Could Iran really blockade the strait of Hormuz?

Wanna bet?

The US can only send a relative handfull of fighters into Iran at any single time. Most of the raids into Iraq during Gulf War I and II were only done with a handfull of fighters at any one time.

I am not sure what your experience is in modern warfare, but the days of 200+ aircraft raids are long since past. The largest single attack of Gulf War I to my knowledge was a 22 F-15 strike against Iraqi airfields. Most of them were much smaller, 5 to 6 aircraft.

Even the famous "Bombing of Baghdad" on the opening night of the air campaign was only conducted with 10 F-117 Nighthawks.

So no, we do not have vastly superior numbers in the region. The numbers are probably roughly equal. And with Iran being on the defensive side, they can pick and choose when to attack and where. Which will be deep inside their territory, where they have radar sites and ground to air missiles, so our approach vectors will be more limited.

 

There were far more than 22 U.S. combat aircraft flying combat missions the first night of the first Gulf War.

And if we have roughly equal numbers the U.S. wins overwhelmingly.

Experience in the Middle East has consistently proven that western trained pilots can take out Middle Eastern aircraft at something like a 40 to 1 exchange rate.

Cut that in half and the U.S. still has an overwhelming advantage

 

And bring any dead civilian sailors back to life again.

 

Only Iranian plane they managed to shoot down was a civilian airliner.

 

You think the Iranian pilots are somehow supermagically that much better than the Iraqi pilots whom they could not defeat in a major war?

 

Maybe they'll just bring them in on remote control like they did your drones.

 

The initial strikes in Gulf War I against Iraq utilized Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from ships in the Persian Gulf and F-4G aircraft armed with HARM anti-radar missiles...this is in addition to the F-117A. Over the course of the aerial campaign there were hundreds of combat aircraft used.

It was a C-21A that was the first aircraft to fly through the airspace to check for any problems before the fighters were launched.

 

Iran can't. However, they can take out enough tankers to make oil much more expensive.

 

Well, to be fair, that was a Navy ship that popped the airliner (whole different disscussion there!), not a fighter pilot. The only A2A action we've had has been pretty one sided--good for the west, bad for the arabs. Can't really say for the persians . . . haven't had to many go-arounds with their air froce yet--but I imagine the out come would be pretty similar.

 

Notice, I never said flying. I said on a single mission.

I am aware that we often had 100+ aircraft in the air at any one time. But they were scattered. 2 here, 5 there, 6 in another place. They aere not tha massive single target waved like in wars past.

And in this tactic, they could do these defensive attacks where they thing they need to have the largest defense. Say at the approaches to missile bases, C&C centers, and the like. Of course they would not do it over the entire country.

And their turnaround times would be much shorter then that of US fighters. They could return to a local friendly base, while the US fighters would have to go to bases on the other side of the gulf.

Plus then you also have the advantage that the UK had in the Battle of Briton. When a German pilot was shot down, he became a POW. When a UK pilot was shot down, provided he was uninjured he was flying again within days.

If they try to fight in equal numbers, with equal tactics. But only fools would consider that when making plans.

If I had gone to you 12 years ago and said some nobodies would be able to destroy 2 of the largest buildings in the world with no weapons more sophisticated then box cutters, you would have called me mad. That is what outside the box thinking is for.

No, actually it has not. And for one, it is not "Middle Eastern Aircraft", it was predominantly Soviet aircraft we have fought. And Soviet missiles. The same thing that gave us such troubles in Korea and Vietnam.

The problem with Iraq was simply training and doctrine, not the equipment itself. And if you think the Iranians did not watch the last 2 wars and learn something, you are fooling yourself.

Advantage, yes. Overwhelming, I am not so sure. It all depends on how it is used. Tactics and Strategy can have as much if not more of an effect then the equipment itself.

And don't forget, Iraq invaded Iran with overwhelming force. And they did not win, but got bogged down in a 10 year long war of attrition. The US had unquestionably overwhelming force in Vietnam, and that did not help them win the war.

The Soviet Union unquestionably had vastly superior force when they entered Afghanistan. And they did not win their either. And Afghanistan did not even have an Air Force, the Soviets had air superiority from day 1.

You are looking at this strictly from the viewpoint of the weapons used. You are only looking at a small piece of the puzzle. You have to look at everything, and plan for the worst.

 

Gas prices gonna go up, Obama gonna call Iran's bluff...

After Iran threatens US carrier, bluff will probably be called
January 3, 2012 - Crude oil prices surged after Iran dialed the threat-o-meter up to 11 with a vow to attack a US aircraft carrier if it returns to the Strait of Hormuz. The US 5th Fleet is likely to take up the challenge.

 

Do you have an idea of how an airplane works? Or do you equate a multimillion dollar aircraft to your toy Air Hog? You cannot hack the avionics of a modern fighter nor could you ever "control" it from the ground.

 

I was not trying to say that only the nighthawks did the raids. Or that only 10 Nighthawks were involved in the air war. But those of us old enough to remember watching that attack on TV, with Peter Arnett narrating it seemed like scores of planes were involved. Just that there were only 10 Nighthawks doing the bombing itself. Not scores of them.

And I am aware that hundreds of aircraft did the multiple missions during that war. However, it was only hundreds, not the many hundreds like some in here seem to think were involved.

 

I think it was 12 Nighthawks in the 1st wave accompanied by EF-111s that were used as radar jammers.

I was based in Riyadh at the onset and during Desert Storm running the daily Air Tasking Orders to various fighter squadrons based in Spangdahlem and Incirlik among other places. The documents were hundreds of pages and were the lead planning document commanders follow. The problem was coordinating the ATO with what was going on, on the ground. Typically ATOs dealt with fixed targets and had up to a 48 hour lead time, and of course Iraqi armor units were fluid.

In terms of a raid on Iran's nuclear facilities, it wouldn't be too difficult to coordinate aircraft based in different locations to synchronize an attack on fixed positions...it was tried with much success during Desert Shield/Storm. As far as having hundreds of aircraft taking off from one location to implement a raid, yes I would agree those type of operations are a thing of the past.

 

Completely unrelated to the thread, but I never pass up a chance to go off-topic...all this talk of Patriot missile batteries and the like, gets me reminiscing about Gulf War I
Oh I should qualify also, that despite a misconception that support officers live a charmed life with privileges o'plenty compared to those actually in combat...of course that's true; but it's not the Ritz Carlton either. Basically for 5 months you work, sleep and eat...no days off.

My living quarters were somewhat Spartan at times while based in Saudi Arabia;
and when you're young you don't know any better...donning the gas mask and dodging Scud missiles was part of the experience.