Skip to main content

View Diary: UPDATED: War with Iran? Maybe So (125 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That they do (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Third largest fleet of F-15's in the world, after Japan and the US. F-15 is still better than anything Iran can put in the air - although the real pants-wetter for Iranian pilots would probably be a Super Hornet in the rear view mirror.

    If things reach the point where the US sends F-22's into battle the Iranian air force becomes target drones.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 06:44:28 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Don't count on us sending the Raptors in. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bear83, blue aardvark

      We've never deployed them in battle for a good reason, they are way, way, way too maintenance intensive. They take some ungodly number of maintenance hours per air hour and they have problems with the oxygen systems that are still not fixed.

      But that said, we don't need them. We have (arguably) three of the top four air superiority fighters in the world in our inventory, so if we don't use the F-22's we still can suppress the Iranian Air Force.

      •  It's not an air war . (0+ / 0-)

        The Iranians will not use planes to sink ships .
        They are said to have missiles along the shore .

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:38:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  All wars are air wars. If you want to hammer the q (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          missile sites you need to be able to have your planes loiter around and to do that you need to be sure they are not going to come under fire from enemy aircraft or ground to air missiles.

        •  How long will those missiles last (0+ / 0-)

          in the face of U.S. airpower hunting them down? I think the odds of Iran actually being able to sink one of our ships is close to nil.

          •  Oh, I don't know about that. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            They won't be able to sink many but it is pretty easy to sink a tanker and it is pretty hard to defend against missiles (though it can be done to some extent).

            But the issue is what it would cost Iran if they did. It would probably cost them their entire navy and their entire air force. That is a pretty high cost.

          •  They don't have to last . (0+ / 0-)

            They don't have to sink one of our ships .

            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

            by indycam on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 01:41:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  They have to last (0+ / 0-)

              and they need to be able to score hits if it comes to actual military confrontation.

              •  To shut down the waterway (0+ / 0-)

                they don't need to last .
                Its a first strike weapon .
                They will use them to sink a large ship to block up the shipping lane .

                If the U.S. then blows up every last one within 10 miles of the Strait of Hormuz , its no big deal . The Iranians will have more stashed away here and there .  

                The U.S. can't take out the missiles before they are used , once they are used to block up the shipping lane its to late to take them out . That's the "game". The Iranians can block the shipping lane whenever they want and the U.S. can't stop it , they can only respond to it .

                The next thing is , will the U.S. go to war over a foreign nations ship being sunk in foreign waters ? The Carter doctrine says the U.S. will use the U.S. military to keep the waterway open , but does that equal war ?  

                "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                by indycam on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 02:19:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site