A Letter Grade Assessment of your Scenario
2015.......Frustrated by increasingly provocative support for Hezbollah in Lebanon. On 22nd Nov the IAF undertake a deep strike on Iranian Nuclear facilities. Only 3 of the 6 aircraft reached the facility, 3 being shot down by newly upgraded Iranian S400 batteries.
In retaliation the Iranian Navy sows mines in the Straits of Hormuz, which hit a tanker and a Burke class destroyer going to investigate. Although still afloat splinters from airburst guided 155mm rounds disable the main sensors, leaving only the self contained Phalanx to defend the ship .
Warships sent to assist also end up trading shells with the shore batteries and eventually the intensity and accuracy and the threat of anti ship missiles forces the Allies ships to evacuate the crew and abandon the recovery of the ship.
The USN fires 100 Tomahawks, however of a high percent are shot down by well coordinated local air defence system of Misagh 2 and newly acquired Pantsir-S1 & Tor M1 systems.
The Allied forces decide it is necessary to take the fortified islands dominating the Straits, to suppress the shore batteries (guns & missiles), so move a assault force forward. An Iranian Kilo class lying in wait fires 6 torpedoes of which 3 hit the LHA-6 USS America. Excellent damage control saves the ship but the land assault is broken off.
I'm late to this thread, but I read it while grilling some things the other day and I dared not carry on attempting to type a response using an iPod Touch and expect the food to remain unburnt.
So let's assume you aspire to be a budding Tom Clancy.
You need to fact-check your scenario a bit if your intent is to make it a compelling possibility. I'm not trying to undermine your scenario, I'm just trying to point out some places where it falls down in plausibility.
The Israelis would never send only six aircraft against an Iranian target. For starters, Iran is further away from Israel than Iraq, and it took fourteen aircraft in the historical strike on the Iraqi Osirak reactor - eight F-16A strikers and six F-15As for air cover. Even with F-15Is (the export Strike Eagle), the US would have to turn a blind eye since the most direct and least contested path from Israel to Iran would be through Iraqi airspace. We're assuming the brief flight past Jordan and SA is somehow missed by those nations. Barring another 9/11 type event that militantly polarizes US opinion against Iran, the US could not allow this to happen without significant fallout with the more moderate Arab nations. The Israelis would have to balance spoiling the relationship with their only reliable ally in return for a one-time attack. Scenario section = D-.
The last attempt by Iran to sow mines in the Strait of Hormuz was during the Tanker Wars in the 80s. The old horned horror (contact mine) is definitely still a threat, never mind more sophisticated models. But you did not look at the geography. In order to completely close the Straits of Hormuz, Iran needs to lay a static minefield about 25 miles in width (basically from the 14 fathom line and deeper) and deep enough West into the Strait to make mine-hunting a slow affair, impacting shipping delays. This would take, by all optimistic estimates, about a dedicated week of uninterrupted seeding. In the meantime, traffic would flow through the unmined parts and nominal surveillance at tactical and strategic levels would continue, thereby increasing the chances of that activity being detected. Burkes are not expected to be in the transit lanes where mines would be most effective; they stick close to the Carrier Strike Groups because they're now part and parcel of the AAW umbrella. The CSG would not hang around the mouth of the Strait itself - it will either enter the Gulf or remain outside to conduct maritime surveillance and strike operations. Given the recent Fokker-27 flyover incident, the focus on aerial force protection is understandable, if short-sighted (full dimension force protection is paramount, not just one axis). So they're nowhere near those mined lanes. It's more likely that commercial traffic would be struck first. Also, this doesn't take into account how 155mm shells could reach that far to damage any of the Aegis facings on the destroyer - no type commander worth his/her stripes would be caught anywhere within 66% effective range of gun-based shore batteries. Good try, but needs more work. Scenario section C-.
Anti-ship batteries versus shipping traffic. Okay, that's good. The INS Hanit incident is a good example, although it was more of a one-time affair, but plausible when scaled up. What's missing from this equation is how you designate the targets for the missiles - this means active radar or more sophisticated LIDAR. Active radar means EW and suppression missions can easily locate the designators. SSM effectiveness is also reduced by the sheer clutter near the Straits - it's not a flat seascape and there are many terrain features that will confuse an ASM. You also assume this is a single-dimension threat or defense only. Additional ships would be dispatched in response to a sinking, but aircraft would be first on the scene to conduct SAR and ISR before committing slower and more vulnerable surface combatants to the rescue. Add in-theater reconsat and you have the beginnings of an ATO that shows where the hostile batteries were last located. I posit that the immediate battle occurs in the air, rather than on the surface, as naval air strikes are sent in to suppress the most threatening batteries first. If the Iranians are smart, they will have moved up their few but effective S400s to maximize damage against Western planes. Where you really stumbled is an artillery duel between ships and shore batteries. The USN retired their battlewagons and no type commander will bring his/her ship that close to shore to conduct shellfire runs (see point above). 127mm guns won't do a whole lot, especially since there's only one of them per CG/DDG. Scenario section = C-.
Before we even get to the point about where the Tomahawks are going, let's ask the first question - why are they being fired in the first place? You have to posit what the response is by the US to a perceived attack against commercial shipping. Remember, we've discounted the possibility that part of the CSG was struck by mines. So even if the merchant struck was US flagged - is the response a measured retaliation against the cause (missile shore batteries) or a wider escalation against Tehran? In order to be the latter, the US would need a mandate from the UN. However, if it's a measured retaliation to eliminate the immediate threat of SSM batteries, that's more palatable in the fuzzy world of international politics if taken as a unilateral step. I would argue that TLAM use against near targets is tactically unsound and wasteful. Remember, this is the new face of warfare. The prolifigate spending of munitions during WW2 will not be seen again. The warfighter has to think (sadly) about the cost of each major fire being used, in addition to it's effectiveness and lethality. Again, naval aviation strike makes more sense against mobile targets. Scenario section = F.
The idea that the islands between Bandar Abbas and Oman needing to be seized long-term is good. That's definitely a plausible scenario. I think you need to take into account the political aspects of America invading Arab soil - again. There will be deep sensitivity (and there is no doubt now given the continuing war in SWA) to foreign invaders, even if Iran is found to be internationally culpable in it's criminal behavior. In keeping with Naval Operations Concept 2010, it makes more sense to see if Oman or Saudi Arabia would be willing to take on the assault instead. This dovetails with the Maritime Security Cooperation concept, and is more palatable than having infidels storming the beaches. Therefore, no terrible sinking of an amphib ship. Scenario section = ehh B-.
So - your final tally:
D- = 60 = 1.0
C- = 70 = 1.5
C- = 70 = 1.5
F = 59 = 0.0
B- = 80 = 2.5
Average for scenario totality = D+ = 68 = 1.3 GPA
Just remember, this is all open-source, but you need to think harder not just about WHAT happened, but the reasons WHY, and CAN it happen. If there are big disconnects between the three, the plausibility drops way down.
