Support NeoGAF

[Romulus]

Iran can target that airstrip with it's missiles, and it will go down. they can shoot 500 missiles towards it and it won't have enough air defenses against that.

Taking your enemy as dumb was the mistake Israel made on 10/7.

Delusional. You really think 10/7 was some victory. Unbelievable. Iran's nuke program was targeted and Iran couldn't even respond properly, couldn't launch a single fighter aircraft or mobilize anything meanwhile the US and Israel could fly over their homeland at will. They were embarrassed, reduced to launching missiles. If anything, it showed Iran was even weaker than we thought, much weaker.

 

[ADiTAR]

Delusional. You really think 10/7 was some victory. Unbelievable. Iran's nuke program was targeted and Iran couldn't even respond properly, couldn't launch a single fighter aircraft or mobilize anything meanwhile the US and Israel could fly over their homeland at will. They were embarrassed, reduced to launching missiles. If anything, it showed Iran was even weaker than we thought, much weaker.

I didn't say it was a victory, I said it happened because entitled people underestimated their enemy. Every agency in Israel thought Hamas is not looking to make trouble.

While Iran couldn't do much in the air, like I said they targeted missiles and they did hit. They can destroy a carrier if they want to with their missiles.

 

[Warspite]

How many missiles did Iran fire at Israel during that air war. How many actually got through.

Surely a fast pre-emptive strike could knock out alot of their launchers could retaliate.

It was the biggest surprise of the last strikes for me that the US didn't use any of its GBU-57A on the ballistic missile storage mountains. If they do go again these have got to be the first things hit this time surely?

 

[Romulus]

I didn't say it was a victory, I said it happened because entitled people underestimated their enemy. Every agency in Israel thought Hamas is not looking to make trouble.

While Iran couldn't do much in the air, like I said they targeted missiles and they did hit. They can destroy a carrier if they want to with their missiles.

Its just silly. All they did was launch volleys of endless missiles. I would wager 1960s Iran could get a few missiles through. Its not a testament to anything they did well. If anything, we overestimated them, so I don't agree with your assessment on even the most basic level. Destroying a carrier is much different and you obviously don't know anything about what that takes. Its waaaay more well defended than you think. I'll bet you don't even know the specifics of Iranian missiles, you're just saying things because you have feelings about it.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Delusional. You really think 10/7 was some victory. Unbelievable. Iran's nuke program was targeted and Iran couldn't even respond properly, couldn't launch a single fighter aircraft or mobilize anything meanwhile the US and Israel could fly over their homeland at will. They were embarrassed, reduced to launching missiles. If anything, it showed Iran was even weaker than we thought, much weaker.

I do wonder what caused Iran to have absolutely zero defense from the air threats. Surely they did not think that just using missiles were enough? They launched a lot year ago, during the 12 day war and still even if they have some I doubt their stockpiles are even matching the previous launches, considering how many platforms and launch sites were destroyed. I don't think they are that fast to replenish.

All in all, I am very curious how it is going to look like.

 

[Warspite]

24 hour surveillance now, making sure thing don't move and if they do where do they go.

 

[Meicyn]

Is it just me, or is NeoGAF's responsiveness intermittent? It feels randomly sluggish.

Anyways, I'd like to take the moment to emphasize that Israel is still led by Benjamin Netanyahu, a known war hawk who was more than excited to attack Iran last year and fuck up their nuclear facilities, turned most of Gaza into barren rubble, and is still actively engaged with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

He is currently urging restraint with regard to Iran.

Its just silly. All they did was launch volleys of endless missiles. I would wager 1960s Iran could get a few missiles through. Its not a testament to anything they did well. If anything, we overestimated them, so I don't agree with your assessment on even the most basic level. Destroying a carrier is much different and you obviously don't know anything about what that takes. Its waaaay more well defended than you think. I'll bet you don't even know the specifics of Iranian missiles, you're just saying things because you have feelings about it.

The Houthis got a missile uncomfortably close to hitting the Eisenhower a few years ago in the Red Sea. They also forced the Truman to do evasive maneuvers that lended to an incident where an F-18 fell off said carrier last year, which suggests that the missile wasn't detected until it was fairly close. As incredible as Arleigh Burke destroyers are, they aren't infallible. Radar ducting is a problem in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and while we have software and modeling to try and counter that problem, it's far from perfect.

I can appreciate talking up American firepower because I've come to its defense in the Venezuela thread a bit ago. But we're not invulnerable, and Iran is capable of doing real damage.

 

[Romulus]

The Houthis got a missile uncomfortably close to hitting the Eisenhower a few years ago in the Red Sea. They also forced the Truman to do evasive maneuvers that lended to an incident where an F-18 fell off said carrier last year, which suggests that the missile wasn't detected until it was fairly close. As incredible as Arleigh Burke destroyers are, they aren't infallible. Radar ducting is a problem in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and while we have software and modeling to try and counter that problem, it's far from perfect.

I can appreciate talking up American firepower because I've come to its defense in the Venezuela thread a bit ago. But we're not invulnerable, and Iran is capable of doing real damage.

One missile out of all the ones they've launched getting "close" is embarrassingly ineffective. The facts of that missile splash are unknown. We don't know if part of a damaged missile splashed close or it tumbled and malfunctioned. We know out of all the missiles fired a US carriers ever in history, zero have landed.

And the evasive from a hornet? The loss of the F-18 during Truman maneuvering does not imply late detection, because carrier strike groups routinely detect launches far beyond visual or weapon range and may still maneuver aggressively to reduce risk while layered defenses engage. Evasive turns can be ordered even with early warning due to uncertain missile trajectories, salvo attacks, or to complicate targeting, not because the threat suddenly appeared at close range.

Neither are good examples of Iran being effective. Of course its an engagement and they are absolutely being shot at so its not like something you just ignore but the main problem here is perspective.

We're looking at conflicts and surgical strikes without taking the gloves off. What I'm talking about if a full scale attack were we actually go after them in force like the first or even second gulf war. This is incredibly different.

In reality considering all the minor engagements the US military has had and been sitting near their weapons systems, you would think there would be 10x more incidents. It's not about talking up American military, its just massively superior. No need to apologize for that.

The other thing is even if carriers get hit, they're designed to take multiple impacts and keep fighting. The other huge problem in American doctrine is the more damage you do to them, they respond with even more overwhelming force.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Is it just me, or is NeoGAF's responsiveness intermittent? It feels randomly sluggish.

I wonder if it is related to a thing that sometimes I do not get notifications from the updated topics.

The Houthis got a missile uncomfortably close to hitting the Eisenhower a few years ago in the Red Sea. They also forced the Truman to do evasive maneuvers that lended to an incident where an F-18 fell off said carrier last year, which suggests that the missile wasn't detected until it was fairly close. As incredible as Arleigh Burke destroyers are, they aren't infallible. Radar ducting is a problem in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and while we have software and modeling to try and counter that problem, it's far from perfect.

Personally I feel like it was more due to either incompetence or being too relaxed, not taking them seriously enough. Like when you shoot some stuff and then just chill.

 

[Meicyn]

One missile out of all the ones they've launched getting "close" is embarrassingly ineffective. The facts of that missile splash are unknown. We don't know if part of a damaged missile splashed close or it tumbled and malfunctioned. We know out of all the missiles fired a US carriers ever in history, zero have landed.

And the evasive from a hornet? The loss of the F-18 during Truman maneuvering does not imply late detection, because carrier strike groups routinely detect launches far beyond visual or weapon range and may still maneuver aggressively to reduce risk while layered defenses engage. Evasive turns can be ordered even with early warning due to uncertain missile trajectories, salvo attacks, or to complicate targeting, not because the threat suddenly appeared at close range.

Neither are good examples of Iran being effective. Of course its an engagement and they are absolutely being shot at so its not like something you just ignore but the main problem here is perspective.

We're looking at conflicts and surgical strikes without taking the gloves off. What I'm talking about if a full scale attack were we actually go after them in force like the first or even second gulf war. This is incredibly different.

In reality considering all the minor engagements the US military has had and been sitting near their weapons systems, you would think there would be 10x more incidents. It's not about talking up American military, its just massively superior. No need to apologize for that.

The other thing is even if carriers get hit, they're designed to take multiple impacts and keep fighting. The other huge problem in American doctrine is the more damage you do to them, they respond with even more overwhelming force.

I think you're underplaying the threat.

Article:

The combination of wide-area surveillance, close-in target shadowing, and terminal guidance has allowed the Houthis to achieve some impressive feats of marksmanship, such as an apparent near-miss on a U.S. aircraft carrier and a number of hits or very close misses by ASBMs on ships approximately 150-200 kilometers from launch points.

*snip*

By some accounts, an ASBM or other missile arrived at a very shallow trajectory, with minimal warning, without a chance for interception, and splashing down around 200 meters from the Eisenhower. Details gathered from interviews with Yemen-focused U.S. and U.K. intelligence officers for this study. Names of interviewees, and dates and places of interviews withheld at interviewees' request. The Houthis propagandized the carrier's departure. See "America's withdrawal from the Red Sea confirms the fall of the myth of Washington's great power," Sabant – Saba Agency, May 1, 2024

Source: https://ctc.westpoint.edu/a-draw-is-a-win-the-houthis-after-one-year-of-war/

The enemy is learning, and adapting. We are too of course, but it's a case of diminishing returns on our end as our enemies continue to slowly close the gap. Our multi-layered defense systems are remarkable, but not perfect. Iran got 5% of their stuff to break through into Tel Aviv, the most well defended city in the world when it comes to missile defense. That's not inconsequential, and Iran didn't fire everything they have. It's not that I think Iran can win, because even they know they can't win... they still haven't fully replenished all the missiles they used last year even with China circumventing sanctions and delivering raw materials. I just don't think we're as invulnerable as your language suggests.

 

[Romulus]

I think you're underplaying the threat.

Article:

The combination of wide-area surveillance, close-in target shadowing, and terminal guidance has allowed the Houthis to achieve some impressive feats of marksmanship, such as an apparent near-miss on a U.S. aircraft carrier and a number of hits or very close misses by ASBMs on ships approximately 150-200 kilometers from launch points.

*snip*

By some accounts, an ASBM or other missile arrived at a very shallow trajectory, with minimal warning, without a chance for interception, and splashing down around 200 meters from the Eisenhower. Details gathered from interviews with Yemen-focused U.S. and U.K. intelligence officers for this study. Names of interviewees, and dates and places of interviews withheld at interviewees' request. The Houthis propagandized the carrier's departure. See "America's withdrawal from the Red Sea confirms the fall of the myth of Washington's great power," Sabant – Saba Agency, May 1, 2024

Source: https://ctc.westpoint.edu/a-draw-is-a-win-the-houthis-after-one-year-of-war/

The enemy is learning, and adapting. We are too of course, but it's a case of diminishing returns on our end as our enemies continue to slowly close the gap. Our multi-layered defense systems are remarkable, but not perfect. Iran got 5% of their stuff to break through into Tel Aviv, the most well defended city in the world when it comes to missile defense. That's not inconsequential, and Iran didn't fire everything they have. It's not that I think Iran can win, because even they know they can't win... they still haven't fully replenished all the missiles they used last year even with China circumventing sanctions and delivering raw materials. I just don't think we're as invulnerable as your language suggests.

Never said anything about US being invulnerable. Nothing is invulnerable. As you said 5% success. That's 5%. The Iron Dome isn't as complex as an aircraft carrier with multiple layers and walls before it even gets to the main wall(carrier). There is no evidence that the missile was even a threat when it splashed either. It could have been debris at that point. This is not hard intelligence and cannot be used.

By some accounts. Such as an apparent near-miss on a U.S.

This language is incredibly shaky and not confident. The fact that we even have to force this as a win is telling. One missile might have gotten close, maybe. lol. If Iran or the Houthis truly believed Western defenses were close to being overcome, they'd escalate and sustain pressure, not rely on intermittent attacks and propaganda. Learning is happening on both sides, but the adaptation gap and strategic ceiling still overwhelmingly favor the US and its allies. More so, the ability to respond is overwhelming.

My point is even in this fluke chance, it doesn't even mean the carrier is lost, not even close.