn't), qualifies as an aircraft nerd

 

The E-2C is an amazing platform. The AWACS is second fiddle to it. There was a great cartoon which had the caption "The Air Force has finally found a solution to their AWACS problems." The picture was an E-2C strapped to a Boeing 707.

The AIM-120 was the only way they could retire the F-14 -- although it doesn't quite have the range of the Phoenix.

 

That was another case of an administration trying to micromanage the military and not listening or giving them the tools they need to get the job done, but ordering them to do it anyway.

Sounds familiar...history does repeat itself.

 

I dunno, I think that we should just stick with our superior ICBM systems. That'd learn 'em.

What? They wouldn't learn anything, because they'd all be dead? Well, whatever. Same difference.

 

Isn't it great to ad hominem? Especially when you have no knowledge about the other person's background or history of studies?

I'll grant you that taking a carrier force against Iran is a very unwise course of action, but you, my friend, were lauding the 'guardians of Hormuz' so greatly, that I felt compelled to find a chink in this 'armour'.

There is an old saw that my sieve-like memory is going to paraphrase as "Never engage a shore battery with a ship, because the shore battery cannot be sunk."

So as such, don't do this; don't send air strikes of ground-attack aircraft from a carrier group, especially since there's plenty of enemy attack aircraft to follow your Gr.9 Harriers 'back to the roost'.

Don't fight a shore emplacement from the water; instead fight it on the land - send covert specialists to eliminate the threat of the missile bases and local airfields.

I only suggested SBS as opposed to SAS since marine insertion can be more difficult to detect than aerial - I'm sure all those fancy missiles and aircraft are complemented by competent radar sites that would quickly tag someone drifting into Iranian airspace and then you've got that large, forbidding air force where you don't want it - in the air and ready to fight.

And that gets back to the PRINCIPLE of what I was trying to get at - don't fight on your opponent's terms. Deny him his strengths (for example sabotage those ship killer missile sites on the shoreline, mix sand into reserves of jet fuel, etc.) and attack him where his strength is nullified (a pilot outside of his aircraft is just an out-of-practice infantryman with a pistol; an anti-ship missile disconnected from its control systems is just a large tube filled with explosives and flammables).


Oh, and about the history of Iran - sorry for the note of jest about Iranians 'picking up good manners' from the British officials & employees of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company that were sitting on them like a toad on a stone for all those years; I don't like remaining too serious in a long post; again my apologies that this attempt at humour apparently failed.
(sarcasm is just a seven-letter word beginning with 's' for you, isn't it? )

S'funny; I thought that's what I was trying to say about yours - sorry for being obtuse again. *shrug*


...all this said, I don't think this 'tinderbox' will ever get lit - as others have said neither party would have enough potential gain to outweigh the risks; Iran isn't quite ready to take on the West, and the UK could recover their people much more easily through diplomacy than through force.

 

I keep hearing harrier, harrier, harrier. What about the new toy that we have coming next year? The USMC and the USN as well as the USAF are getting a new toy to replace the harrier. It's called the F-35b.

oh, and on radar it shows up the size of a golf ball.

 

Er, yes. Next year. At best.

But Iran has prisoners now

 

no, not at best. It's just the beginning of a roll out. They'll be fully in service by 2012, but don't think they couldn't step it up if need be.

 

It's a little scary how gung-ho the UKers in this thread sound.

 

Your'e scared? I have to live in this country!

I have no idea whether we'd win a theoretical war with Iran by ourselves although I personally doubt it. I am almost 100% sure it will never come to it.

We are always being led to believe we have pretty much the best Army in the world despite being rather lacking in the technological department. From what I can tell, even those with family in the military believe it - so who am I to argue. Hence why some of my fellow UKers are noticably tetchy when our fighting force is being called into question.

However, after the stunning lack of prepararation the MOD appeared to put in to Iraq (Lack of Armour, equipment that failed in sandy conditions, Planes still without expanding foam in the fuel tanks to stop them exploding when shot at) coupled with the recent reporting of the horendous living conditions some of the lads have to endure IN THE UK, I have lost a lot of faith in our ability. Not of the soldiers themselves, but of any support systems that should be in place and are constantly being forgotten.

 

je: As a career military man I have helped planned the types of attacks you are advocating. Taking out one or two sites is fine, but 15 or so is impossible with the tactics you propose. By your tactics I assumed you only had experience in video and computer games -- in real life there is no Power Word: Reload. I think egress would be a problem and I would not be willing to send valuable assets on a suicide mission.

I have been trying to point out a fundamental military principle: know your enemy. It seems many people in the world (not just on SP) believe Iran is a bunch of radical fanatics bent on using nuclear weapons on Isreal and the free world. That may be true, but they are also a dominant military force in the region with multi-faceted attack and defense capabilities. Their military is quite well-trained and very professional. And they are always expanding their abilities. I do not laud their abilities, but it would be a great mistake to underestimate them.

 

I think most people were referring to Britain in terms of Harrier capabilities, and that won't change with this US deployment. The US already has a host of better attack planes than the Harrier. Also, the Lightning II is going to take a while to be fully deployed. There are no plans to retire the Harrier any time soon.

I listed a bunch of planes the US use earlier in this thread. The F-18 is probably the most used one in service at this point, even though it isn't the most recently developed.

The thing that surprises me the most is that this plane is being listed as the F-35. We have pretty much gone in order in the F-series, but AFAIK, the most recent F-series deployment is the Raptor, the F-22. I wonder why the big jump in numbers?

EDIT: I just did a bit of research and I found out this. Evidently, the F-35 was a decendent of the X-35, hence the numbering scheme. The Lightning II appears to be a very long way from service though. The prototype took it's maiden flight in December 2006. It did perform very well, but given production times and minor modifications, it is not expected to enter into service prior to 2011.

However, the most interesting piece the article sites is that the UK is funding part of the development costs, and is expected to purchase several of these aircraft from the US once they go into production.

[ March 28, 2007, 18:32: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

aldeth, the prototype flew in 2000, the first production model flew this past december. We start getting them in 08, they'll be in service by 2012. Meaning we'll have pilots trained in them and out in the fleet by 2012.

 

Aldeth,
the highly modern F-18 E/F is the most recent incarnation of the Hornet, and just a couple of years old. Entered service quickly, too, little problems. It's replacing the venerable F-14 since three or so years. It is brand-new.