Does Iran have the capability to sink a US carrier

Provided the Americans don't shoot back, Ireland has that capability, although the ships may have to go back to base to reload first.

Warships are generally more difficult to sink than other ships. The bigger the ship, the harder it is to sink.

Assuming that American and their allies' bases in the region remain available, there is no particular need for American aircraft carriers to operate in the Persian Gulf.

Iran is capable of sinking American ships, although it would require a combination of (a) surprise (b) overwhelming application of force (c) the willingness to take severe (if not profound) losses in the attack and in consequent retaliation.

A combination of mines, torpedoes, anti-ship missiles, gun boats and land-based artillery could do it. However, to even sink a destroyer / cruiser, much of the Iran's naval capability would be lost. I'm not sure that Iran would want that.

If the Mr Amabinlinerjab and his forces tried to sink an American ship, you'd be able to stand outside the Ormond in Greystones and see Tehran as a glow in the night sky.

tac

archer22 wrote: »

Yes they could sink a Carrier..they have Sunburn anti ship missile..this is Russian design travels at Mach 2.2 and takes evasive action in flight making it very difficult and maybe impossible to defend against.It can be launched from mobile launch pads on land,from gunboats aircraft or submarines.It is estimated that 5 of those missiles would be required to sink an Aircraft carrier.They are precise enough to take a carrier apart section by section.Iran may have other new generation missiles such as the Chinese Dong Feng 21D ballistic anti ship missile speed Mach 10 :eek: although its unlikely Iran has this..but who knows China keeps its military sales very secret.Anyhow if I was on an American Aircraft carrier in the Gulf at war with Iran..I would not sleep well.BTW it was an Iranian old generation C802 missile that Hezbollah used to cripple the Israeli corvette of the coast of Lebanon in 2006 and dont believe the Israeli BS that the corvette had its anti Missiles defences turned off...the missile got through but was slightly deflected which is why the ship survived being sunk there and then.

The newest aircraft carrier the us had was something like over 6 billion dollars, you dont spend that amount of money on somthing unless it is very very hard to destory.

It will be interesting to see the ford class carriers once they come online.

Geekness1234 wrote: »

First of all,it wouldn't need to be in the straits at all. A Carrier Battle Group (CBG) has the ability for its aircraft to carry out combat operations with a combat radius of 500 nautical miles (926 KM),depending on mission loading.

This is a mere assertion, not fact and is contrary to the stated scenario. If it is carrying out operations in the upper gulf, it would need to be.

The location of a carrier is a VERY well kept secret with only a few privy to that knowledge.

Not quite, when everyone on the beach can see it. http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=straits+of+hormuz&hl=en&ll=26.649914,57.23053&spn=1.283824,2.469177&sll=51.586204,-0.200033&sspn=0.110712,0.308647&vpsrc=6&hnear=Strait+of+Hormuz&t=m&z=9

That would be one of the requirements for a sustained Iranian attack.

No, a sustained attack would mean the excessive dissipation of force. It would need to be very coordinated with a near perfect time on target calculation - a crescendo attack.

Air strikes are ruled out completely due to the E-2C hawk eye's early warning systems.

All that would do is warn of an attack, however, with modern Russian missiles like P-270 Moskit (if available to Iran, they are only confirmed to have the P-80 Zubr / P-100 Oniks version), that could be as short as 30-60 seconds. It would take other forces to prevent an attack.

But,if you combine the capabilities of the Carrier air wing, Saudi Arabian air force,Bahrain,Oman as well as U.S. Army short range missiles you can destroy ports,depots etc and harass Iranian forces enough to make attacking hard.

There is no guarantee that the other states would participate in a war and further, not guaranteed that they would participate from the start.

Delancey wrote: »

Take for example the USS Oriskany ... took almost 30 minutes to sink.

Sunk is sunk.

Using a nuclear tipped weapon is an entirely different matter............

But Iran doesn't have a nuclear capability.

tac foley wrote: »

If the Mr Amabinlinerjab and his forces tried to sink an American ship, you'd be able to stand outside the Ormond in Greystones and see Tehran as a glow in the night sky.

Wouldn't this justify Iranian paranoia?

Jonny7 wrote: »

Hypothetically if the Iranians concentrated everything on taking out the carrier, which method would (relatively) be the most effective? (their new anti-ship missiles?)

They would need to launch several hundred missiles in the space of a few minutes to be guaranteed hits.

Unfortunately for them, they can't match the Americans in high technology. Neither can they match them in mid-level technology. Only with massive numbers and the consequent low technology do they have any hope of success. One of their stated aims is to acquire 7,000 speed boats and put a tonne of explosive on each.

In case of an Israeli pre-emptive strike similar to the attack on the Osirak reactor in Iraq what kind of damage could Iranian forces inflict on US naval or Israeli airforce in such a hypothetical situation..

Their best hope of success would be against individual USN ships or against fixed bases, e.g. using ballistic missiles against bases in Bahrain or Kuwait.

Basically, can Iran realistically inflict military damage on the US or Israel in the region?

Yes, whether they can inflict 'equal' damage is another matter.

archer22 wrote: »

Yes they could sink a Carrier..they have Sunburn anti ship missile..this is Russian design travels at Mach 2.2 and takes evasive action in flight making it very difficult and maybe impossible to defend against.It can be launched from mobile launch pads on land,from gunboats aircraft or submarines.It is estimated that 5 of those missiles would be required to sink an Aircraft carrier.

This seems to be down to confusion between the P-270 Moskit and the P-80 Zubr / P-100 Oniks. They do not appear to have the more capable missile.

They are precise enough to take a carrier apart section by section.

Nor really. Are they issued with wrenches and blow torches?

Iran may have other new generation missiles such as the Chinese Dong Feng 21D ballistic anti ship missile speed Mach 10 :eek: although its unlikely Iran has this..but who knows China keeps its military sales very secret.

If China doesn't have many, they won't be selling them.

Anyhow if I was on an American Aircraft carrier in the Gulf at war with Iran..I would not sleep well.BTW it was an Iranian old generation C802 missile that Hezbollah used to cripple the Israeli corvette of the coast of Lebanon in 2006 and dont believe the Israeli BS that the corvette had its anti Missiles defences turned off...the missile got through but was slightly deflected which is why the ship survived being sunk there and then.

There is a whole lot of difference between one unsuspecting corvette and an entire battle group that can shoot down hundreds of missiles.

archer22 wrote: »

Yes but advances in Missile technology by Russia and China was unforseen and have taken everybody by surprise.Some experts think that aircraft carriers will soon (if not already) be obsolete and a liabilty in war against advanced Nations.

When was the last time any of them faced off directly, in anything more than a skirmish? Nearly 70 years ago?

It is interesting to note that China is not very enthusiastic about building Aircraft Carriers other than having a few basic ones.They currently dont seem to think Carriers are worth wasting a fortune on.Looks like the carriers day is coming to an end.

Odd, that the Chinese have just finished one then.

Remember the USS Cole?

your forgetting that there would be many willing volunteers in Iran for a suicide mission
on a small speedboat filled to the rafters with plastic explosive.

I must however point out that Iranians arent as fundamental as there made out to be and have never been involved in suicide bombing.
In fact They arent even arabs, They are Persians. A distinction thats usually overlooked by the US media.

This imo would be the threat most feared by the US Navy.

Anyways even if they did manage a suicide run the damage would be limited. But the PR and images would result in a victory of sorts.

Anyways i doubt hostilities will ever come to pass. Like them or not the Iranians have shown themselves to be shrewd operators on the diplomatic front. You need only look at how they played Jimmy Carter with the US Embassy hostages.
They can play the erratic aggressor and yet be very good on the diplomatic front.

Despite his crazy rants Ahmadinejad is a clever puppet of the regime. The regime know that they will lose and lose badly in any hostilities.

The trouble for the west is how to appease them without giving them a free hand at building nukes cause once they have them they are virtually immune to attack.

I know this is more of a political critique then a military one.

twinytwo wrote: »

The carrier will be around for the forseeable future, they allow a projection of force anywhere on the planet,

Many parts of the world, not all.

archer22 wrote: »

None as far as I know..certainly none that are proven. The missiles high speed and erratic flight will make it incredibly difficult to stop

Likewise, it has sunk nothing to date.

and given that the Dong Feng has now appeared,Future is not looking too good at the moment for American naval dominance.

Maybe, maybe not. But irrelevant to the scenario at hand.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Aegis, RIM-116 and Mk15.

And RIM-162 ESSM which means a single cruiser can can hundreds of SAMs.

delly wrote: »

How about another take on it, how close would an Iranian civil airline get before the US took it out? Iran Air Flight 655 having happened before would they would have to be 110% sure of its intent, but I assume they could leave it to the last minute to destroy the plane yet still ensure it didn't end up on the flightdeck.

Remember September 11?

Realistically, an aircraft attacking an aircraft carrier and one on a civilian flight will have a very different flight profile, something lost on the USS Vincennes captain.

archer22 wrote: »

and even if they could manage to shoot a few single missiles there is still the issue of a mass launch of the missiles.

And that's what AEGIS ships are for. What they can't shoot down, they and other ships will absorb to protect the carrier.

skelliser wrote: »

Remember the USS Cole?

your forgetting that there would be many willing volunteers in Iran for a suicide mission
on a small speedboat filled to the rafters with plastic explosive.

I must however point out that Iranians arent as fundamental as there made out to be and have never been involved in suicide bombing.

In general.

However, there were many suicide-type missions in the Iran-Iraq War with 'mine clearance by foot'.

In fact They arent even arabs,

Who mentioned Arabs?

This imo would be the threat most feared by the US Navy.

That they might be Arabs?

Anyways even if they did manage a suicide run the damage would be limited. But the PR and images would result in a victory of sorts.

A tonne of HE can ruin your whole day, week, month, year ...

skelliser wrote: »

I must however point out that Iranians arent as fundamental as there made out to be and have never been involved in suicide bombing.

Do a quick google for "Iran-Iraq war suicide brigade". I don't need to say any more, and you'll never say the above again because it's patently false.

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Mines,Mines, mines and more mines. Even if the carrier fleet is nowhere near the Persian Gulf the havoc caused by drifting mines in a busy shipping lane should give the US government a headache.

It'd do more than that. It'd p1ss off a lot of countries, not just the US. The highlighted bit in your quote is my emphasis.