Iran's Guards launch aircraft carrier-scale warship amid tensions with U.S.: TV

[American]

None of that is in dispute. What is in dispute is the op. let me quote it.
Iran's Guards launch aircraft carrier-scale warship amid tensions with U.S.

This POS is not I repeat NOT an "Aircraft carrier-scale warship". It is a frigin freighter with a helicopter on it's deck. When I see something like this it reminds me of a poster I saw with a bunch of creepy guys in a row boat with a standing guy in a captain's uniform and a sign saying "Redneck Yacht".

Ship ahoy!

 

[braindrain]

For defensive purposes it only needs to be a missile launcher of higher quality missiles, the fast boats iran uses are essentially rocket and missile launching speed boats, that in the 2002 simulation they found would sink 19 us ships just during an initial invasion due to the fact the speed boats could be so numerous they would over run defenses and radars.

The iranian fast boats are the greatest threats to the us navy, if properly used they could defeat a carrier group easy, of course no competent navy planner would take your thought that their navy is a joke, and would rather run simulations, and find ways to actually win instead of hoping hubris would do the trick.

In their current state their craptastic aircraft carrier would complement their fast boat swarms, which are their deadliest naval weapon, sometimes the crudest methods in numbers work very well.

I think your claims that Iranian fast boats could defeat a carrier group easy are quite a bit overly optimistic of their chances. Especially if the carrier group is on war footing.

 

[beerftw]

You lost all semblance of credibility when you said the Russian Navy could beat the American Navy. Post your simulations.

I said they could in their own waters, as their navy doctrine is defensive and most of their navy outside a small number of ships and subs specializes in being a brown water navy that is defensive rather than a blue water navy. Nearly all their surface ships are missile ships designed to sink other ships, not only in doctrine but logical examination their entire navy is designed to prevent any other navy any victory in the black or baltic seas.

The russian navy not only has missile ships and subs, but also support aircraft within distance launched from land as well as anti shipping and ballistic missiles launced from land to support their navy while defending their waters. This is literally why they have no effective aircraft carriers and one pile of crap one, because their own doctrine does not support force projection like the american navy does, it supports defense of coastal waters. To make another point the russian navy is not much smaller in ship strength than the us navy, but the russian navy has the bulk of it's fleet protecting two seas, rather than all over the world, again pointing to their defensive nature of their navy, not offensive, and it shows they take their naval defense very serious.

 

[beerftw]

I think your claims that Iranian fast boats could defeat a carrier group easy are quite a bit overly optimistic of their chances. Especially if the carrier group is on war footing.

That was actually from a pentagon war game, with the general van riper, who specialized in thinking like the enemy and using resources the enemy had. The simulation used subs, fast boats and everything else, but focused on fast boat use, and the simulation found the fast boats were extremely hard to detect on radar due to how small they were until it was too late.

Van riper used non traditional warfare in the way a country like iran would, and the biggest wargame ever ended so badly they had to tell van riper to let the americans win. Of course he was known for doing things like leaving the radars in passive mode for air defense so american forces could not find and destroy the launchers(literally what any nation more competent than a fruitfly would do), he also used deceentralized comms, which iran currently has in it's doctrine but he figured it before iran made it a doctrine, showing how his mind works. The guy would command his opfor to use muslim prayer speakers to issue commands so the american forces could not intercept them.

Fyi 19 ships was a typo it was 16 lost in the simulation, and estimated if the ships were fully manned in that simulation 20k military personel lost. Van riper resigned mid wargames after they order him to let americans find missile systems as well as other measures saying let the americans win, which he thought was bs as he was a wargame expert and felt wargames were there to train soldiers and leaders in peacetime as well as be used to learn from failures and losses so doctrine could be adjusted when they were war games and not in real war after major losses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

 

[BahamaBob]

That was actually from a pentagon war game, with the general van riper, who specialized in thinking like the enemy and using resources the enemy had. The simulation used subs, fast boats and everything else, but focused on fast boat use, and the simulation found the fast boats were extremely hard to detect on radar due to how small they were until it was too late.

Van riper used non traditional warfare in the way a country like iran would, and the biggest wargame ever ended so badly they had to tell van riper to let the americans win. Of course he was known for doing things like leaving the radars in passive mode for air defense so american forces could not find and destroy the launchers(literally what any nation more competent than a fruitfly would do), he also used deceentralized comms, which iran currently has in it's doctrine but he figured it before iran made it a doctrine, showing how his mind works. The guy would command his opfor to use muslim prayer speakers to issue commands so the american forces could not intercept them.

Fyi 19 ships was a typo it was 16 lost in the simulation, and estimated if the ships were fully manned in that simulation 20k military personel lost. Van riper resigned mid wargames after they order him to let americans find missile systems as well as other measures saying let the americans win, which he thought was bs as he was a wargame expert and felt wargames were there to train soldiers and leaders in peacetime as well as be used to learn from failures and losses so doctrine could be adjusted when they were war games and not in real war after major losses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Dude the article you posted says the ships were sunk by a massive salvo of cruise missiles not swift boats.

At any rate, a simulation is not needed. Reagan attacked and sand half the Iranian Navy, including several swift boats without taking a casualty.

 

[braindrain]

That was actually from a pentagon war game, with the general van riper, who specialized in thinking like the enemy and using resources the enemy had. The simulation used subs, fast boats and everything else, but focused on fast boat use, and the simulation found the fast boats were extremely hard to detect on radar due to how small they were until it was too late.

Van riper used non traditional warfare in the way a country like iran would, and the biggest wargame ever ended so badly they had to tell van riper to let the americans win. Of course he was known for doing things like leaving the radars in passive mode for air defense so american forces could not find and destroy the launchers(literally what any nation more competent than a fruitfly would do), he also used deceentralized comms, which iran currently has in it's doctrine but he figured it before iran made it a doctrine, showing how his mind works. The guy would command his opfor to use muslim prayer speakers to issue commands so the american forces could not intercept them.

Fyi 19 ships was a typo it was 16 lost in the simulation, and estimated if the ships were fully manned in that simulation 20k military personel lost. Van riper resigned mid wargames after they order him to let americans find missile systems as well as other measures saying let the americans win, which he thought was bs as he was a wargame expert and felt wargames were there to train soldiers and leaders in peacetime as well as be used to learn from failures and losses so doctrine could be adjusted when they were war games and not in real war after major losses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

That's also the same war game that due to the US wanting to practice an amphibious landing and real world constraints that would not be there in actual combat placed the fleet right off shore from the enemy and not using any of the over the horizon capabilities that the USN would actually use. Which gave the red force a massive advantage they would not have in real life.
That's part of the problem with WGs. And why people should not take them completly at face value.

 

[beerftw]

Dude the article you posted says the ships were sunk by a massive salvo of cruise missiles not swift boats.

At any rate, a simulation is not needed. Reagan attacked and sand half the Iranian Navy, including several swift boats without taking a casualty.

The article states using speed boats in swarms as well as missile barrages and small subs.

Also When reagan sunk their navy, they were still using ageing western hardware, since they had been unable to purchase new hardware after the islamic revolution, and had not developed the means to design new hardware or even reverse engineer any.

But if you look at the navy strength used in that conflict it was 9 boats iran used and 2 platforms, the majority of boats speed boats. Currently iran posseses over 1500 fast boats capable of either rocket fire or their later ones missile fire.

But if you look further not only did iran not have much of a navy then, they also fought conventionally, which considering the naval strength they had then a conventional conflict was suicide. Currently iran's doctrine is not to use conventional warfare, fast boats are an example of non conventional warfare, they are small but they can also operate swiftly in the shallow gulf and the bottlenecked strait, and can be hidden in the many caves along their coastal waters.

The simulation had van riper use non conventional war, which is how iran would fight, rather than conventional war like how it ended up under reagan, as they knew how the results ended up last time. But you should read the article on their navy that was sunk then, it nearly seems like back then iran was competing with canada for the smallest navy, I mean if 6 speed boats was nearly half their navy then surely you must know the comparison is invalid towards anything today or even the last 2 decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

 

[beerftw]

That's also the same war game that due to the US wanting to practice an amphibious landing and real world constraints that would not be there in actual combat placed the fleet right off shore from the enemy and not using any of the over the horizon capabilities that the USN would actually use. Which gave the red force a massive advantage they would not have in real life.
That's part of the problem with WGs. And why people should not take them completly at face value.

In a real situation, I fear much of the naval battle would still play out similar due to how hallow the gulf is and how bottlenecked the strait is, giving a hefty advantage to the defender if it was a straight up amphibious assault.

But I also do not feel anyone but the dumbest commanders would use an amphibious assault first in such conditions, and would rather try and knock out as much of their anti ship and ballistic missiles as well as naval capabilities before a direct assault.

But in terms of over the horizon capabilities, there are still issues with finding mobile missile sights, their midget subs which are outdated, and the fast boats which can be easily hidden in the many caves in the area. This would create a variable that would depend on how creative iranians are on the outcome.

Van riper also focused on non conventional warfare( ok the other modes of communications was widely used in ww2 that he employed) but a year later in iraq he was validated in his approach, in iraq they used non conventional warfare after the saddam regime was overthrown, and the us military spent a few years adapting to their tactics and non conventional weapons, that proved to be damaging enough even though being used by an incompetent and unorganized force.

The general was a genius, I wish the military had taken his non conventional warfare tactics as proper training as such tactics have shown to be used in iraq, and yemen, and syia. Iran currently has non conventional warfare in their doctrine, and has planned to use it, they do not even hide it.

 

[Lovebug]

One would have thought Iran would relax now that we know Biden will be in charge.

 

[BahamaBob]

That's also the same war game that due to the US wanting to practice an amphibious landing and real world constraints that would not be there in actual combat placed the fleet right off shore from the enemy and not using any of the over the horizon capabilities that the USN would actually use. Which gave the red force a massive advantage they would not have in real life.
That's part of the problem with WGs. And why people should not take them completly at face value.

A very astute comment. WGs give teams weapons and powers that they don't possess. They also deny resources to other teams that they would possess. The value is to look at what-if possibilities. There would be no advantage in bringing US Carriers into close combat situations with the Iranians. That would not happen, making this simulation meaningless. The Pentagon is constantly running WGs to determine what approach will put them in the best position and what situations to avoid. Before the Gulf War the Pentagon ran hundreds of WGs and many of them showed the US taking serious casualties. Those were the situations they avoided when the real combat began. In addition, as we saw in the Gulf War the US is never in a hurry. They spend months using their air power to destroy enemy assets. They did not start their offensive until they had taken out most of the radar, other warning systems, and communication systems the enemy possessed. The US has dozens of bases surrounding Iran. They would mount around the clock air, ship, and land based missile attacks on Iran's vital assets. By the time any assault began, Iran's military assets would be a shell.

Anyone who thinks one WG determines what would occur in an actual conflict is to put it bluntly not very bright.

 

[Integrityrespec]

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards have added a warship capable of carrying aircraft, missile launchers and drones to its naval fleet, state media said on Thursday, at a time of high tension between Tehran and Washington.

Iran's Guards launch aircraft carrier-scale warship amid tensions with U.S.: TV

Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards have added a warship capable of carrying aircraft, missile launchers and drones to its naval fleet, state media said on Thursday, at a time of high tension between Tehran and Washington. Antagonism between longtime foes Tehran and Washington has risen since...

news.yahoo.com

Apparently Iran has mounted missiles and helicopter landing pads on a 150 meter cargo ship.....though, unless Iran has developed or acquired VTOL capable fighter jets, it would be far more accurate to describe this as a "Helicarrier" of sorts.

US Aircraft Carriers tend to be in the realm of 300 plus meters, and Amphibious Assault/ Helicopter carriers ( Wasp Class) about 250 plus meters.

LOL. Do you know how much firepower is on on a U.S. carrier? Some helicopter landing pads isn't going to get much done compared to one of our 11 carriers.