How would a war with Iran go?

Marine Pilots Stay Sharp for Next War
David Axe | October 24, 2006

Beaufort, S.C. -- While low-intensity conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan grab most of the media attention and divert the bulk of the U.S. military's resources, Marine Corps fighter pilots are quietly preparing for the next war -- one that might put them up against a high-tech foe with a more sophisticated air force than America has fought in decades. To that end, the fighter jocks of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 312 "Checkerboards", based at a massive base here on the sunny South Carolina coast, are honing their air-to-air combat skills, learning to maneuver their Boeing F/A-18 Hornets to shoot down enemy aircraft. Those are "perishable" skills that haven't been in high demand in recent years -- and they require constant practice.


"Is there an air-to-air threat in Iraq? No. but if we start training just to fight right now, when that fight's over, something else pops up and we're unprepared," says Major Bruce "Flesh" Gordon, a 34-year-old Checkerboards pilot with more than 1,600 hours in the Hornet. He says the Marine Corps' small community of 14 Hornet squadrons -- each flying a dozen jets and half of which are based in Beaufort -- needs to be ready to deploy on 48 hours' notice to cover Marines storming some foreign shore to meet an unexpected threat.

"If a [Marine] commander wants to make a landing in, say, Bashir, Iran, he needs a secure beachhead. He won't have that if the Iranians are launching [Sukhoi Su-25] Frogfoot [attack planes] and [F-4] Phantom [fighters]," 34-year-old Captain Hank Thomas says by way of a hypothetical example.

Thomas, with the unfortunate callsign "Crash", has around 1,000 hours in the Hornet and is the Checkerboard training officer. To make sure he's got the expertise to teach younger pilots, in January Crash is slated to attend Topgun, the Navy's legendary fighter training school in Fallon, Nevada.

In the meantime, in Beaufort, the Checkerboards will tangle with a squadron of expert Marine pilots whose job it is to think and fly like the enemy. Marine Fighter Training Squadron 401 flies Northrop Grumman F-5 Tiger fighters that are nimbler and smaller than other U.S. fighters, making them a good match for the Mikoyan MiG-21 Fishbeds flown by many potential adversaries.

During 401's visit, the Checkerboards will first pit single Hornets against single Tigers ... then graduate to bigger tangles involving as many as two Hornets and four Tigers. The dogfights, usually performed in an instrumented range over the Atlantic Ocean, are recorded and analyzed for the benefit of the trainees. And every simulated missile shot, whether a hit or a miss, is represented on a board in 312's ready room. Right now Crash has the best record, with dozens of successful shots. Flesh isn't far behind.

But there's more to defeating enemy air forces than fancy flying. Ground crews play a critical role. They're the ones who load the AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-120 Amraam missiles, both built by Raytheon, that the pilots use to down enemy jets. During a recent live-fire exercise, crews loaded Sparrow missiles that Checkerboards pilots fired over the Atlantic. These rare live missile shoots are a major "confidence builder," Flesh reports.

In order to keep pace with foreign air forces, many of which are re-equipping with sophisticated Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker fighters that are roughly equivalent to Boeing's legendary F-15 Eagle, the Checkerboards are gaining a slew of new technologies. These include the new Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder dogfighting missile, the Link-16 datalink and, within a couple years, advanced helmet-mounted sights that let a pilot point all his sensors just by looking at a target. The new Sidewinder, in particular, is "a phenomenal weapon," according to 34-year-old Major Glenn "Tako" Takabayashi, a Topgun graduate with 1,300 hours on the Hornet.

The upgrades and others will keep 312's 20-year-old Hornets on the cutting edge until the entire Marine Corps fighter fleet adopts the Joint Strike Fighter. While some critics have questioned the JSF's suitability as a dogfighter, Checkerboards commander Lieutenant Colonel William Maxwell, 43, says every indication is that the aircraft will prove an excellent successor to the agile Hornets, helping the Marines stay ahead of potential enemies.

"The current battle might not be tomorrow's battle," he stresses, echoing Flesh and defending his squadron's emphasis on air-to-air skills seldom practiced over Iraq or Afghanistan.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,117648,00.html
 
Any conflict with Iran and the United States economy dies. Oh we could beat Iran's military, but what do you think will happen to the oil shipments we depend on so much? Last time I checked Iran still was one of our major providers of crude oil. You think we can conduct war with Iran and at the same time ship the oil here? And it’s not just the oil; our financial sectors will be crushed. Everything is tied together so tightly that if one thread snaps, the whole rope will snap.

Imagine how much support any administration would get from the people, if a war caused them to loose their homes, jobs and savings? In fact, how long would that administration last, not to mention the war?
 
Don't worry, we have a panic button hooked up to some neutron bombs if it really gets that bad. The sickness seems like it's getting better, and then...


Neutron bomb, hmmmmmm, sounds like it could be a song there somewhere!

I have no love loss for Iran, I know we wouldn't actually use nukes, but if there ever was a case to use them it would be there or NK. I guess the bad situation there is that we won't use them first which means that there might be a risk of millions of Americans dying before we unleash Armageddon.

We did it once and the world knew it was a formidible weapon. To use a nuke again might signal the beginning of the end of us all. If that is to be I have a few places that I'd vote to see vaporized first.
 
I really dont want a war with Iran. Things are bad enough in Iraq and Iran is much worse. They are ultra-nationalists, they are fundimentalists, they have sleeper terrorcells worldwide, they are soon to be nuclear armed, and they have got some pretty nasty toys (thanks to the Russians) in their inventory. And make no mistake, they would shoot back.

One in particular is the SS-N-22 Sunburn. Its a antiship missile thats nearly impossible to intercept as it skims the waves at Mach 2. Its large warhead could easily sink any Aircraft Carrier. It can be air launched, ship launched and from shore batteries. And the Iranians have got plenty of them...

Could you imagine the ramnifications both politically and militarilly if we lost a Nimitz class in the Middle East? Catashrophic.

Tempting as it is, dont do it.
 
I really dont want a war with Iran. Things are bad enough in Iraq and Iran is much worse. They are ultra-nationalists, they are fundimentalists, they have sleeper terrorcells worldwide, they are soon to be nuclear armed, and they have got some pretty nasty toys (thanks to the Russians) in their inventory. And make no mistake, they would shoot back.

One in particular is the SS-N-22 Sunburn. Its a antiship missile thats nearly impossible to intercept as it skims the waves at Mach 2. Its large warhead could easily sink any Aircraft Carrier. It can be air launched, ship launched and from shore batteries. And the Iranians have got plenty of them...

Could you imagine the ramnifications both politically and militarilly if we lost a Nimitz class in the Middle East? Catashrophic.

Tempting as it is, dont do it.
Middle East...Nuke em. If we do have a war started with Iran, we will have to...I mean, we cant fight two wars with all the improvised techniques of todays warfare...We would have to.
 
I really dont want a war with Iran. Things are bad enough in Iraq and Iran is much worse. They are ultra-nationalists, they are fundimentalists, they have sleeper terrorcells worldwide, they are soon to be nuclear armed, and they have got some pretty nasty toys (thanks to the Russians) in their inventory. And make no mistake, they would shoot back.

One in particular is the SS-N-22 Sunburn. Its a antiship missile thats nearly impossible to intercept as it skims the waves at Mach 2. Its large warhead could easily sink any Aircraft Carrier. It can be air launched, ship launched and from shore batteries. And the Iranians have got plenty of them...

Could you imagine the ramnifications both politically and militarilly if we lost a Nimitz class in the Middle East? Catashrophic.

Tempting as it is, dont do it.


If Iran fired one of those missiles and hit an American CV it would be the last thing they ever did, the shock waves from the rain of nukes would be felt world wide.

As for the sleeper cells, at one point we had a handle on most, if not all of them, if the liberals get their way that might not be able to be said.
 
If Iran fired one of those missiles and hit an American CV it would be the last thing they ever did, the shock waves from the rain of nukes would be felt world wide.

As for the sleeper cells, at one point we had a handle on most, if not all of them, if the liberals get their way that might not be able to be said.

I strongly disagree with you on the point that the US would retaliate with nuclear weaopns unless nuclear weapons were used against us. this is not the 1940's anymore and the world would not tolerate it, nor would citizens of the US.
 
I strongly disagree with you on the point that the US would retaliate with nuclear weaopns unless nuclear weapons were used against us. this is not the 1940's anymore and the world would not tolerate it, nor would citizens of the US.

I guess that you missed the point in the post. SS-N-22. The N is the designator for nuclear. If they fire one of those missiles and hit one of our CV's, or any ship for that matter pandora is already out of the box.
 
I guess that you missed the point in the post. SS-N-22. The N is the designator for nuclear. If they fire one of those missiles and hit one of our CV's, or any ship for that matter pandora is already out of the box.

if these missiles are nuclear, how did Iran get them? russia isnt selling them any nuclear anti-ship missiles, and they dont yet have the technology to make them on their own.
 
Senior Chief you are wrong SS-N-22 means (Surface-to-Surface Naval Missile) - N is designator for Naval. Of course Sunburn can be armed with 200 kT nuclear warhead but i think Iran have only missiles with standard warheads.
 
if these missiles are nuclear, how did Iran get them? russia isnt selling them any nuclear anti-ship missiles, and they dont yet have the technology to make them on their own.

The designator of N in the NATO designation denotes nuclear. If they have the SS-N-22's they have nukes now. Doesn't matter where they got them, if they have them there is a probabiltiy that they are nukes. If they don't have them someone is blowing smoke up our collective 6's.

My opinoin is based on 20+ years of studying Soviet ships and weapons systems. You can debate with me, but it would be time better spent making fun of the comments made by Jon Carry (John Kerry) regarding the ignorant military people we have stuck in Iraq.
 
Senior Chief you are wrong SS-N-22 means (Surface-to-Surface Naval Missile) - N is designator for Naval. Of course Sunburn can be armed with 200 kT nuclear warhead but i think Iran have only missiles with standard warheads.

You are mistaken. But I won't argue with you. Check out Janes and if you have access check out any CTT/EW worth his weight and verify my claim.
 
Chief, according to wikipedia, fas.org, globalsecurity.com, and sinodefense.com the N in SS-N-22 does stand for Naval. All four of those sites list the SS-N-22 as a Ship-Ship missile and while I only skimmed through them, only one of those three sites listed.

If Iran has these missiles it doesn't mean they have nukes, it means they have a means of deliverying it to a target, but not necessarilly the nuclear material. Any large missile can be fitted with a nuclear warhead, if it can carry 300 lbs. of conventional explosives it can certainly carry a 300 lbs. nuke.
 
With all due respect Senior Chief you are wrong.

According to NATO reporting names for missiles - code SS-N – means "Naval Surface-to-Surface Missile".

1.1 NATO Reporting Names for Aircraft and Missiles

The NATO uses so-called "Reporting Names" when referring to aircraft and missiles of FSU (Former Soviet Union) states and the People's Republic of China. Reporting names for aircraft are selected by the ASIC (Air and Space Interoperability Council; renamed in 2005 from ASCC, Air Standardization Coordinating Committee - member states are Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA and UK), but names for missiles (and other systems like radars etc.) are created by other organizations. However, all reporting names are eventually forwarded to NATO in a single list.

Fixed-wing aircraft are designated by reporting names beginning with code letters designating the aircraft's mission. Propeller-driven planes are designated by single-syllabic words (e.g. "Bear"), and jets by multi-syllabic words (e.g. "Backfire"). Helicopters and guided missiles are designated similarly, but the length of a word is not defined.

Code letters:
  • A - Air-to-Air Missile
  • B - Bomber
  • C - Cargo
  • F - Fighter
  • G - Surface-to-Air Missile (including Anti-Ballistic Missiles)
  • H - Helicopter
  • K - Air-to-Surface Missile
  • M - Miscellaneous (all aircraft not included in other categories)
  • S - Surface-to-Surface Missile
Variants of aircraft and missiles are designated by suffix letters, for example "Bear-A" ("I" and "O" are not used). Small updates are designated "Mod." and Roman numeral suffixes, for example "Bear-F Mod.IV". Sometimes a variant is designated by adding the word "Modified", but only two examples are known: "Badger-C Modified" and "Badger-G Modified". More recently, subtypes of a variant are sometimes designated by adding numerical suffixes, like in "Fulcrum-A2" or "Foxbat-B5". Yet another method to designate subtypes is the suffix "variant n", where n starts from 1. An example is "Flanker-E variant 1" and "Flanker-E variant 2".

The code naming system was originally used for Soviet types only, but was later also used for Chinese aircraft and missiles.

1.2 DOD Designations for Missiles

This system differs radically from the NATO one, and is slightly similar to the American joint missile designation system of 1947. Designations consist of an alphabetic code and a sequential model number.

Code letters:
  • AA - Air-to-Air Missile
  • ABM - Anti-Ballistic Missile
  • AS - Air-to-Surface Missile
  • AT - Anti-Tank Missile
  • DR - Drone
  • FRAS - Unguided ASW Rocket ("Free Rocket Anti-Submarine")
  • FROG - Unguided Artillery Rocket ("Free Rocket Over Ground")
  • SA - Surface-to-Air Missile
  • SA-N - Naval Surface-to-Air Missile
  • SL - Space Booster ("Space Launcher")
  • SS - Surface-to-Surface Missile
  • SSC - Surface-to-Surface Missile (Navy, Coastal Defence)
  • SS-N - Naval Surface-to-Surface Missile
  • SUW-N - Naval Surface-to-Underwater Missile

Source: http://www.designation-systems.net/non-us/soviet.html#_System_NATO

As you can see all codes with N refer to Naval
 
Last edited:
With all due respect Senior Chief you are wrong.

According to NATO reporting names for missiles - code SS-N – means "Naval Surface-to-Surface Missile".



Source: http://www.designation-systems.net/non-us/soviet.html#_System_NATO

As you can see all codes with N refer to Naval

I see what you are saying, but during my life as an EW the N was added to designate Nuclear.

I have a hard time changing something that was a part of my life for 28 years.

My specialty was intercepting signals soviet ships and knowing what weapons systems they could employ against us.

Keep telling me I'm wrong if you like, I stand by my statements.
 
as i dont think any more sources can be given, i suppose that we will have to agree to disagree Senior Chief.
 
Senior Chief + Venom

The truth is you are both right. For some reason, NATO doesnt always follow its own naming scheme. Cheif is right to say 'N' denotes nuclear, but 'N' is also used by NATO to denote Naval. All russian anti-ship missiles are denoted with SS-N-X although not all those missiles are nuclear capable. Some are and some arn't. To add th the confusion all Russian SAMS are designated SA-N-X with the the 'N' also can be confused with nuclear.

I'll stop now, this subject is hurting my head...

I wouldnt be too concerned about Iran using a nuclear tipped bird. Even IF they managed to complete their WMD program they would them have to adapt a warhead to fit the Sunburn, which would be a rather lengthy process.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top