Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

What would the US do if the Straight of Hormuz was closed?


Recommended Posts

A blockade is an act of war. Saudi Arabia would be none to happy. There could be regional war, and the US and very likely NATO would get involved. So ya, war. This would then give the US/Israel & allies the provocation they would need to launch an air attack on Iran nuke facilities.

Given it's an election year, Obama wouldn't want to be seen as soft so he would blow something up almost certainly if Iran refused to back down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A blockade is an act of war. Saudi Arabia would be none to happy. There could be regional war, and the US and very likely NATO would get involved. So ya, war. This would then give the US/Israel & allies the provocation they would need to launch an air attack on Iran nuke facilities.

Given it's an election year, Obama wouldn't want to be seen as soft so he would blow something up almost certainly if Iran refused to back down.

I think the question is more CAN Iran close the straight of Hormuz. The Iranian navy is basically a bunch of PT boats that can be blown out of the water from a distance before they can cause any damage. The danger with Iran is their Surface to ship missiles which can be launched in mass from the coast. Are they accurate enough? Does the US Navy have effective countermeasures?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the question is more CAN Iran close the straight of Hormuz. The Iranian navy is basically a bunch of PT boats that can be blown out of the water from a distance before they can cause any damage. The danger with Iran is their Surface to ship missiles which can be launched in mass from the coast. Are they accurate enough? Does the US Navy have effective countermeasures?

"traffic lane is six miles (10 km) wide, including two two-mile (3 km)-wide traffic lanes, one inbound and one outbound, separated by a two-mile (3 km) wide separation median."

Emirites built palmtree shaped islands surely iran can build a dike.

85% of the exports that pass through the straight go to asian countries.

I'm sure one sunk tanker would be an econologicalcatastrophy for the whole area.

figuring that is a million barrels of oil.(it would meet or exceed deep water horizon spill)

heck the us wants to blow up a whole mountain, can't betoo hard to put it in the water.

"On 18 April 1988, the U.S. Navy waged a one-day battle against Iranian forces in and around the strait, launched in retaliation for the 14 April mining of the USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58) by Iran. U.S. forces sank one frigate, one gunboat, and as many as six armed speedboats in the engagement and seriously damaged a second frigate."

"3 July 1988, 290 people were killed when an Iran Air Airbus A300 passenger jet was shot down over the strait by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes "

"11 August 2008, more than 40 U.S. and allied ships reportedly were en route to the Strait of Hormuz. One U.S. carrier battle group from Japan would complement two more, which are already in the Persian Gulf, for a total of five battle groups, not counting submarines"

what happened to those boats?

"20 March 2009, United States Navy Los Angeles-class submarine USS Hartford (SSN-768) collided with the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock USS New Orleans (LPD-18) in the strait. The collision, which slightly injured 15 sailors aboard the Hartford, ruptured a fuel tank aboard the New Orleans, spilling 25,000 US gallons (95 m3) of marine diesel fuel"

who did the cleanup?

Also what about the current flotilla that is assembled off the coast of Iran?

"return to the presence of two U.S. aircraft carriers off the coast of Iran."

and what of #3... 3 aircraft carriers off your coast.. isn't that enough to clog the straight right htere..

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/iran-aircraft-carriers/ (note the article is dated.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm

note the groupings

George Washington Strike Group

GWSTRKGRU / GWCSG

John C. Stennis Strike Group WESTPAC 09 Deployment

CVN-74 John C. Stennis

Carl Vinson Strike Group

...

stirke vs battle groups

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group

Edited by William Ashley
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

Not important...Iran's launch sites, radar, and control centers would be lit up in short order. The US Navy has strike assets that are well outside the range of Iran's weapons systems.

If I were a Iranian Admiral/General, my biggest initial concern would where are the four SSGNs……600 BGM-109s could end most of the Iranian military before the war even started……..

In other news,USS Ponce has got a new lease on life………She should be ready in 4-5 months.....Add another month or so for work-ups and transit time, that puts us into late summer early fall.......

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

Iran is playing it smart. They have stopped trading oil in dollars and they are trading oil for gold. If Iran really wants to hurt American and the west, Iran's best option would be to gain support from other oil rich nations to ditch the dollar and trade oil for gold.

Who are they trading oil for gold with?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not important...Iran's launch sites, radar, and control centers would be lit up in short order. The US Navy has strike assets that are well outside the range of Iran's weapons systems.

Iranian centralized command could be wiped out, no doubt. But I imagine they would have local, independent missile stations or even localized individual missiles similar to how Hezbollah works or Saddam's mobile SCUD launchers in the first Gulf War.

A carrier is a big target, and it doesn't have much room to maneuver in the Strait. It can probably swat out of the sky around 10 missiles but what about 20 or 30?

Edited by Post To The Left
Link to post
Share on other sites

...A carrier is a big target, and it doesn't have much room to maneuver in the Strait. It can probably swat out of the sky around 10 missiles but what about 20 or 30?

Iran has already advertised its de-centralized, swarming tactics. The US has studied the risk and order-of-battle, concluding that Iran could sink a few ships, but not prevail in a larger regional conflict. The Americans, French, and British would just systematically destroy Iran's assets and infrastructure (ability to wage war). Nobody thinks that Iran would ever have air superiority.

It's harder to sink a Nimitz class carrier than you may think. The last US carrier sunk in battle was the USS Bismarck Sea (CVE-95) in 1945 off of Iwo Jima to kamikaze; let's see if the Iranians have those kind of balls.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

Iranian centralized command could be wiped out, no doubt. But I imagine they would have local, independent missile stations or even localized individual missiles similar to how Hezbollah works or Saddam's mobile SCUD launchers in the first Gulf War.

Unlike a SCUD, the Iranians anti-ship missiles, even with independent launchers, would still require Search/Fire Control radars……..As soon as they illuminate, they’re toast.

A carrier is a big target, and it doesn't have much room to maneuver in the Strait. It can probably swat out of the sky around 10 missiles but what about 20 or 30?

It was deemed in the 80s, that the Soviet’s would require a multi regimental (50-75 bombers) attack by Tu-22m Backfires, each carrying 2-3 Cruise missiles to sink a US Carrier escorted by a Ticonderoga cruiser………This was of course a time when the US carrier battle groups were protected by a sole AEGIS cruiser (Amongst other conventional frigates, destroyers and cruisers)…….Today, a carrier is escorted by 4-6 AEGIS ships………And of course, the Iranians have to find them first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

Iran has already advertised its de-centralized, swarming tactics. The US has studied the risk and order-of-battle, concluding that Iran could sink a few ships, but not prevail in a larger regional conflict. The Americans, French, and British would just systematically destroy Iran's assets and infrastructure (ability to wage war). Nobody thinks that Iran would ever have air superiority.

I would say that assessment is being generous to the Iranians……Perhaps a civilian tanker or a USNS with a lone escort….But a Battle group me thinks not…….There’s not many first world navies that would pose a serious threat…….

It's harder to sink a Nimitz class carrier than you may think. The last US carrier sunk in battle was the USS Bismarck Sea (CVE-95) in 1945 off of Iwo Jima to kamikaze; let's see if the Iranians have those kind of balls.

I’ve read, aside from instant sunshine, a Nimitz should be able to absorb close to ~ 5 SS-N-22s…….I assume this was calculated via battle damage assessments taken to the Essex class, the Saratoga and Enterprise fires and the recent sink-ex of the Oriskany.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that assessment is being generous to the Iranians……Perhaps a civilian tanker or a USNS with a lone escort….But a Battle group me thinks not…….There’s not many first world navies that would pose a serious threat…….

Ships are ships...when they strike a mine damage ensues. The politics of the matter demands that Iran commit a Gulf of Tonkin like transgression, then the "fun" can begin.

I’ve read, aside from instant sunshine, a Nimitz should be able to absorb close to ~ 5 SS-N-22s…….I assume this was calculated via battle damage assessments taken to the Essex class, the Saratoga and Enterprise fires and the recent sink-ex of the Oriskany.

Flight ops are impacted long before any hull loss. But there are more than just naval assets in theatre. Iran may be no better at such melees than when Iraq toasted their patrol craft back in the 80's, killing an Iranian naval officer that trained with me before the Islamic Revolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

Yeah...but to the uninformed, a T-62 might look like a match to a M-1A.

Yup, as I mentioned, the four SSGNs have the ability to launch ~600 Tomahawks themselves……Approx 700 were used by the USN, USAF and RN during the Iraq war in total…….That says nothing about the ones that could be launched form dozens of attack subs, Destroyers, Cruisers, B-52s and B-1s……600 cruise missiles launched from four submarines, which the USN demonstrated a few years ago that they are able to deploy all four at once, would in itself be truly devastating to the Iranians during the opening hours of a war………

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye...agreement. The USN has been about projection of POWER since Pearl Harbor. Overwhelming power. You don't really need anything else involved sort of power. Maybe a Marine Division...

Iran is more or less a navy without power...or very little. As I said in another post: Great for bullying an oil tanker.

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

Ships are ships...when they strike a mine damage ensues. The politics of the matter demands that Iran commit a Gulf of Tonkin like transgression, then the "fun" can begin.

Indeed......The threat of mines is something not to be taken lightly……

Flight ops are impacted long before any hull loss. But there are more than just naval assets in theatre. Iran may be no better at such melees than when Iraq toasted their patrol craft back in the 80's, killing an Iranian naval officer that trained with me before the Islamic Revolution.

This is true....But I assume, you ( I assume Navy) like myself, also focused on fighting and surviving in a potential threat environment during the 80s that would have been many magnitudes more dangerous then anything Iran could throw at us………..Herding a Reforger convoy across the North Atlantic would make a Persian Excursion seem like a Carnival Cruise (Granted with an Italian captain).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

Great WW2 Pacific carrier simulation/war game. No, your teenage son wouldn't like it. :lol:

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/216/details/Uncommon.Valor

That looks interesting………Way back in the 80s, I was introduced to Harpoon (Table top game) by a couple of friends (both junior MARS officers) and we wasted hundreds of hours “fighting the third battle of the Atlantic”……… B)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup...played it once or twice if I recall. Part of a set first started by SPI back in the 70s (the sims all had various fleet names) whose designers ended-up as Presidential advisors. James Dunnigan for example...whom I PBMed* with lots...wayyy back.

http://jimdunnigan.com/bio.htm#top

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_Publications

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/8319/sixth-fleet

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargaming#Play-by-Mail_.28PBM.29

Link to post
Share on other sites

remember those speed boats.

and hover crafts

they are essentially mobile missle platforms.

and helicopters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEuprQgTl2g&feature=related

and land based

3 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJx0W3Vk0JU

Edited by William Ashley
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...