Iran/US conflict

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Which is not enough to win the war or enact regime change. I am also uncertain that said airpower would be capable of removing Iranian capability to force significant attrition to the tankers passing the straits if not outright closing them, from Yemen experience for example.

I've never mentioned 'war' or 'regime change' I'm talking about maintaing the navigation route through the Straits of Hormuz. Any entity threatening said navigation would be swiftly dealt with in a day or two even if a week or two.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I've never mentioned 'war' or 'regime change' I'm talking about maintaing the navigation route through the Straits of Hormuz. Any entity threatening said navigation would be swiftly dealt with in a day or two even if a week or two.

That is not what is happening in Yemen. Modern airforces of petro-monarchies (compare and contrast KSA airforce with RAF for example) fail to supress the ability to hit targets within say aforementioned KSA.

Straits are closer to Iran and do not require complex logistics for Iran to cover. Moreover due to Iran's geographical position Western powers would find it hard to close down the ability of Iran to re-supply from 3rd parties.

[Jimbuna]

I'm not sure you're on the same wavelength as I am.

The superior weapons platforms of both US and UK not only carrier based but also from allied airfields in the region as well as prcision missile capability would be more effective than that currently used in Yemen, surely.

I envision a swift and precision response toward any and all platforms labelled as being with hostile intent, whether that be FAC or missile site locations.

The Straits of Hormuz are vital in ensuring a large percentage of the worlds flow of oil, I've been there and seen it (albeit back in 77) and as such any attempt to close said area would mean the side with hostile intent would need to concentrate their efforts at quite a small choke point making it more likely they could be brought to book.

[ikalugin]

Considering how US is now a net exporter of energy (LNG, oil) they would benefit from closure of the straits.

As to the technological capabilities - KSA and the other locals operate about the same equipment say UK or USA would in such a war (apart from their massive stocks of ballistic and other missiles that INF treaty killed) and still fail to destroy the strike capability in Yemen. As such I doubt that western powers have the capability to destroy Iranian capability to close down the straits for civilian traffic, much less capability to inflict significant attrition to said traffic (which would lock it down essentially), without a full scale invasion.

Moreover Iran would be able to buy (and ship either by rail or by sea) all the weapons it would need to conduct this war, without the western powers being able to really stop it.

[Jimbuna]

Only time will tell.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I've never mentioned 'war' or 'regime change' I'm talking about maintaing the navigation route through the Straits of Hormuz. Any entity threatening said navigation would be swiftly dealt with in a day or two even if a week or two.

exactley, something similar in nature to '88 Operation Praying Mantis

[Jimbuna]

HMS Duncan a Type 45 destroyer is enroute.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48958359

[Jimbuna]

[Skybird]

Digesting German and English wikipedia entries (they are not just translations of each other, but are different).


Type 45. Good ships, but not as good as they could have been. Economic superiority over Sheffield class, the ship runs 3-4 times as long with one load of fuel. 4-5 times as high capacity to track mutliple air targets simultaneously and fight them at medium and longer ranges - but only outdated Phalanx system close air defence, no missle-equipped CIWS (big mistake, imo, could become very costly in case of hot combat). Cannon of smaller callibre than initially wanted, sonar, but only helicopter for ASW, no own torpedo launcher. Some more wepaons cpould be armed later on, but it isd questionable that it will happen, due to the budget cuts and high costs of such refits. One or two ships got equipped with Harpoons, and all ships can be later equipped with 16 criuise msisile launch tubes.



Money was saved, by introducing some unneeded vulnerabilities, me thinks. Especially the lacking missile CWIS and only helicopters for ASW woudl irk me. In case of a sudden sub attack that was not deteced before, the ship has no option to react quickly by mounting pressure on the sub with own combat means, and the helicopter, admittedly the superior choice once engaged, if not by chance being on station would takes some minutes to get up. These ships are expensive, I think one saved at the wrong end here.



Montrose will soon return to base for resupply, then it will again be one British ship on station only.



How many US ships are on staiton at any time, does anyone know? I do not mean total number of units, but only those being on station at any given time. The rule of three usually says one third of units on duty, one third preparing for mission in harbour, one third undergoing maintenance.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Montrose will soon return to base for resupply, then it will again be one British ship on station only.

Instead of returning home to the UK after a six to nine-month deployment, Montrose is being stationed in Bahrain until 2022 to ensure a permanent presence and spare warships the lengthy passage to and from Britain, time which could be spent on patrol in the Middle East.

[ikalugin]

T45 is a decent European AAW FFG but does not shine in any other mission. While one ship can act as legal tripwire it is not going to be particularly usefull unless you begin running convoys.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Instead of returning home to the UK after a six to nine-month deployment, Montrose is being stationed in Bahrain until 2022 to ensure a permanent presence and spare warships the lengthy passage to and from Britain, time which could be spent on patrol in the Middle East.

Thats what I meant. Still, a ship in port is not on station. And it takes time to get back and forth. If such hijack attempts cannot be counterd by armed air/drone support of any kind, its only a question of time before a tanker will get hijacked for sure - and once Iranian troops are aboard, its theirs if not meeting superior armed resistence on board that drives them off again.

Last time they were lucky that the Montrose was close enough to reach the scene in time. Just a quarter of an hour or even ten minutes later, and the story maybe would be told differently today.