Iran threatens to block Strait of Hormuz

#2
Surely this is a job for SEA HARRIER!

I summon Yokel to bore the Iranians sensless with whatever shite he currently wants to post on this subject...
 
#5
Meh.
 
#7
On the Beltway, down in Langley, in every neo-con and rabidly right wing senator's office, there are fervent prayers going up for
Iran to actually blockade an international waterway.
In Israel, that nice Mr Netanyahu will already be poring over strike plans, confident that O'Bama will not release the 5th Fleet's
assets but that he can launch a pre-emptive strike, knowing that there will not be the usual world-wide cries of condemnation.
Oh boy, did ever Armoureddinnerjacket and his boys ever misread the runes.
China, India and (I think) Brazil will be a little put out that their main source of oil and gas is intent on immolation,
but Russia and Iran will already be looking at new markets, just as the US will be making bestest mates with Libya.
But on the other hand.... it could just be the usual Iranian pomp and delusion getting an airing.
 
#8
Surely this is a job for SEA HARRIER!

I summon Yokel to bore the Iranians sensless with whatever shite he currently wants to post on this subject...
Well you have to admit this is an instance in which access to a dozen or so Sea Jets might actually be handy.
 
#13
For doing what perxactly?
Flying around shooting at Iranians. Small surface combatants, shore batteries and a second/third rate AF as opposition should have seen the SHAR right at home.
 
#15
Well you have to admit this is an instance in which access to a dozen or so Sea Jets might actually be handy.

There are a very considerable amount of airfields down the Gulf coast that could accommodate strike aircraft to enable a 24 CAP over the Strait. Plus I really don't think the Yanks won't be putting a carrier close to. In fact, don't they have one there permanently based out of Bahrain ?
 
#17
There are a very considerable amount of airfields down the Gulf coast that could accommodate strike aircraft to enable a 24 CAP over the Strait. Plus I really don't think the Yanks won't be putting a carrier close to. In fact, don't they have one there permanently based out of Bahrain ?
No arguments.

But I'd still have thought the types of engagement likely there to have been the SHAR's forte. In the same way as the Libya op. wasn't.
 
#19
I'm sure that a couple of SAMs would make the SHAR jockeys day a bit more lively too, and they would be well within range from land.
Going to be the same deal for any air we use.

It's fine being cynical about other folks wee strops (OH NOES! Without SHAR we iz doomed!!1!) and I do think that there's been a lot of crap talked about their defunking.

However, there are times when sea portable fast air might be handy and I reckon any argy with the 'Ranians is one of them.
It's certainly hard to argue that we'd be any better off without them.
 
#20
Flying around shooting at Iranians. Small surface combatants, shore batteries and a second/third rate AF as opposition should have seen the SHAR right at home.
As against the huge **** off sized USS John C Stennis and her battlegroup with shedloads of very modern, very fast and very wizzy F/A-18's that are currently sunning themselves out there?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top