Iran Threatens to Close Strait of Hormuz
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deployed will usually mean 'deployed' overseas on operational service. Carrying out training exercises in home waters is not within that definition.
I do not however see what the issue is, the ideal location for the operational carriers is in areas where they might have some degree of influence. Much respect to those that serve on these iconic ships
I do not however see what the issue is, the ideal location for the operational carriers is in areas where they might have some degree of influence. Much respect to those that serve on these iconic ships
So it appears that 2 of 11 are in the operational area of the PG, and Stennis is relieving someone currently on station.
Glojo, I see what you mean about someone playing with words and definitions to try and make a big noise out of ops normal.
WE, you and your source look to be windbags.
Actually, more like a simple liar.
Glojo, I see what you mean about someone playing with words and definitions to try and make a big noise out of ops normal.
WE, you and your source look to be windbags.
is the most under reported major military buildups in modern media history
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 14th Sep 2012 at 12:16.
Lonewolf_50
I did not write it, and have not taken that much interest in the statistics.. However, the more interesting bit is:
.
I did not write it, and have not taken that much interest in the statistics.. However, the more interesting bit is:
US Navy is currently operating 66% of all US Navy minesweepers in the Persian Gulf.
.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note that that "66%" actually means 8 of the 14 Avenger-class mine countermeasures ships we have (57%)... and that the number was bumped from 4 to 8 back in March. 4 more are based in Japan, with the remaining two in San Diego.
Considering that the only reason we have ANY minesweepers is for use in the Persian Gulf, that is understandable.
We used to have 12 Osprey class minesweepers that were built in the early 1990s (commissioned 1993-1999, just AFTER the Avenger-class), but those have all been sold off... the Avenger class (commissioned 1987-1994) are the only dedicated minesweeping/hunting ships in the USN!
Considering that the only reason we have ANY minesweepers is for use in the Persian Gulf, that is understandable.
We used to have 12 Osprey class minesweepers that were built in the early 1990s (commissioned 1993-1999, just AFTER the Avenger-class), but those have all been sold off... the Avenger class (commissioned 1987-1994) are the only dedicated minesweeping/hunting ships in the USN!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to have escaped the UK media that a massive naval armada has appeared in the Gulf !
...not to worry Kate Middleton much more interesting !
Armada of British naval power massing in the Gulf as Israel prepares an Iran strike - Telegraph
...not to worry Kate Middleton much more interesting !
Armada of British naval power massing in the Gulf as Israel prepares an Iran strike - Telegraph
Last edited by Navpi; 16th Sep 2012 at 08:03.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Greenknight121,
Stennis has deployed to the Gulf 4 months early. She arrives in time to the Enterprise and Eisenhower for a 2 week multinational exercise. The exercise happens to coincide with possible dates for an Israeli strike on Iran.
Now it might be a coincidence; it might be that they are getting ready to try to keep the Straits of Hormuz open if israel does strike and Iran responds; it might be that they are exerting pressure on Israel by telling them they will stop any strike.
But you can understand why the pundits are talking....
And that does give them 3 carriers in the Gulf from today....
Stennis has deployed to the Gulf 4 months early. She arrives in time to the Enterprise and Eisenhower for a 2 week multinational exercise. The exercise happens to coincide with possible dates for an Israeli strike on Iran.
Now it might be a coincidence; it might be that they are getting ready to try to keep the Straits of Hormuz open if israel does strike and Iran responds; it might be that they are exerting pressure on Israel by telling them they will stop any strike.
But you can understand why the pundits are talking....
And that does give them 3 carriers in the Gulf from today....
Last edited by ORAC; 16th Sep 2012 at 08:36.
With apologies to Douglas Adams:
Iran is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to Iran.
Think of France.
Then think of Spain.
Then think of Germany.
Think of all of them together and you are starting to get your head around the size of Iran.
Iran is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to Iran.
Think of France.
Then think of Spain.
Then think of Germany.
Think of all of them together and you are starting to get your head around the size of Iran.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC
Didn't the US have 3 carriers in or near the Straits a year or so ago
as well, about the same time the Iranian President was ramping up
his rhetoric the last time ?
Didn't the US have 3 carriers in or near the Straits a year or so ago
as well, about the same time the Iranian President was ramping up
his rhetoric the last time ?
Jesus wept! Must confess to not usually reading the Telegraph, but I seem to recall in the dim and distant that it took defence seriously and recruited accordingly (well most of the time).
Battleships (12 of them apparently!) ballistic missile cruisers (really?) are part of this huge armada. Our permanent presence of 4 MCMV, a log support ship and the usual DD/FF appears to be part of a massive build-up......
As far as I can make out, the only real increase has been the four additional Avengers heavy-lifted over "recently". Perfectly sensible risk reduction, given that more and more sanctions are being applied and that I'maDinnerJacket and his boys have cranked up the rhetoric recently.
Battleships (12 of them apparently!) ballistic missile cruisers (really?) are part of this huge armada. Our permanent presence of 4 MCMV, a log support ship and the usual DD/FF appears to be part of a massive build-up......
As far as I can make out, the only real increase has been the four additional Avengers heavy-lifted over "recently". Perfectly sensible risk reduction, given that more and more sanctions are being applied and that I'maDinnerJacket and his boys have cranked up the rhetoric recently.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 16th Sep 2012 at 12:13.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Looking at the Torygraph balance of forces this appears to be an absolutely classic imbalance for assymentric warfare. There may be many more target sets suitable for cruise missiles etc than there are cruise missiles and almost as many targets that are unsuitable for anything larger than a 30mm.
While the size of the country is indeed huge it is nowhere as dense as a similar sized European theatre. To compare war zones, Iran is about four times larger than Iraq and over 2 1/2 times larger than Afghanistan whose population is 30 millions compared with Iran at 78 millions.
While the size of the country is indeed huge it is nowhere as dense as a similar sized European theatre. To compare war zones, Iran is about four times larger than Iraq and over 2 1/2 times larger than Afghanistan whose population is 30 millions compared with Iran at 78 millions.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Defense News: Iran Says Will Hit Hormuz, U.S. Bases, Israel If Attacked
TEHRAN — The head of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guards on Sept. 16 warned of retaliation against the Gulf’s strategic Strait of Hormuz, U.S. bases in the Middle East and Israel if his country was to be attacked. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, speaking in a very rare news conference in Tehran, also said that he believed Iran would abandon the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should it be targeted for military action. The warnings underlined the high tensions surrounding Iran and its disputed nuclear program, which Israel has threatened it could seek to disrupt with air strikes, with or without U.S. help.
Jafari said the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow channel at the entrance of the Gulf through which a third of the world’s traded oil passes, would be a legitimate target for Iran should it be attacked. “This is a declared policy by Iran that if war occurs in the region and the Islamic republic is involved, it is natural that the Strait of Hormuz as well as the energy (market) will face difficulties,” he said.
Jafari suggested that U.S. military bases — such as those in Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia — would also be fair game for retaliation by Iranian missiles or proxy forces. “The U.S. has many vulnerabilities around Iran, and its bases are within the range of the Guards’ missiles. We have other capabilities as well, particularly when it comes to the support of Muslims for the Islamic republic,” he said.
He added that Tehran believed Israel was unsuccessfully trying to push the United States to take part in military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “I do not think the attack would be carried out without U.S. permission,” he said.
However if Israeli jets or missiles did strike Iran, “nothing of Israel will be left, considering its size,” he warned. “I do not think any part of Israel will be untouched given our missile capabilities. Thus, our response (warning of annihilatory retaliation) is in itself a deterrent.”
Jafari said that his personal opinion was that, in case of attack, Iran would leave the NPT which is meant to prevent states developing nuclear weapons while permitting atomic energy generation. “In case of an attack, Iran’s obligations will change. My assessment is that Iran may leave the NPT — but it would not mean a dash towards a nuclear bomb because we have a religious edict from the supreme leader” against atomic weapons, he said.
TEHRAN — The head of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guards on Sept. 16 warned of retaliation against the Gulf’s strategic Strait of Hormuz, U.S. bases in the Middle East and Israel if his country was to be attacked. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, speaking in a very rare news conference in Tehran, also said that he believed Iran would abandon the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should it be targeted for military action. The warnings underlined the high tensions surrounding Iran and its disputed nuclear program, which Israel has threatened it could seek to disrupt with air strikes, with or without U.S. help.
Jafari said the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow channel at the entrance of the Gulf through which a third of the world’s traded oil passes, would be a legitimate target for Iran should it be attacked. “This is a declared policy by Iran that if war occurs in the region and the Islamic republic is involved, it is natural that the Strait of Hormuz as well as the energy (market) will face difficulties,” he said.
Jafari suggested that U.S. military bases — such as those in Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia — would also be fair game for retaliation by Iranian missiles or proxy forces. “The U.S. has many vulnerabilities around Iran, and its bases are within the range of the Guards’ missiles. We have other capabilities as well, particularly when it comes to the support of Muslims for the Islamic republic,” he said.
He added that Tehran believed Israel was unsuccessfully trying to push the United States to take part in military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “I do not think the attack would be carried out without U.S. permission,” he said.
However if Israeli jets or missiles did strike Iran, “nothing of Israel will be left, considering its size,” he warned. “I do not think any part of Israel will be untouched given our missile capabilities. Thus, our response (warning of annihilatory retaliation) is in itself a deterrent.”
Jafari said that his personal opinion was that, in case of attack, Iran would leave the NPT which is meant to prevent states developing nuclear weapons while permitting atomic energy generation. “In case of an attack, Iran’s obligations will change. My assessment is that Iran may leave the NPT — but it would not mean a dash towards a nuclear bomb because we have a religious edict from the supreme leader” against atomic weapons, he said.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do I smell a slight whiff of skulduggery taking place within the Muslim community?
Does Iran believe that the West might perhaps be planning to support any Israeli attack against them and if so why not stir up a nice dosage of hysterical hatred between Christians and Muslims? What about if they organise a few large demonstrations regarding that silly film which I am certain less than one percent of the Middle East population would have seen!!
No doubt a silly suggestion that would never happen..
Apologies for my witterings but once again a lack of sleep is to blame for these latest thoughts.
Does Iran believe that the West might perhaps be planning to support any Israeli attack against them and if so why not stir up a nice dosage of hysterical hatred between Christians and Muslims? What about if they organise a few large demonstrations regarding that silly film which I am certain less than one percent of the Middle East population would have seen!!
No doubt a silly suggestion that would never happen..
Apologies for my witterings but once again a lack of sleep is to blame for these latest thoughts.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Tehran Times version of that speech is also worth reading, if only for the changed emphasis in some areas
Israel will be demolished if it attacks Iran: IRGC chief - Tehran Times
The italics are mine
"The commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps has said that if Israel attacks Iran, IRGC missiles will leave nowhere intact in Israel and nothing will remain of the country.
Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari made the remarks during a press conference in Tehran on Sunday.
He also stated that Iran would reconsider its nuclear commitments if international organizations cannot prevent Israel from carrying out its military threats against the Islamic Republic.
“Iran’s nuclear capability is at an acceptable level, and such actions cannot deal a serious blow to it. But if international organizations cannot prevent the Zionist regime from taking such an action, Iran will reconsider its commitments in this regard, and the situation will change,” Jafari said in response to a question by an Associated Press correspondent about the possibility of Israel launching a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
“But it does not mean that we will move toward developing nuclear weapons,” he added.
He also said, “The Zionist regime sees its existence in danger, and in view of its criminal nature and the fact that it is in the habit of killing, of course it tries to resolve its problems through taking military action and issuing threats. But it is a remote possibility that the Zionist regime would take such an action without the permission of the United States because it is aware that in that case it would achieve nothing.”
The United States will not support an Israeli military action against Iran because its forces and bases in the vicinity of Iran are within range of IRGC missiles and Muslims in the region and the rest of the world support the Islamic Republic, he stated.
Elsewhere in his remarks, Jafari said that the IRGC has no military presence in Syria, but added that a number of IRGC personnel are in the crisis-hit country providing non-military assistance.
“Since the establishment of the (IRGC) Qods Force, the force has been pursuing the goal of supporting oppressed nations, particularly Muslim (nations). A number of Qods personnel are also present in Syria, but that does not mean that we have a military presence in the country,” he said.
He went on to say that the IRGC is providing financial and advisory assistance to Syria, since it is a link in the chain of resistance.
On the Islamic Republic’s response to a military attack against Syria, the IRGC commander said that it would depend on the situation.
“We cannot say now with certainty that Iran will support Syria militarily if it comes under a military attack, and it completely depends on the situation,” he explained. "
I'd almost take those parts I've italicised as being conciliatory in nature - its as if they're saying they are not anticipating an attack
Israel will be demolished if it attacks Iran: IRGC chief - Tehran Times
The italics are mine
"The commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps has said that if Israel attacks Iran, IRGC missiles will leave nowhere intact in Israel and nothing will remain of the country.
Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari made the remarks during a press conference in Tehran on Sunday.
He also stated that Iran would reconsider its nuclear commitments if international organizations cannot prevent Israel from carrying out its military threats against the Islamic Republic.
“Iran’s nuclear capability is at an acceptable level, and such actions cannot deal a serious blow to it. But if international organizations cannot prevent the Zionist regime from taking such an action, Iran will reconsider its commitments in this regard, and the situation will change,” Jafari said in response to a question by an Associated Press correspondent about the possibility of Israel launching a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
“But it does not mean that we will move toward developing nuclear weapons,” he added.
He also said, “The Zionist regime sees its existence in danger, and in view of its criminal nature and the fact that it is in the habit of killing, of course it tries to resolve its problems through taking military action and issuing threats. But it is a remote possibility that the Zionist regime would take such an action without the permission of the United States because it is aware that in that case it would achieve nothing.”
The United States will not support an Israeli military action against Iran because its forces and bases in the vicinity of Iran are within range of IRGC missiles and Muslims in the region and the rest of the world support the Islamic Republic, he stated.
Elsewhere in his remarks, Jafari said that the IRGC has no military presence in Syria, but added that a number of IRGC personnel are in the crisis-hit country providing non-military assistance.
“Since the establishment of the (IRGC) Qods Force, the force has been pursuing the goal of supporting oppressed nations, particularly Muslim (nations). A number of Qods personnel are also present in Syria, but that does not mean that we have a military presence in the country,” he said.
He went on to say that the IRGC is providing financial and advisory assistance to Syria, since it is a link in the chain of resistance.
On the Islamic Republic’s response to a military attack against Syria, the IRGC commander said that it would depend on the situation.
“We cannot say now with certainty that Iran will support Syria militarily if it comes under a military attack, and it completely depends on the situation,” he explained. "
I'd almost take those parts I've italicised as being conciliatory in nature - its as if they're saying they are not anticipating an attack
Iran - crazy not stupid. They fully understand geopolitical balances of power: they have everything to lose by attacking first and everything to gain by wearing the first attack. How long before the UN General Assembly (prompted by Iran) applies for sanctions against Israel. The US would find it quite hard to veto it, especially if Iran had done nothing (overt) back.
Would the 3 carriers have sufficient forces to ship out all the US embassies in the Middle East?
Never mind what the likely consequences on American civilians would be?
I don't see Israel launching any raids. The US would abandon them overnight for the turmoil it would create. If anything, I think they'll wait till Mitt is in power - much more sympathetic hearing.
Agree that Iran is trying to goad the Israelis.
Never mind what the likely consequences on American civilians would be?
I don't see Israel launching any raids. The US would abandon them overnight for the turmoil it would create. If anything, I think they'll wait till Mitt is in power - much more sympathetic hearing.
Agree that Iran is trying to goad the Israelis.
Last edited by Fox3WheresMyBanana; 17th Sep 2012 at 17:46.
WE Branch Fanatic
The reason that there are more minesweepers now in the PG region is that the greatest likelihood of there being mines spread soon is ... in the PG region.
Simples, yes?
If you go back a few years, the Navy decided to finally stop home porting their minesweeper fleet in the Gulf of Mexico, and begin forward deploying more of them to where they might be of some use.
Likewise with their mine sweeping helicopter squadrons.
The mine sweepers are, politically, a very good deployment as they can be sold as a means to keep the high seas safe for commerce, and not seen as saber rattling.
As to stats: suggest one not copy and post stuff that doesn't have much behind it.
The reason that there are more minesweepers now in the PG region is that the greatest likelihood of there being mines spread soon is ... in the PG region.
Simples, yes?
If you go back a few years, the Navy decided to finally stop home porting their minesweeper fleet in the Gulf of Mexico, and begin forward deploying more of them to where they might be of some use.
Likewise with their mine sweeping helicopter squadrons.
The mine sweepers are, politically, a very good deployment as they can be sold as a means to keep the high seas safe for commerce, and not seen as saber rattling.
As to stats: suggest one not copy and post stuff that doesn't have much behind it.
I think Israel is still working on a 'slow them down' approach.
Iran: Saboteurs cut power lines ... JPost - Iranian Threat - News
Iran: Saboteurs cut power lines ... JPost - Iranian Threat - News
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
http://www.pprune.org/7416187-post603.html
Greenknight121,
Stennis has deployed to the Gulf 4 months early. She arrives in time to the Enterprise and Eisenhower for a 2 week multinational exercise. The exercise happens to coincide with possible dates for an Israeli strike on Iran.
Now it might be a coincidence; it might be that they are getting ready to try to keep the Straits of Hormuz open if israel does strike and Iran responds; it might be that they are exerting pressure on Israel by telling them they will stop any strike.
But you can understand why the pundits are talking....
And that does give them 3 carriers in the Gulf from today....
Last edited by ORAC; 16th Sep 2012 at 02:36.
Greenknight121,
Stennis has deployed to the Gulf 4 months early. She arrives in time to the Enterprise and Eisenhower for a 2 week multinational exercise. The exercise happens to coincide with possible dates for an Israeli strike on Iran.
Now it might be a coincidence; it might be that they are getting ready to try to keep the Straits of Hormuz open if israel does strike and Iran responds; it might be that they are exerting pressure on Israel by telling them they will stop any strike.
But you can understand why the pundits are talking....
And that does give them 3 carriers in the Gulf from today....
Last edited by ORAC; 16th Sep 2012 at 02:36.
Actually, no... Stennis was nowhere near the Gulf any time in September.
Phuket NEWS: USS John C Stennis and Mobile Bay docked in Phuket un
And so much for your imaginary 2-week 3-carrier exercise... when Enterprise entered the Suez Canal on her way into the Med and home, Stennis was still on the far side of India, on her way from the Pacific towards the Gulf!
The 2-carrier + minesweepers exercise was held while Stennis was still on her way across the Pacific.
CV Locations
CVN-74 John C. Stennis
31Aug2012, San Diego
01Sep-10Sep2012, Pac
11Sep2012,entered the U.S. 7th Fleet Area of Responsibility (AOR)
11Sep-29Sep2012, WestPac
30Sep-03Oct2012,anchored off the coast of Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
04Oct-05Oct2012, South China Sea
06Oct2012, Strait of Malacca
07Oct-10Oct2012, anchored off the coast of Phuket, Thailand
11Oct2012, Strait of Malacca
12Oct2012, Andaman Sea, northeast edge of the Indian Ocean
16Oct2012, Arabian Sea
31Aug2012, San Diego
01Sep-10Sep2012, Pac
11Sep2012,entered the U.S. 7th Fleet Area of Responsibility (AOR)
11Sep-29Sep2012, WestPac
30Sep-03Oct2012,anchored off the coast of Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
04Oct-05Oct2012, South China Sea
06Oct2012, Strait of Malacca
07Oct-10Oct2012, anchored off the coast of Phuket, Thailand
11Oct2012, Strait of Malacca
12Oct2012, Andaman Sea, northeast edge of the Indian Ocean
16Oct2012, Arabian Sea
CVN-65 Enterprise
27Aug-08Oct012, Arabian Sea
10Oct-11Oct2012, Red Sea
12Oct2012,transited the Suez Canal, and entered the 6th Fleet AOR
13Oct-16Oct2012, Med
27Aug-08Oct012, Arabian Sea
10Oct-11Oct2012, Red Sea
12Oct2012,transited the Suez Canal, and entered the 6th Fleet AOR
13Oct-16Oct2012, Med
http://www.pprune.org/7412710-post597.html
Originally Posted by GreenKnight121
3. Stennis is heading to the Gulf to replace Enterprise, which will immediately head home for her decommissioning ceremony, to be held on 01 December 2012!
Therefore, there are only 2 of 5 (40%) actually in the Middle East area of operations. and that is how many will be there for the next couple of months!
Therefore, there are only 2 of 5 (40%) actually in the Middle East area of operations. and that is how many will be there for the next couple of months!
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 17th Oct 2012 at 06:05.
While the smoke screen of US naval power is being waved in front of the global media, a less dramatic series of efforts by a Non Governmental organization seems to be applying some actual damage: not kinetic, but painful nonetheless.
U.S. nonprofit 'names and shames' businesses to put bite into Iran sanctions - Open Channel
This is an interesting manifestation of information age warfare: use information as a weapon, eh?
U.S. nonprofit 'names and shames' businesses to put bite into Iran sanctions - Open Channel
This is an interesting manifestation of information age warfare: use information as a weapon, eh?
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 18th Oct 2012 at 13:31.