… so the US has everything, in fact. Except surprise and, more than that, they know how you’re going to do it. Going to be expensive for someone, somewhere. Just because the US is shooting in the Gulf doesn’t mean Iran will. Personal view: this has the makings of a huge and completely pointless mistake: No military gain + terrible loss of life on both sides + an unsettling loss of military credibility. Oh yeah: and the unfortunate “Israel’s poodle” thing (but you know that already).
Burning tax payers (and stupid foreign treasure bonds investors) money by bucketloads. Easy. One trillion more on the american debt for the next administration. Lol
Wes, bring on the coming article about Iran sinking a carrier. China will be watching with interest. Would a missile be able to actually sink the Roosevelt or the Ford, or just severely damage them? I’m thinking back to the Pacific War in WW2, or to the 1982 Falklands War when Argentina sunk the huge Atlantic Conveyor and a British frigate using Exocet missiles.
Thank you for this article. Learning a lot from your experience and knowledge. US gunboat diplomacy relies on CSG strategy. That hasn't changed for decades. Just how vulnerable are the carriers for massive drone and missile attacks?
With the amount of Chinese missiles Iran has on hand, it's possible one of more ships will be hit if they launch a salvo. One missile hit could easily sink an escort ship. Remember HMS Sheffield during the Falklands War? That was a hit from an Exocet. Imagine a ship that size being hit by a Silkworm or other Chinese missile.
Thank you for this. Never a dull moment, but what about reducing the numbers to three per day? Or something similar. But I guess the math adds up to a prolonged series of strikes. Unless a deal is struck, but I doubt it.
so much fora president of peace who demands a nobel peace prize
… so the US has everything, in fact. Except surprise and, more than that, they know how you’re going to do it. Going to be expensive for someone, somewhere. Just because the US is shooting in the Gulf doesn’t mean Iran will. Personal view: this has the makings of a huge and completely pointless mistake: No military gain + terrible loss of life on both sides + an unsettling loss of military credibility. Oh yeah: and the unfortunate “Israel’s poodle” thing (but you know that already).
Israel demolished the Gaza Strip. Hamas is still in power.
Wes, is the need for Growlers obviated by 5th Gen capabilities? Noticed their absence from the list.
Why rely solely on stealth when you can shut down all of their sensors and also be stealthy?
Burning tax payers (and stupid foreign treasure bonds investors) money by bucketloads. Easy. One trillion more on the american debt for the next administration. Lol
Wes, bring on the coming article about Iran sinking a carrier. China will be watching with interest. Would a missile be able to actually sink the Roosevelt or the Ford, or just severely damage them? I’m thinking back to the Pacific War in WW2, or to the 1982 Falklands War when Argentina sunk the huge Atlantic Conveyor and a British frigate using Exocet missiles.
Didn’t the UK say no to US use of Diego Garcia?
Yes they did! I read about it this morning.
Thank you for this article. Learning a lot from your experience and knowledge. US gunboat diplomacy relies on CSG strategy. That hasn't changed for decades. Just how vulnerable are the carriers for massive drone and missile attacks?
Thanks, Wes! Excellent post!
With the amount of Chinese missiles Iran has on hand, it's possible one of more ships will be hit if they launch a salvo. One missile hit could easily sink an escort ship. Remember HMS Sheffield during the Falklands War? That was a hit from an Exocet. Imagine a ship that size being hit by a Silkworm or other Chinese missile.
Thank you for this. Never a dull moment, but what about reducing the numbers to three per day? Or something similar. But I guess the math adds up to a prolonged series of strikes. Unless a deal is struck, but I doubt it.