• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Multinational fleet gathers in Gulf region

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

antonz

Member
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...e-Gulf-as-Israel-prepares-an-Iran-strike.html
Battleships, aircraft carriers, minesweepers and submarines from 25 nations are converging on the strategically important Strait of Hormuz in an unprecedented show of force as Israel and Iran move towards the brink of war.

Western leaders are convinced that Iran will retaliate to any attack by attempting to mine or blockade the shipping lane through which passes around 18 million barrels of oil every day, approximately 35 per cent of the world’s petroleum traded by sea.

A blockade would have a catastrophic effect on the fragile economies of Britain, Europe the United States and Japan, all of which rely heavily on oil and gas supplies from the Gulf.
Click to expand...
In preparation for any pre-emptive or retaliatory action by Iran, warships from more than 25 countries, including the United States, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, will today begin an annual 12-day exercise.
Click to expand...

The multi-national naval force in the Gulf includes three US Nimitz class carrier groups, each of which has more aircraft than the entire complement of the Iranian air force.

The carriers are supported by at least 12 battleships, including ballistic missile cruisers, frigates, destroyers and assault ships carrying thousand of US Marines and special forces.

The British component consists of four British minesweepers and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Cardigan Bay, a logistics vessel. HMS Diamond, a brand-new £1billion Type 45 destroyer, one of the most powerful ships in the British fleet, will also be operating in the region.

In addition, commanders will also simulate destroying Iranian combat jets, ships and coastal missile batteries.
Click to expand...

Those war drums beat louder and louder
 
J

jaxword

Member
The attention sounds like more media posturing by the world to try and get Iran to back down with whatever economic backroom deals are going on.

Probably will, too, a war in Iran would be pretty long term and disastrous. I doubt either side ACTUALLY wants to have a land war there. And now I have used the term "side" showing that I've fallen for the media portrayal too.
 
A

alphaNoid

Banned
Even though this is an annual exercise, it appears that conflict in that region is inevitable. The real question is if any country (or countries) have the balls to go to war with the west head on.
 
A

Arment

Member
jaxword said:
The attention sounds like more media posturing by the world to try and get Iran to back down with whatever economic backroom deals are going on.

Probably will, too, a war in Iran would be pretty long term and disastrous. I doubt either side ACTUALLY wants to have a land war there.
Click to expand...

It depends on who comes to Iran's rescue. No help and we'd just walk over them like we did Iraq wouldn't we? They aren't exactly a super power.
 
Meus Renaissance

Meus Renaissance

Member
What I don't understand about the war rhetoric is that there seemingly is a consistent narrative (from the US military, for example) that an attack on Iran would only delay any nuclear programme by a couple of years, but no one to my knowledge has talked about what would happen to prevent Iran or any other Middle Eastern nation (aside from Israel) from arming itself ever. I don't think I have a read article or heard a single debate about this.
 
S

Shadow780

Member
0csUe.jpg
 
S

Salvor.Hardin

Banned
Forever said:
Should be bolded.
Click to expand...

Defence experts are already downplaying the significance of this fleet movement.

Jason Raize '75 - '04 said:
What I don't understand about the war rhetoric is that there seemingly is a consistent narrative (from the US military, for example) that an attack on Iran would only delay any nuclear programme by a couple of years, but not one to my knowledge has talked about what would happen to prevent Iran or any other Middle Eastern nation (aside from Israel) from arming itself ever. I don't think I have a read article or heard a single debate about this.
Click to expand...

Because, short of total annihilation or complete colonization of Iran, that's an unrealistic goal at this point.
 
D

dalin80

Banned
three US Nimitz class carrier groups, each of which has more aircraft than the entire complement of the Iranian air force.
Click to expand...

At max war footing a Nimitz can carry 90 aircraft, a portion of these will be unarmed craft such as helos, refuellers and AEW. Peace time the number is usually lower as you don't want too many planes sat out on deck getting weathered if you don't need to. For instance the CVF is listed as 40 aircraft as that is what can fit in the hanger and the RN hates leaving planes on deck where the sea weather will eat them, in reality there is room for another 20 up top if required.

In comparison the Iranian air force is listed as ~500 aircraft, but its not too unfair to say half of those craft are not in a flyable condition either way a single nimitz does not have more craft then the iranian air force. All three combined do and have more then enough superior craft, pilots and weapons to gain air control but one will be spread very thin.
 
J

jaxword

Member
Reminder we still have ~90,000 troops in Afghanistan.

Media sources suggest Iraq's been fully left but we just can't seem to get out of that area of Asia.
 
A

alphaNoid

Banned
jaxword said:
Probably will, too, a war in Iran would be pretty long term and disastrous.
Click to expand...

A direct war with Iran would last a few days, weeks at most if our goal didn't include taking control of the government afterwards. We could take out the large majority of all Irans military infrastructure with 1 single controlled strike. What would be left would be a fledgling army likely too scared to show up to a real battle. Deserters, and surrender in a matter of days following that.

Hell we could probably do the whole thing w/o setting foot on Iranian soil. The only blowback from a direct war with Iran would likely be a string of attacks on American interests by radicals in surrounding countries. Any country that allied with Iran would face the exact same treatment, utter destruction of their military footprint in a one two swoop.

But lets get something clear, a war with Iran would never be long term and a disaster. It would be short, precise and exactly what the American military institution has been training for for the last 50 years. See the gulf war, which lasted officially 44 days I believe but I believe presence lasted for about 7 months total. Iraq who had a sizable military was smacked around like an orca playing with its prey and reminded the world the might of the western militaries.
 
D

dalin80

Banned
I would be amazed if a single boot was put on the ground, a quick round of bombings on ground instillations and downing of the iranian air force just to 'perused' them to step back.
 
J

jaxword

Member
alphaNoid said:
A direct war with Iran would last a few days, weeks at most if our goal didn't include taking control of the government afterwards. We could take out the large majority of all Irans military infrastructure with 1 single controlled strike. What would be left would be a fledgling army likely too scared to show up to a real battle. Deserters, and surrender in a matter of days following that.

Hell we could probably do the whole thing w/o setting foot on Iranian soil. The only blowback from a direct war with Iran would likely be a string of attacks on American interests by radicals in surrounding countries. Any country that allied with Iran would face the exact same treatment, utter destruction of their military footprint in a one two swoop.

But lets get something clear, a war with Iran would never be long term and a disaster. It would be short, precise and exactly what the American military institution has been training for for the last 50 years.
Click to expand...

You cut out the other parts where I said LAND war. I know, and so does everyone else, that the US has air superiority. Our land invasions don't tend to go as smoothly as everyone believes they will. If we wanted to level the place, we could. But that's not an option, because that's not why we go to war. Hence why I said this is media posturing to get whoever-runs-Iran's-oil-and-economy to back down.
 
T

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
Can't we just tow Israel to somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic and Iran to somewhere in the middle of the Pacific?
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Jason Raize '75 - '04 said:
What I don't understand about the war rhetoric is that there seemingly is a consistent narrative (from the US military, for example) that an attack on Iran would only delay any nuclear programme by a couple of years, but no one to my knowledge has talked about what would happen to prevent Iran or any other Middle Eastern nation (aside from Israel) from arming itself ever. I don't think I have a read article or heard a single debate about this.
Click to expand...

That's because there is no way to do that, aside from conquering and occupying them. Our long term goal has been, and must be, to reconcile the countries in the Middle East to one another before they start nuking each other.

alphaNoid said:
A direct war with Iran would last a few days, weeks at most if our goal didn't include taking control of the government afterwards. We could take out the large majority of all Irans military infrastructure with 1 single controlled strike. What would be left would be a fledgling army likely too scared to show up to a real battle. Deserters, and surrender in a matter of days following that.

Hell we could probably do the whole thing w/o setting foot on Iranian soil. The only blowback from a direct war with Iran would likely be a string of attacks on American interests by radicals in surrounding countries. Any country that allied with Iran would face the exact same treatment, utter destruction of their military footprint in a one two swoop.

But lets get something clear, a war with Iran would never be long term and a disaster. It would be short, precise and exactly what the American military institution has been training for for the last 50 years.
Click to expand...

2003 called. It wants its foolhardy optimism about war in the Middle East back.
 
G

Grim1ock

Banned
alphaNoid said:
A direct war with Iran would last a few days, weeks at most if our goal didn't include taking control of the government afterwards. We could take out the large majority of all Irans military infrastructure with 1 single controlled strike. What would be left would be a fledgling army likely too scared to show up to a real battle. Deserters, and surrender in a matter of days following that.

Hell we could probably do the whole thing w/o setting foot on Iranian soil. The only blowback from a direct war with Iran would likely be a string of attacks on American interests by radicals in surrounding countries. Any country that allied with Iran would face the exact same treatment, utter destruction of their military footprint in a one two swoop.

But lets get something clear, a war with Iran would never be long term and a disaster. It would be short, precise and exactly what the American military institution has been training for for the last 50 years.
Click to expand...

Iran is not iraq my friend. Seriously, a direct war with iran will have painful effects not least the GCC countries who would bear the brunt of iranian retaliatory strikes.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Majine said:
Haven't been paying attention to this situation, GAF experts, is war coming?
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert, but...not soon. Iran's nuclear program is two to three years out, there's no support in the Israeli cabinet for an immediate attack, so nothing's going to happen right now, it's just bluster and showing the flag. Check back in 2014. But there's really no international or American support for a long-term war in Iran, and it's not our actual strategic goal, so I don't think so.
 
J

jaxword

Member
Majine said:
Haven't been paying attention to this situation, GAF experts, is war coming?
Click to expand...

Not yet...at least, not under the current political climate. No one actually wants the area to explode. Too many countries have vested interest in the oil supply.

Remember, it's all about the money. Always about the money.


Check back after Obama leaves, though.
 
J

jaxword

Member
Majine said:
Wait, so wether Obama gets reelected or not actually has impact on if these two countries go to war?
Click to expand...

No, I mean when Obama leaves in 4 years. He's not going to lose the election (barring some INCREDIBLY stupid mistake on the level of, say, having sex with some intern on the white house front steps).

In 2016 we should finally have removed the 90,000 troops from Afghanistan, for one, and if there's one thing that the American people like, it's a good war...

I'm not saying an invasion is INEVITABLE by a long shot. Again, this is about money. Always about money. If the right people play ball, Iran will VANISH from the headlines as fast as it entered them and a new bad guy, maybe North Korea again, will return.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Iran and China Hold Joint Naval Drill in Persian Gulf
6
3K
AcademicSaucer replied
US Navy firees warning shots at Iranian Revolutionar Guards ship in Gulf.
6
1K
JonnyDBrit replied
World of Warships: Legends coming to consoles.
44
4K
IbizaPocholo replied
  • Locked
NY Times: Aircraft Carrier Wasn’t Sailing to Deter North Korea
4
2K
RoninChaos replied
  • Locked
US patrol ship fires warning shots at Iranian vessel after close encounter
18
2K
Dishwalla replied
Top Bottom