the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran

wrote:
Defendario wrote:


There have been a lot of changes since then. The USN is in grave
danger. The Persian Gulf may get the reputation earned by Ironbottom
Sound. They are not invulnerable.

siren /on VAMPIRE VAMPIRE VAMPIRE! NOT A DRILL! siren /off


Back then it did not take much to nearly annhilate Iran's Navy with
the 'small' USN force that was deployed. Has there been big purchases
for naval vessels after that?


The Iranians aren't wasting much of their resources on ships. They
aren't obligated to fight the war the way /we/ want. The Iranians have
invested in weapons technologies that will meet their strategic
objectives, ie control of the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz.

In this objective they are likely to succeed, even by the Navy's own
predictions.

Regardless, I don't think there Navy won't pose much threat. Where
their vast experiece lies is on the ground and perhaps air war due to
the encounters with Iraq


The technology that Iran got by way of China and North Korea was
recently tested against the IsReeLee forces, and found to be effective.

If a Skvall torp hits a carrier, it could be in serious trouble. A
lesser vessel will sink. Swarms of surface to surface guided missiles
will swamp and overwhelm the defenses of any fleet within the confined
spaces of the Gulf.

VAMPIRE means missile, fool. Between the mines, torps, missiles and
speedboat jihadists, our boiz will have their hands full. Only an idiot
would take the Iranian forces lightly, and the Pentagon seems fully
stocked with idiots nowadays.