U.S VS Iran getting close

Discussion in 'World Armed Forces' started by utelore, Jan 12, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. utelore
    Offline

    utelore Junior Member
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    3
    With another Carrier battle group arriving in the gulf around february which gives the U.S Two battle groups plus all the fixed wing aircraft and patriot Bats a movin. it appears a strike against Iran IS going to happen.

    fellas, things are starting to happen In a very big way. talked to buds on the ground and the Mahdi Army is about to get a thumpin that will make the last showdown with the Mahdi look like a girl scout trip.

    The Mahdi must be destroyed or removed as a effective fighting force before the strikes on Iran take place. If you thought Iraq was a mess now wait until you watch the evening news in Mid February.

    for the children I have deep sadness but The baghdad area along with Sadr city is in for one hell of a nightmare and If Iran does not take its few hundred guided bomb medicine to cure it of its nuclear ambitions and launches missiles at the green zone or Israel then its gonna get a few thousand PGM that will truly be shock and awe.

    Through friendly information given to me I feel a year of intense warfare is at hand. Sanpan if you have not bought your defence stocks such as FLIR and Armour holdings I suggest you do so now.
    regular Army will increase by 60,000 and the Marines by 27,000.....Army 545,000 marines 200,000 end strength......cheers ute
     
  2. SampanViking
    Offline

    SampanViking The Capitalist
    Staff Member Super Moderator VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    1,600
    Utelore - this is alarmist and sensationalist!!

    Now where is my brokers telephone no:?;)
     
  3. utelore
    Offline

    utelore Junior Member
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    3
    I wish I could post and say look read this. sorry, no can do....opsec...is a big deal. Just watch the pre-Iran OPs around the capital. there are alot of higher ups that are pissed about the amount of weapons via Iran that are now being used against are boys......much more advanced shaped charge IED(they are using dragon ATGW warheads) and that damn RPG-29 is playing hell and much more advanced sniper systems like the PSG-1 are causing unit level problems.

    also cases of mod version M-93 Black Arrow .50 sniper system wreaking havoc on basra to baghdad highway.The days of the cheap Dragunov SVD are being replaced by these MUCH better sniper systems. did I mention those RPG-29.....much better piece of equipment than thought
     
    #3 utelore, Jan 12, 2007
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2007
  4. Totoro
    Online

    Totoro Captain
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,338
    Likes Received:
    1,137
    Does the additional 21500 troops being sent to iraq have something to do with the possible strike on Iran? I would assume yes. If there is a strike on Iran, there is a risk that they will do a land invasion of iraq, and additional US forces on the ground may be needed to better protect US interests there. Thing is, I don't see the strike coming very soon... those 21500 troops will take time, and i'm talking months, to assemble. Also, more air power would be needed. Current number of USAF forces in the area will definitely be pumped if only two USN carriers are gonna be used. More USAF planes would give less warning to Iran anyway, compared to 3rd or even 4th carrier being sent in.

    What i find interesting is the news of a squadron of f117s to be temporarely stationed in south korea. Could it be that US is preparing for a true political show of force - striking at two countries at the same time? From the military/logistical viewpoint, its unnecesary strain on the forces. But politically... it may be a message of 'we can do whatever we want, whenever we want to'.

    We should know more come february, that is true.
     
  5. Finn McCool
    Offline

    Finn McCool Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,025
    Likes Received:
    4
    I don't know about "by February" as the launch date for an attack on Iran. I think that it will take longer to postion recently deployed forces (CBGs, Patriot batteries, troops to Iraq). However I think that the US would want to attack during winter months because the temperatures in Iraq are cooler which makes it easier on US forces fighting there.

    Utelore-I hardly think the fact that Iranian weapons are being used against Americans in Iraq constitutes evidence that an attack is imminent. However I am VERY interested in your purported offensive against the Al-Mahdi Army. That would give us some concrete dates if, as you said, the US considers it necessary to eliminate them before attacking Iran. Which is another reason I don't think that "by February" is a a significant date. Utelore said any action against the Al-Mahdis would take place in mid-February.

    I hope Iranian Intelligence doesn't read SDF. :D
     
  6. utelore
    Offline

    utelore Junior Member
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    3
    just funnin about knowing any kickoff date against the mahdi. I do know that boots on the ground of lower level ranks thinks its about to get even hotter in Iraq. I dont think any action against the mahdi would take the form of massive and sudden military attack. I think it will be done through more covert actions such as hellfire strikes using UAV against key leadership or mid level command.

    Having AC-130 "spooky" doing gun runs over sadr city would only lead to more shites joining the mahdi. I mean you blow up my house and kill my kids while I am at work.....well.....I will then try and take revenge and that is not what the U.S wants or needs with using massive convetional military force against the mahdi.
     
  7. Totoro
    Online

    Totoro Captain
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,338
    Likes Received:
    1,137
    Of course iran wouldn't be attacked in february. I didn't mean that either. I just meant that we would see enough of force buildup by the end of february, so we know that something will happen. Even if they wanted to attack as soon as possible, that wouldn't be possible in next several months, certainly not before April.
     
  8. JimGoose
    Offline

    JimGoose Just Hatched
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi, i'm still new here but I just want to throw my two cents in about why I don't think there will be a direct military confrontation between Iran and America. I will be drawing some comparisons here and there with points to back up my reasoning.

    1. Israel is known to have one of the most advanced militaries in the world, and their expertise in air defence is no exception, but when we look at the Israeli-Lebanese conflict this summer, we see that no amount of technological supremacy can stop crude Katyushas or even the presence of Iranian made UAVs over their airspace. So the idea that Iran would not be able to retaliate to a US pre-emptive attack because of Patriot batteries being deployed left and right is rather silly, considering that Israel has, arguably, much better systems to counter such threats having had to learn the hard way when Saddam used his Scuds against them.

    2. Hezbollah, by even the most generous estimates, does not number over 5,000. Many of their members and even commanders are supposedly trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guard in Iran with perhaps some advisors still stationed in Lebanon. The IRGC (for short) numbers atleast 50,000 and these are the people who train Hezbollah. They are the most religious, dedicated, motivated, and fanatical of all other Iranian military arms and are entrusted with the country's short to long range missiles. To assume that the IRGC will be instantly pacified in a first wave pre-emptive strike is silly, as we see that no amount of carpet bombing by the IDF/IAF's part had any effect in diminishing Hezbollah's ability to launch rockets, numbering at 100+/day up until the last day of conflict. A more realistic assessment would be to assume that due to their sheer number, training, motivation, and access to arms superior to those utilized by Hezbollah, the IRGC would be able to retaliate in multiples of the force used by Hezbollah.

    3. The Israeli corvette "Saar" that was badly damaged by a smaller Iranian variant of the C-802 anti-ship missile (indigineously known as Kowsar) was equipped with "state of the art" defense systems in the form of Phalanx CIWS. (The only confirmed kill the Phalanx system has had was of a friendly fixed wing aircraft near south korea) Iran's southern coast and Islands are lined with dug in implacements of similar weapons and the IRGC's ability to monitor US naval activity in the area has been proven via publicly available IRGC UAV surveillance of the USS Ronald Reagan as it repositioned itself earlier in 2006.

    The IRGC also has its own dedicated air force seperate from the IRIAF, and there is no doubt that US air supremacy will prevail fairly quickly, but considering that the IRGC air force is not structured to follow conventional rules of engagement, it's not a far stretch to assume that "kamikaze-esque" low altitude runs could be part of their battle order.

    To conclude, I believe that a military conflict with Iran is undesirable and ultimately self-defeating for the US due simply to the IRGC's ability to retaliate. This without mentioning the role of the armed Pasardan and Basij 2 million + all volunteer force.

    And if by some slim chance the neo-cons do get their way in light of what happened in Iraq, then we should be prepared to see the US dust off some tactical nukes, because ultimately that will be their only chance to a military victory in Iran.
     
  9. coolieno99
    Offline

    coolieno99 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    32
    This is going to be a real test of Iran's 3 Kilo class subs. Not too long ago the subs were retrofitted with the potent Club-S anti-shipping missiles. The subs are also armed with modern wake-homing torpedoes. Can it disable or sink a large aircraft carrier?
     
  10. Totoro
    Online

    Totoro Captain
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,338
    Likes Received:
    1,137
    Without means to detect and identify a target, and protect those sensors until data about target location has been fed to the submarine - even if subs had photon guided photon torpedoes it wouldn't do much good to them. Furthermore, in order to be able to attack the target as soon as they receive the coordinates, subs will have to keep close to surface, with their antennas out. That makes them easier to spot. I'm not saying it's impossible for those 3 kilos to sink an US carrier, but, realistically, it doesn't sound very plausible.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page