Iran's attack response

I don't understand how you can even consider iran to be a minor threat to the US Military. It would probably be harder than Irak but it would still be over quite rapidly. It's afterwards that the sh*t kicks in

Not to mention a war with Iran is highly unlikely since the coalition is already knee deep in irak and afghanistan.

Originally posted by Now_Then
All of the above?

I've got a feeling the first conventional attack will be anti ship missiles. They have these Soviet 'Sunburn' missiles.

Link for sunburn info only glanced at that, looks pretty capable tho.

Well If they have them(sunburn/ Sizzlers) they would be on the top of the strike list along with the SAM and triple A sites. Remember the order of combat is take out the Threats first the secondary sites will be there tomorrow. The cruise missiles played a big part in the start of the Iraq conflict taking out the SA6 sites then they sent in the F117 to take out the rest. Getting in is the easy part its the getting out thats a WAR.

AlBeMeT

You can forget about successfully taking out anti-ship missile batteries based on land, ship, plane before they have a chance to launch at gulf based ships in the event of hostilities, Iran has hundreds of the C-802 alone-not to mention other missiles, their gonna get the US navy ships before US air power takes care of them..

I love these people who keep posting things like this:
I don't understand how you can even consider iran to be a minor threat to the US Military.

and then back up their statement with absolutly nothing, I like that.

Originally posted by corruptioninvestigator
You can forget about successfully taking out anti-ship missile batteries based on land, ship, plane before they have a chance to launch at gulf based ships in the event of hostilities, Iran has hundreds of the C-802 alone-not to mention other missiles, their gonna get the US navy ships before US air power takes care of them..

I love these people who keep posting things like this:
I don't understand how you can even consider iran to be a minor threat to the US Military.

and then back up their statement with absolutly nothing, I like that.

Primary role
Long-range, land-attack cruise missile
Entered service
1984
Range
More than 750 nautical miles
Length
18 feet 3 inches
Guidance
GPS with digital terrain matching
Warhead
1,000-pound high explosive or bomblets
Launched from
Navy ships and submarines :

Primary role
Long-range, air-launched cruise missile
Entered service
1986
Range
Approx. 600 to 1,350 nautical miles
Length
20 feet 9 inches
Guidance
GPS integrated with inertial navigation
Warhead
2,000 or 3,000-pound high explosive fragmentation
Launched from
B-52H, B-1B

Primary role
Medium-range, air-launched, all-weather glide missile
Entered service
1998
Range
15 to 120 nautical miles
Length
13 feet 9 inches
Guidance
GPS with inertial navigation and in-flight correction
Warhead
500 to 1,000- pound high-explosive or bomblets
Launched from
AV-8B, B-1B, F-15E, F-16, F/A-18

cjonline.com...

The GPS and terrain matching means it can fly under radar undetected at mach. So they can hit there collateral targets at the same time undetected.

But I must agree Iran is a threat under one situation, If Iran was first to strike they will sink our ships.

AlBeMeT

Originally posted by DarkSide
I don't understand how you can even consider iran to be a minor threat to the US Military. It would probably be harder than Irak but it would still be over quite rapidly. It's afterwards that the sh*t kicks in

Not to mention a war with Iran is highly unlikely since the coalition is already knee deep in irak and afghanistan.

Pride hurts buddy, underestimating your foe can hurt you alot.

Regards,
Maestro

[edit on 8-4-2007 by maestro46]

[edit on 8-4-2007 by maestro46]

II remember similar conversations floating around the Net when Iraq was about to be invaded. Iraq’s defense turned out to be a pointless exercise in a futility as I recall, Sadaam’s military was better off staying in their barracks for all the good opposing the drive to Baghdad did. The current resistance however is a different story.

I see pretty much the same scenario for invading Iran should it occur.

I do not see an invasion of Iran happening anytime soon though, as the occupation of Iraq should be concluded first. Otherwise we will see a draft put in place for a bit of time and have new forces to squander in another costly occupation. I do not wish to see nor care to speculate about on said occupations outcome. What I would like to see is Afghanistan focused on and handled the way I thought it would be prior to the Iraq war. There is still business there that needs to be handled and completed and should have been before Iraq ever became a point of discussion.

I don't think a ground presence outside the quick insertion and removal of special forces is contemplated for Iran; if so, some heads should be examined in Washington.

I think that the Cheney faction will have a hard time selling even limited strikes at the Iranians.

If the regime insists on baiting America into attacking through actions outside the bloodthirsty language and bombing campaign underway in Iraq, the question arises will the strike be massive or a 'Proportional Response" of the type favored by the old style policy makers.

Either way, the calls for impeachment will be issued before the smoke clears.