The British at the time of the Falklands had minimal air support (they where outnumbered in the air, but they had the advantage of better pilots, and planes that could take off closer to the combat zones, so they could fight longer, while the Argentine numerical advantage was degraded by having to operate at range), and they had anti-air and missile defenses that where not state of the art at the time. The US had then, and has now, a far more powerful navy.
Surface navies are sitting ducks against today's missile technology.
No they aren't. Which is not to say they are invulnerable. They can be sunk, but ships could always be sunk, that doesn't mean they that navies can not operate or that powerful navies can not overwhelm their opponents. Firing missiles does not guarantee a hit (missiles can miss, can malfunction, and can be shot down or spoofed with countermeasures), a hit does not equate with sinking (esp. for the larger ships) and sinking a ship does not equal defeating the force. If Iran had strategic and tactical surprised, and the US ships where in the Gulf unready for an attack, the attack could be devastating (if they pull it off well, its not just about the weapons and capabilities in general, they would also need outstanding execution and timing, and there is no reason to think that would happen), but that wouldn't be the case (except perhaps for a single ship or two), and even if it did happen, it would just invite retaliation that would destroy Iran's navy and a lot of the rest of it's capabilities. |
