Realistic deployment of aircraft...

[Donut]

In a situation where military action was to be used against Iran, what would a realistic deployment of US aircraft units look like? On the current map, Al Dhafra and Al Minhad are the two airbases in the UAE. Would US aircraft realistically deploy to these two airbases to launch air strikes against Iran or are they just to close to Iran?

 

Also, on the Persian Gulf map, where would an aircraft carrier be realistically located to conduct air strikes against Iran?

Edited July 17, 2018 by =BJM=

[Tread_Head57]

Also, on the Persian Gulf map, where would an aircraft carrier be realistically located to conduct air strikes against Iran?

 

In a shooting war vs. Iran, a U.S. carrier wouldn't be in the Gulf at all until air superiorty is achieved and complete neutralization of Iranian navy/costal missile batteries is complete. It's too precious an asset to risk in such confined waters during a war.

 

During the Iraq wars, US carriers were in the Gulf, but the threat was much less than Iran with all that Gulf coastline.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

complete neutralization of Iranian navy/costal missile batteries

And, a complete mine-sweep of the area:

https://news.usni.org/2012/07/17/iranian-mines-strait-hormuz-not-showstoppers

 

 

Something like this also happened in the '80s, with the "Tanker War" and Operation Earnest Will.

[QuiGon]

In a situation where military action was to be used against Iran, what would a realistic deployment of US aircraft units look like? On the current map, Al Dhafra and Al Minhad are the two airbases in the UAE. Would US aircraft realistically deploy to these two airbases to launch air strikes against Iran or are they just to close to Iran?

Both bases are currently beeing used by the US and other nations to conduct strikes against the IS in Syria and Iraq. So yes, they would probably be used for a war against Iran as well.

 

Al Dhafra AB is used especially by the french ("Camp de la Paix") and US air forces, while Minhad AB is beeing used by Commonwealth forces (UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) and has also been used by the dutch and italien air forces.

[Bearfoot]

In a shooting war vs. Iran, a U.S. carrier wouldn't be in the Gulf at all until air superiorty is achieved and complete neutralization of Iranian navy/costal missile batteries is complete. It's too precious an asset to risk in such confined waters during a war.

 

During the Iraq wars, US carriers were in the Gulf, but the threat was much less than Iran with all that Gulf coastline.

 

That's what I was thinking. Lesson learned, with sacrifice, in the Coral Sea almost a century ago, and the Navy does not forget easily!

 

Question is then, if you want to simulate a full symmetrical peer-on-peer conflict on the PG map we have now (with maybe contesting air battle being the primary aim) is there any place for carriers at all?

[Donut]

Question is then, if you want to simulate a full symmetrical peer-on-peer conflict on the PG map we have now (with maybe contesting air battle being the primary aim) is there any place for carriers at all?

 

This is exactly what I would like to figure out. If deploying a carrier on the current PG map would be too close to Iran, then deploying aircraft to Al Minhad and Al Dhafra would be too close to Iran as well.

 

 

It seems that a realistic scenario in a war against Iran would have aircraft and carriers being deployed far off of our current PG map. Once air superiority is gained and the threat of missile attacks reaching carriers and allied bases from Iran are neutralized, then assets can be moved closer.

[Bearfoot]

This is exactly what I would like to figure out. If deploying a carrier on the current PG map would be too close to Iran, then deploying aircraft to Al Minhad and Al Dhafra would be too close to Iran as well.

 

I am no expert, but I think that the carrier and air bases have different risk profiles.

 

The carrier is a lot easier to mission-kill (would not take too much damage to force it out of the picture) and/or kill (takes a lot less damage than an air base), a lot more difficult to defend (smaller air group and anti-missile / point defenses limited to hulls in the battle group and what can be fit on them), and has a lot worse optics if it were to be lost (a US carrier going down vs a foreign air base damaged). Which is why uncertainty of location is a big part of the carrier group defense doctrine.

[Baco]

The fact is that you don´t need the Navy since you have lots of allied bases near by. You could deploy Marines and Air Force + army only...

 

The whole area is FUBAR, with india a doubtful "allied", Pakistan a declared hostile, the whole Arabian sea is a booby trap....And the cost man.. the cost! unless the cost is paid by UAE or the Saudis or both, AND Nato completely joins in you are going to be in a world of trouble, financially, strategically, tactically, logistically...

[QuiGon]

I am no expert, but I think that the carrier and air bases have different risk profiles.

 

The carrier is a lot easier to mission-kill (would not take too much damage to force it out of the picture) and/or kill (takes a lot less damage than an air base), a lot more difficult to defend (smaller air group and anti-missile / point defenses limited to hulls in the battle group and what can be fit on them), and has a lot worse optics if it were to be lost (a US carrier going down vs a foreign air base damaged). Which is why uncertainty of location is a big part of the carrier group defense doctrine.

This! One can't just take the risk level of an aircraft carrier and project it on an airbase. There are many differences between these two that lead to totally different risk assessment for the same location.

[USSInchon]

This is exactly what I would like to figure out. If deploying a carrier on the current PG map would be too close to Iran, then deploying aircraft to Al Minhad and Al Dhafra would be too close to Iran as well.

 

 

It seems that a realistic scenario in a war against Iran would have aircraft and carriers being deployed far off of our current PG map. Once air superiority is gained and the threat of missile attacks reaching carriers and allied bases from Iran are neutralized, then assets can be moved closer.

 

 

The likelihood of a Carrier Strike Group and/or an Expeditionary Strike Group being "trapped" in the Persian Gulf is high. Given that one or both groups are permanently on patrol in the region. Should such a scenario occur where Iran cuts off the Strait trapping a CSG and/or ESG in the Gulf, likely both groups would head for Bahrain. This allows them a safe port with lots of SAM and Aircraft cover from air attack plus a lot of open/shallow water to detect a threat approaching from the sea. The security of the base there would prevent an "insurgent" style attack as well. The air wings would likely deploy to Al Dhafra or similar base. Another carrier would likely operate and conduct operations form the Arabian Sea, outside of the SoH allowing it an egress to the open waters of the Indian Ocean should a withdraw be required.

[USSInchon]

Another thought too, Al Dhafra was designed as a coalition combat base. It has a lots of parking spaces, hardened shelters, taxiways and runways. It also has room to expand if needed. Abu Dhabi also has an extensive SAM network with 12 x4 Patriot launchers, and numerous HAWK batteries around the city. So in a West v Iran battle, Al Dhafra would be a major player in shore-based combat operations.

[Cik]

draw rings on the map corresponding to coastal ASHM and tactical ballistic missiles, then move everything (map permitting) outside that.

 

 

it will be a good start probably. no reason to take unnecessary risks. you can always move in closer later if desirable, after all of the threats are burning craters in the desert. keep in mind that most of these frontline tactical fighters are AAR-capable, even though no one uses that feature as DCS maps are too small. if you have to fly in from saudi, you easily can.

[firmek]

This is exactly what I would like to figure out. If deploying a carrier on the current PG map would be too close to Iran, then deploying aircraft to Al Minhad and Al Dhafra would be too close to Iran as well.

 

 

It seems that a realistic scenario in a war against Iran would have aircraft and carriers being deployed far off of our current PG map. Once air superiority is gained and the threat of missile attacks reaching carriers and allied bases from Iran are neutralized, then assets can be moved closer.

As far I read about the history of the region the reality is exactly opposite. Since the operation Desert Shield in 1990 there is generally always at least one carrier group deployed to the Gulf with maximum five carriers deployed during Desert Storm in 1991. Think that under current, peace time conditions they have a different role than during a full blown conflict like WW2.

One of the main reason of tensions between Iran and US with its allies is the constant presence of foreign Navies in the Gulf, leading to many close encounter accidents between ships/patrol boats from both sides. Many time the dispute is related to trans-passing to Iran territorial waters. Which "topology" is by the way one of the key puzzles of the region geo-politics and which for instance explain why islands like Abu-Musa or Tunb's are so important.

 

 

Just from the mission building perspective, some high level ideas:

- Al Dhafra would be the main airforce base for Blue team, focused on fighters. Thre are also quite a few AWACS and I think tankers on the google maps satellite pictures.

- Al Minhad AB is hosting CAS, strike, transport and air refueling squadrons.

- Conflict starting point could be a skirmish between US Navy and Iranian speed boats going out of control. If I understand correctly it's really difficult to pass into the Gulf through the strait without crossing into Iranian territorial waters.

- Iran rather than using air-force or ships would use the coastal batteries and missiles to attack the US navy - with quite a good chance for a success as the Gulf is a small area. I liked the comparison to a "shooting gallery" from the article linked below.

- Another idea could be a pre-emptive strike in response to Iran building up forces in the Abu Musa or Tunb islands.

- There could be some collateral damage as the region is extremely crowded with a ship traffic.

- Oman could declare neutrality and deny flying over its territory.

 

As for the Al Dhafra and Al Minhad, especially the first one and the region arround it is well protected by the Patriot and Hawk sites. Especially the Hawk sites could change their positions - should it be needed.

 

Here is quite an interesting article about the carrier groups in the Gulf https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/05/02/what-if-the-us-stopped-sending-aircraft-carriers-to-the-arabian-gulf/

 

Edit: I attached a template mission that I was working on. It shows the SAM sites location as also the squadrons - based on the generally available information. Just delete the "client" flights in order to get more or less a clean template.

Template Persian Gulf 2K 20180629.miz

Edited July 19, 2018 by firmek

[Donut]

Great discussion everyone! firmek...you are my hero! Awesome information! This is all a good starting point to come up with realistic scenarios and deployment of units.

 

 

I can see Al Minhad having USMC Hornet and KC-130 squadrons and Air Force A-10's with USAF fighters, bombers, and tankers flying from Al Dhafra. As for a carrier battle group, I will have to take a look at the missile threat rings to get an idea of where one would operate.

[Cik]

we really need iranian TEL-mounted weapons in general if we are going to do any sort of real warfare scenario justice. i'd expect realistically speaking it would be a SAM suppression/TEL hunt operation for quite a while before you started moving up anywhere, though how a planner would proceed would depend on the ultimate objective i suppose. if it's a "show of force" operation just a power demonstration (limited strikes) would be enough, but if the goal is to defang the regime or even overthrow the government obviously it'd be a much longer campaign with a far broader purview - you'd have non-aircraft assets involved more than likely, and you'd have to go after actual ground combat related equipment like tanks.

 

 

my expectation is that if there is a throwdown (past, present, future) it will be relatively limited with BLUE's objective being a return to status quo (IE, strait of hormuz freedom of navigation secured, passable with no mines everywhere and iranian power projection forces cut down enough to be less threatening) but you will have to figure out the spark and the geopolitical situation as far as who's looking for what outcome and what sort of posture that suggests for all involved.

[Yoshua]

USAF and maybe USMC aircraft of course would deploy from Al Dafrah and Minhad and then the Stennis and Tarawa would be entering the gulf from the east launching fighters and attackers.

 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Jackil]

In a situation where military action was to be used against Iran, what would a realistic deployment of US aircraft units look like? On the current map, Al Dhafra and Al Minhad are the two airbases in the UAE. Would US aircraft realistically deploy to these two airbases to launch air strikes against Iran or are they just to close to Iran?

 

Also, on the Persian Gulf map, where would an aircraft carrier be realistically located to conduct air strikes against Iran?

The answers to your questions are classified.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Jackil

[catt42]

In a situation where military action was to be used against Iran, what would a realistic deployment of US aircraft units look like? On the current map, Al Dhafra and Al Minhad are the two airbases in the UAE. Would US aircraft realistically deploy to these two airbases to launch air strikes against Iran or are they just to close to Iran?

 

Also, on the Persian Gulf map, where would an aircraft carrier be realistically located to conduct air strikes against Iran?

The answers to your questions are classified.

Correct. Us Central Command (CENTCOM) in Tampa is the regional command responsible for updating contingency plans for these kinds of what if scenarios, and the plans are highly classified for obvious reasons.

Also consider that the area in-game (UAE), even though of strategic importance for its proximity to the strait, would be probably considered as a secondary/support deployment area, for its distance to Teheran, where the bulk of Iranian strategic sites are located.

 

Inviato dal mio S2 utilizzando Tapatalk