forget EVERYTHING ELSE.. stop the ATTACK ON IRAN..ships in the gulf are sitting ducks for superSonic

[sam sarrha]

Exorcet type missiles.. Bush is spoiling to fulfill bible prophesy to end the world

we need to focus TOTALLY on stopping him from ending civilisation as we know it.. he has said the last vote allows him to attack anyone in the middle east

[Rick Myers]

1. Dubya is going to learn about Sunburn the hard way!!!

With the lives of our servicepeople!!! :grr:

on edit: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/moskit.htm

[Kagemusha]

2. Look, I've heard Tony Snow-Job say himself, it's the Pacific Ocean

not INSIDE THE GULF ITSELF. It's an ocean. It's in the ballpark, but they're NOT going to put these ships IN the gulf itself within easy range of these missiles, because there's no good reason for it - aircraft fly further than the missiles.

But by all means stop the guy from attacking Iran - it's stupid anyway, even if US carriers won't sink as a direct result.

[Leopolds Ghost]

7. The Pacific Ocean is too far away from the densely populated parts of Iran

For fighter jets. They would have to use long-range bombers, which aren't ship-based.

And is the US going to allow anti-ship missiles to close the Gulf
to all shipping traffic, including Navy vessels resupplying Iraq? No.

[Kagemusha]

9. Well, to disagree with you I'd need maps and missile range circles so...

I'm not going to get into specific disagreements over it but, I find it very hard to believe that the carriers are going to undertake serious risks themselves. I don't buy it. But that's an operational issue for the navy.

I'm judging this not on the basis of potential (or virtually certain, if you go by the original poster) loss of a carrier. I'm going by the consequences of foolishly kicking hornet nests.

[Subdivisions]

20. Your debate is predicated on Iran making the first move. They

aren't that stupid.

[Kagemusha]

26. Ah..? I was assuming a retaliatory strike of some kind.

Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that.

[LastDemocratInSC]

29. A carrier task group in the Persian Gulf is at great risk because ...

A carrier strike group needs lots of room to operate safely - up to 100 miles or more in any direction. The destroyers, frigates, crusiers and possible one or more submarines that protect the carrier need room to maneuver and spread out. Their jobs are to protect the carrier from any incoming threats so the carrier can extend its force through its air wing.

Putting one or more task groups in the Persian Gulf is taking a great risk because the strike group's protection mission is compromised by the confined area of the Gulf and the large number of commercial ships traveling through. An Exocet-like missile fired on a carrier from land or air would be on its target very quickly in the Gulf and could fly past the protective ring of ships before they could respond.

This is a perfect set up for a Gulf of Tonkin type of situation. This is a frightening time.

[anakie]

23. the PACIFIC Ocean?????????

Geography is probably not their strong point but no map I have ever seen has the Pacific anywhere near the Persian Gulf.

Are they reading from the same script as the WMD intelligence back in 2002?

Peace

[Kagemusha]

25. I meant Indian, sorry. My misquote.

I'm surprised it took this long for someone to skewer me for it. But thank you.

[MnFats]

3. French Exocets? IN the Falklands war..

...Argentina used them to sink a major Brit vessel. They're fast, effective and deadly.
Come to think of I, i recall reading something to the effect that France in the past has sold a lot of military hardware to Iran.
If memory serves, I also read that once they're in the air you can start counting bodies...it's a ship-killer.

[jpak]

5. Iraq attacked and almost sank a US frigate in 1987 with two Exocets

they aren't supersonic, but the Iranian version (C-802) ain't chopped liver neither...

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id344.htm

[soothsayer]

4. sunken ships are good for the economy! them ships are expensive.

lots of $$$ to be made if a few have to get rebuilt. (sad but true)

[dogday]

8. Money Trumps Peace

[whistle]

6. Who in the Middle East has Exorcet type missiles?

[sam sarrha]

27. 1991 Iran had Chinese Silk Worm anti ship missiles, they are super sonic now

[meldroc]

10. The Moskit, aka Sunburn is extremely deadly.

The Exocet is deadly enough, as we learned when the USS Stark was hit, and as the British learned when one of their warships was sunk with Exocets during the Falklands war.

The Moskit is an anti-ship missile like an Exocet, except while the Exocet's subsonic, the Moskit can fly at over 2.5 Mach, 15 feet over the water. It has a 250-300 km range, enough to put the entire Persian Gulf within range, as well as a decent swath of the Indian Ocean. It has a larger warhead than the Exocet, and its onboard guidance computer will cause it to do hard jinks and zig-zags just before it hits, making it next to impossible to shoot down. The missile was designed from the ground up by the Soviets to defeat the Aegis defense systems on US warships.

The Persian Gulf's a bathtub, so any aircraft carrier inside the Gulf itself will be a sitting duck.

If the leadership of the .mil was smart, they'd keep the carrier battle groups out of the Persian Gulf and down in the Indian Ocean. Though judging by all of Bush's speechs, as well as his propensity to fire anyone competent, including generals and admirals, and replace them with sycophants, I have doubts as to whether the carriers will be kept at a safe distance.

There's even the Gulf of Tonkin possibility where Bush might deliberately send a carrier into the Gulf, rattle his saber, fly aircraft into Iranian airspace, or otherwise be very provocative to goad Iran into sinking a carrier. Voila, the American military death count moves from 3,100 to well over 8,000, the entire country flies into a psychotic rage, and we have yet another unwinnable war on our hands. You know Bush & Cheney have absolutely no morals that would keep them from sending 5,000 sailors to their deaths just to start another war rage.

Somebody please stop that psychopathic chimp...

[Kagemusha]

11. Seems like a good analysis, thanks.

I was rusty on the specifics. I was more of a military buff a decade ago before I took up Japanese linguistics :)

Anyway, here's the thing. Regardless of what the range is, you need to aim the damned thing. The Earth is curved so you can't just do it by telescope, so something needs to be done so that such a thing can be aimed. I guess that's what drones help with, though...

[meldroc]

13. Iran has drones.

That would probably be the easiest way to get a fix on the position of US warships. The next best bet would be satellite intelligence (it's possible that Russia or China might let Iran use their spy satellites on the down-low just so they can knock the US down a peg...) There's also fighters or recon aircraft, though it would be difficult to get close without being spotted by the carrier's radar, an AWACS aircraft or something else and getting shot down by the carrier's air wing.

I'd say Iran would use drones. They're easy and cheap to deploy, and they're small enough to be hard to spot on radar. IIRC, an Iranian drone was recently able to get very close to a carrier and hover over it for fifteen minutes before it was spotted.

[Kagemusha]

15. The missile has to be able to acquire the proper target though.

And how that would be done is a little more knowledge than I can summon. I think warships usually work with radar for these things...

[meldroc]

16. It is doable.

The way cruise missiles work, they have either GPS on board, or an inertial navigation system (uses gyroscopes and accelerometers) to help them figure out where they are. The missile's programmed to fly to a preprogrammed set of coordinates, or several sets of coordinates to form a more complex path via waypoints. Presumably, the operators would set the coordinates to take the missile to their best guess as to where the target warship is located, using spy satellite photos or recon data from drones & aircraft.

Once the missile is at its coordinates, then terminal guidance is activated. It has a small radar in the nosecone, and scans for large targets. Assuming it finds a blip that's a rough signature match of the target warship, it gets bearing and distance and uses that to plot a flight path directly into the target (or in the Moskit's case, it zig-zags to attempt to dodge Phalanx defenses.)

What this means is that it is possible that the missile will fly to the target coordinates, but the target ship will have moved away, so the radar doesn't find it (IIRC, it's programmed to circle around to try to find a target if this happens.) Also, the original target may have moved off, but the missile may find a different ship (maybe one of the carrier's escort frigates or destroyers, or maybe an oil tanker or cruise liner) and the missile likely isn't smart enough to figure that out, so it just blows it up. The Iranians will probably want to figure out a way to know the locations of US warships in real time to make it more likely to score hits.

[ORDagnabbit]

12. or a uss liberty incident

http://www.ussliberty.org/

[MnFats]

14. SO, DU BRETHREN...tell me...what happens if Iran or SOMEBODY sinks a u.s. vessel..

...war is inevitable...

[Individualist]

21. ...or SOMEBODY

We all know that "some people" are so vile there's nothing they won't do to get what they want.

[Emit]

17. Iran Revolutionary Guards: Unit engraved emblem on U.S. ship

Iran Revolutionary Guards: Unit engraved emblem on U.S. ship

By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent

A commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guards said Wednesday that a commando unit has engraved the military organization's emblem into the side panel of an American warship stationed in the Persian Gulf.

Nur Ali Shushkari, the head of the Revolutionary Guards ground forces, told Iranian pro-government news agencies that the symbol was etched onto the ship by the crew of a submarine that had managed to reach the U.S. vessel without detection by radar.

Shushkari did not release specific details about the incident, but claimed that the operation proved that Iranian forces are following American fleet traffic in the region.

Shushkari warned the United States that if a confrontation arises, all American forces in the gulf as well as targets inside the U.S. itself would be targets for attack.

~snip~

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/826019.html

[itsmesgd]

18. oh god, here it comes

will there be any room for the 3rd carrier strike group, or a 4th that might be sent from the pacific.

[sam sarrha]

28. the 3rd is to replace the loss of the others.. perpetual profit thru perpetual war

[Subdivisions]

19. Does anyone really think Iran would be stupid enough to

fall for this provocation? C'mon. If the Bush plan is to provoke Iran into throwing the first punch, he's going to be waiting awhile.

[bigbrother05]

24. It only has to look like Iran

Put enough crap in the region and how hard would it be for a group hoping to tie up the US and punish Iran to attack a US vessel? By the time the dust settles and the truth comes out, there will be smoldering cities across the Persia and untold flag draped coffins in Dover.

Bush loves to play brinkmanship with other people's families.

[reprehensor]

22. Remember the Reichstag Fire

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=221193&mesg_id=221193

[porkrind]

30. A Sunburn missile, purchased by Iran from Russia,

is specifically designed to defeat a U.S. Aegis cruiser. Very nasty. Putting all those sailors in harm's way trying to pick a fight with Iran is criminal. Chimpy, Cheney, and Co. are batshit crazy. Hopefully they will heed Pelosi's warnings about the illegality of unilateral military action by the executive branch.

[Blackhatjack]

31. the problem w/Aircraft Carriers is they need a wide turning radius....

I heard a former Navy Top Brass describe how putting aircraft carriers in the Gulf is asking for trouble because they are bound to come across submarines and other ships due to their need for a wide turning radius.

He said we never put them there before during Gulf War I, and it was a tactical error to do so now.

[Blackhatjack]

32. Another point to ponder, what happens when Iran attacks Israel in Retaliation?

All hell will break loose since Israel will not be sitting this one out.

In fact, the situation could not be more to Israel's liking than it is now. The US has massive firepower in range of Iran, which would be very helpful if Israel launched a preemptive attack on Iran or if Israel were to receive retaliatory attacks from Iran. There won't be months and weeks of waiting for the US to arrive on the scene.

This situation is just a ticking time bomb unless and until we pull out.

[hedgehog]

33. What about the fact that our people who are now scattered all over

Iraq to fight a guerilla war would be sitting ducks for a conventional attack from a large army invading from Iran in retaliation for US air strikes?

[Blackhatjack]

34. The 'Green Zone' Would Look Like A Huge Bull's Eye....

If you were intending to do maximum damage on US troops within missile range, the Green Zone would be your target. Don't think that Iran has not noticed. Insurgents have been 'testing' the defenses of the Green Zone, and they know the weaknesses.

Bush and his NeoCon advisors are oblivious.

[meldroc]

35. The new US embassy also has a huge bullseye on it.

You know, that monstrosity that's bigger than the Vatican and is costing untold zillions of dollars to build? The Iranians are likely to knock that complex flat if they could. I'm not sure how good their ballistic missiles are, compared with Scuds. I know they have greater range, so some of them will get lobbed at Isreal.

[ktlyon]

37. Isn't the Green zone also full of Iraqi officials and employees?

Where will they go? Without our protection they are dead. With our protection they will die? Flee the country?

[slackmaster]

36. My brother was a desert duck in OEF

Quack.