Does Iran have the capability to sink a US carrier

Jonny7

Any experts here on this?

If a US carrier were in the straits (Hormez) during the outbreak of a conflict in the region involving Iran - would the Iranians with their current capabilities be able to sink it?

If they were able to sink or severely damage - what would their most effective weapon be? anti-ship missiles, small fast craft, etc?

cheers

Victor

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.

Geekness1234

Jonny7 wrote: »

Any experts here on this?

If a US carrier were in the straits (Hormez) during the outbreak of a conflict in the region involving Iran - would the Iranians with their current capabilities be able to sink it?

If they were able to sink or severely damage - what would their most effective weapon be? anti-ship missiles, small fast craft, etc?

cheers

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.

The location of a carrier is a VERY well kept secret with only a few privy to that knowledge.That would be one of the requirements for a sustained Iranian attack.
Air strikes are ruled out completely due to the E-2C hawk eye's early warning systems.
Their most effective weapon would be all of them.They would seek to overwhelm the systems on board the escourt ships by sheer weight of numbers.
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.

tac foley

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

twinytwo

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.

tac

What he said.... if they even tried america would wipe iran off the map.

Delancey

The short answer is No , in the unlikely event of an Iranian missile strike penetrating a carriers screening force of cruisers and destroyers and then avoiding being shot down by the carriers own anti missile defence systems it would be nescessary to score multiple hits to have the remotest chance of sinking a Nimitz class carrier.
These ships are double-hulled with huge inbuilt redundancy - I would never be so arrogant as to describe any ship as unsinkable but modern US carriers come close.

Take for example the USS Oriskany which is now the worlds biggest artificial reef - that was sunk by 16 explosive charges detonating simultaneously , hatches were left open and bulkheads removed to facilitate flooding as well as large holes cut in the side of the ship , despite these measures and the fact that Oriskany was a WW2 era vessel ( albeit modified ) it took almost 30 minutes to sink.
US carriers are built to absorb huge punishment.

At the very most an Iranian attack may serve to hamper flight operations but sinking is very unlikely.

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

Jonny7

thanks, even if answers are slightly conflicting

If there was a carrier actually present in the Straits, and for whatever reason conflict broke out..

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

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..

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

Manic Moran

They pass through the straits every now and then, there's no hiding the carrier when that happens.

Theoretically, yes, the carrier could then be sunk in a surprise attack, though more likely it would just suffer significant damage. However, the Iranians would have to make a determined effort, be very good, fairly lucky, and there would have to be some failings on the US Navy side. Submarine laying mines would be the best bet, if I were the Iranians.

NTM

johngalway

Manic Moran wrote: »

Submarine laying mines would be the best bet, if I were the Iranians.

NTM

I don't suppose there's such a thing as a nuclear sea mine? Or does the fact of a nuclear weapon being underwater render it, not useless, but a waste of a nuclear device?

Delancey

johngalway wrote: »

I don't suppose there's such a thing as a nuclear sea mine? Or does the fact of a nuclear weapon being underwater render it, not useless, but a waste of a nuclear device?

Quite the opposite in fact. The destructive power of a nuclear device ( regarding sinking ships ) is greatly enhanced by being underwater.

In the first post war nuclear test at Bikini Atoll the US moored a fleet of old/captured vessels and dropped an atomic bomb on them - there was considerable disappointment at how few ships were sunk.

For the second test ( test Baker ) they detonated an underwater device which did massive damage to the hulls of moored ships and sank more and damaged others far more severely than an above surface detonation.

Worth remembering that building a nuclear device is one thing - ' minituarizing it sufficiently for use in a mine or torpedoe is another matter.

archer22

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.

twinytwo

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.

archer22

twinytwo wrote: »

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.

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.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.

Victor

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.

twinytwo

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.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.

The carrier will be around for the forseeable future, they allow a projection of force anywhere on the planet, America is just one of the few countries that can actually afford to build/run them.

In terms of waging "war" it is an invaluable tool

Jonny7

Is there any answer to the latest sunburn anti-ship missiles?

Besides taking out the launcher of course.

archer22

Jonny7 wrote: »

Is there any answer to the latest sunburn anti-ship missiles?

Besides taking out the launcher of course.

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

archer22

twinytwo wrote: »

The carrier will be around for the forseeable future, they allow a projection of force anywhere on the planet, America is just one of the few countries that can actually afford to build/run them.

In terms of waging "war" it is an invaluable tool

The Carrier may be an invaluable tool,but if its sunk its sunk and the game is changed for ever.You are correct that America can afford to build and run them..but then its because of their cost that Russia and China looked for a cheaper answer to the issue and developed the missiles that can destroy them.It makes good sense to be able to destroy your enemies weapon costing billions with your weapon costing only millions.Anyhow today China can afford to build carriers but so far has only bought an old one to refurbish..and it is probably because of their knowledge of anti ship missiles that they are unenthusiastic about carriers.

Manic Moran

Is there any answer to the latest sunburn anti-ship missiles?

Aegis, RIM-116 and Mk15.

Sunburn isn't new, the US Navy has been testing against supersonic drones for quite some time, to include Kh.31 missiles bought from Russia. Sunburn is replicated in exercises by the GQM-163A "Coyote", which pulls 11g maneuvers at Mach 2.5 and about 45 feet above the surface. And it's a smaller target than Sunburn.

NTM

delly

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.

archer22

Manic Moran wrote: »

Aegis, RIM-116 and Mk15.

Sunburn isn't new, the US Navy has been testing against supersonic drones for quite some time, to include Kh.31 missiles bought from Russia. Sunburn is replicated in exercises by the GQM-163A "Coyote", which pulls 11g maneuvers at Mach 2.5 and about 45 feet above the surface. And it's a smaller target than Sunburn.

NTM

They have still never shot down a Sunburn..and even if they could manage to shoot a few single missiles there is still the issue of a mass launch of the missiles.The Israeli corvette hit by the C802 off Lebanon had state of the art missile defences and failed to stop that older generation missile.Anyhow there is no proof that a Sunburn can be shot down only a hope that it can.

skelliser

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.

Manic Moran

archer22 wrote: »

They have still never shot down a Sunburn..

And Sunburn has never sunk a live target.

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

True, but again, look back at what Aegis was designed to stop in the first place.

The Israeli corvette hit by the C802 off Lebanon had state of the art missile defences and failed to stop that older generation missile.

Having the toggle switch of the defences set to 'off' probably will fail to stop an older missile no matter how advanced those defences are. That was simple human foolishness, not a technological issue.

Anyhow there is no proof that a Sunburn can be shot down only a hope that it can.

If Sunburn is a Mach 2+ missile capable at flying a few meters above the sea whilst maneuvering evasively, and Coyote is a Mach 2+ missile capable at flying a few meters above the sea whilst maneuvering evasively which was specifically designed to replicate Sunburn, there is a very good chance that if you can shoot down Coyote, you can shoot down Sunburn.

NTM

Victor

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 ...

archer22

Manic Moran wrote: »

And Sunburn has never sunk a live target.



True, but again, look back at what Aegis was designed to stop in the first place.



Having the toggle switch of the defences set to 'off' probably will fail to stop an older missile no matter how advanced those defences are. That was simple human foolishness, not a technological issue.



If Sunburn is a Mach 2+ missile capable at flying a few meters above the sea whilst maneuvering evasively, and Coyote is a Mach 2+ missile capable at flying a few meters above the sea whilst maneuvering evasively which was specifically designed to replicate Sunburn, there is a very good chance that if you can shoot down Coyote, you can shoot down Sunburn.

NTM

I doubt very much that the Israeli corvette had its defences "turned off" in a war zone,most experts believe the way the missile hit suggests it was partly deflected.However easier for Israel to say it was human error than admit it was a systems failure.And remember many of Saddams scuds got through Israels patriot defences and hit Tel Aviv and also I remember one getting though and hitting American soldiers in Kuwait I think.The Scud should be a relatively easy missile to stop compared to a much smaller low flying faster ASM.In spite of all the hype anti missile defences are not as effective as often claimed.

Manic Moran

archer22 wrote: »

I doubt very much that the Israeli corvette had its defences "turned off" in a war zone,most experts believe the way the missile hit suggests it was partly deflected.

The missile homed in on the helicopter on the deck, which makes a bit of sense as the ship was designed with a low RCS in mind, but helicopters tend not to be.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/panel-faults-navy-commanders-in-missile-boat-strike-1.201640

However easier for Israel to say it was human error than admit it was a systems failure.

Is it? You really think it is less embarassing for them to say "We had a complete intelligence failure, the few warnings we had were ignored, and we were overconfident about the enemy's lack of capability"?

And remember many of Saddams scuds got through Israels patriot defences and hit Tel Aviv and also I remember one getting though and hitting American soldiers in Kuwait I think.The Scud should be a relatively easy missile to stop compared to a much smaller low flying faster ASM.

On the contrary, they are substantially harder, for two reasons. Firstly, the things are far faster, with velocities in excess of Mach 5. Secondly, in order to kill an ASM, you just need to destroy its ability to fly. Damage the engine, damage a wing, a control system, whatever, and it is no longer a threat, it will fall out of the sky and into the sea. A ballistic missile, however, is already falling out of the sky, hitting the missile will do pretty much nothing for you. You must be accurate enough to hit the warhead, otherwise instead of an intact missile plummetting from the sky, you have a damaged missile plummetting from the sky. Such accuracy is a relatively recent achievement.

So from that, the other issue is that the Patriots at the time were not really designed to be capable against ballistic missiles which is why they were only marginally effective in 1991. On rare occasions they'd hit the warhead, but more often than not, their effect was psychological. But then, so was that of the Scud more often than not, so it worked out.

In spite of all the hype anti missile defences are not as effective as often claimed.

Modern defences have not really been given a proper test yet.

NTM

tac foley

All these 'what-ifs' are moot.

If Iran attacks a carrier, by any means available to it, including suicide speedboats, that will be a declaration of war, and retaliation from the USA, let alone the USN, will be near instant and overwhelming. For a start, within ~10 minutes, Iran could be at the receiving end of around 100 cruise missiles from the other ship/subs in the carrier group alone, let alone the aircraft that may or may not be available to fly off the damaged carrier. If any of you had paid attention to my previous post, you'll notice that the USN flies off every available plane - every time.

All-fired up and loaded.

Every single piece of Iranian hardware above ground, and their locations, has its very own personal target numbered coordinates, as do many below ground as well.

Make a copy of what Bandar Abbas looks like on Google Earth pretty soon - that way you just might have something to remember it by.

Sure the Chinese and the Rooshians have given the Iranians some cool pieces of kit, but neither the Chinese nor the Rooshians actually wants a stand-up war with the USA, which is what Iran is likely to get.

Paraphrasing the words of a well-known Japanese military man the day after Pearl Harbour - bear-poking might be fun, until you actually hit the bear on the nose.

tac

Lemming

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

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.

Lemming

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.

Jonny7

Victor wrote: »

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

sweet jesus.. they'll absorb? How exactly?

Those missiles apparently fly at mach 2.5, they aren't small either, the kinetic energy must be insane.

From all the replies it seems that the damage Iran could do to the US navy would appear to be quite limited
I've heard/read military experts say that Iran would most likely retaliate (e.g if Israel pre-emptively attacked nuclear facilities) by hitting "soft" targets.
Oil depots, resources, shipping, rather than take on the US/Israel military in any direct form.

Disclaimer - I in no way support war against Iran, I am just so far out of the loop concerning its current military capabilities/options.

johngalway

Jonny7 wrote: »

sweet jesus.. they'll absorb? How exactly?

Presumably they will navigate themselves between the carrier and the incoming threats. Not sure how these missiles are being guided but there are some methods that can be employed to make small ships look like big ships and hopefully confuse the missiles - as well as shooting down as many of the buggers as possible.

tac foley

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

Sir - I think that you are ignoring the overwhelming dominance of America in EVERYTHING else. If Mr Wackybaccajamabad sics one on their carriers, or anything else, he and his country are going to be in a world of pain.

Given the present US dominance in things naval [just pointing out that the US Navy is five times bigger than the nearest competitor by numbers, and twelve times bigger by nuclear carriers alone] I think that you are overly concerned about the unlikelihood of it continuing that way. One and a half USN carriers'-worth of combat aircraft is bigger than the entire Iranian airforce.

One thing is certain, by the end of Day 1 Iran will not have a warship that is not a submarine, or likely an aircraft that is fit for anything except recycling into Coke cans.

tac

Victor

tac foley wrote: »

All these 'what-ifs' are moot.

If Iran attacks a carrier, by any means available to it, including suicide speedboats, that will be a declaration of war,

If you read the scenario again:

Jonny7 wrote: »

If a US carrier were in the straits (Hormez) during the outbreak of a conflict in the region involving Iran

and retaliation from the USA, let alone the USN, will be near instant and overwhelming. For a start, within ~10 minutes, Iran could be at the receiving end of around 100 cruise missiles from the other ship/subs in the carrier group alone, let alone the aircraft that may or may not be available to fly off the damaged carrier.

So you can plan a mission, brief the crews, fuel and load 50+ aircraft in 10 minutes, in narrow waters where you may or may not be able to turn the aircraft carrier into the wind, all on ship that has just been attacked and may have fires, flooding and may be leaking fuel?

Would your other ships be in the correct location to launch missiles at their targets?

If any of you had paid attention to my previous post, you'll notice that the USN flies off every available plane - every time.

No they don't. On a long distance attack mission, why would you fly off all the E-2s / C-2s / S-3s and helicopters? In any case, there would likely be few aircraft on the ship as it transits the straits - they would have been flown off beforehand.

Every single piece of Iranian hardware above ground, and their locations, has its very own personal target numbered coordinates, as do many below ground as well.

You mean like in Kosovo? Iran is 150 times the size of Kosovo, with 40 times the population.

Jonny7 wrote: »

sweet jesus.. they'll absorb? How exactly?

WQith great pain and suffering. Losing a €200m fueler or a $2bn destroyer is preferable to losing a $6-15bn aircraft carrier.

I've heard/read military experts say that Iran would most likely retaliate (e.g if Israel pre-emptively attacked nuclear facilities) by hitting "soft" targets.
Oil depots, resources, shipping, rather than take on the US/Israel military in any direct form.

Potentially. Why take the hard target, when you can take a soft one?

johngalway wrote: »

Not sure how these missiles are being guided but there are some methods that can be employed to make small ships look like big ships and hopefully confuse the missiles

Sensors and computer processing power has come a long way in the last 40 years. Relying on a single solution to counter a missile threat is naive, especially given the ability to visually identify the target by those launching the missiles.

tac foley wrote: »

Sir - I think that you are ignoring the overwhelming dominance of America in EVERYTHING else.

Except oil.

If Mr Wackybaccajamabad

Name-calling and bigotry against one's opponent merely tends to gain them sympathy and brand you as a bully.

One and a half USN carriers'-worth of combat aircraft is bigger than the entire Iranian airforce.

Most likely understating things.

One thing is certain, by the end of Day 1 Iran will not have a warship that is not a submarine, or likely an aircraft that is fit for anything except recycling into Coke cans.

Again, look at the size of the country, and the size of the fleet.

Geekness1234

Why bother risk a carrier when you can use F-15C/Es with saddlebags operating out of the U.A.E.?

tac foley

@Victor - cruise missiles are not launched from aircraft, but from ships and submarines. Any military force worth its pay is going to have all pre-selected targets ready to download into the missile and ready to fire.

Neither ships nor submarines need be in any particular orientation to fire a cruise missile. IIRC from the last time I saw one launched, they go straight up in the air and then sort themselves out - that's what we pay all that money for.

In any event, are you suggesting that a USN carrier battle group would enter the SoH unprepared?

tac

Incidentally, how did the 'mad' face appear? I certainly did not put it there. Did you?

tac foley

Victor wrote: »

...Again, look at the size of the country, and the size of the fleet.

Sir - the fleet in in the water, and the water is the Persian Gulf.

tac

westdub

tac foley wrote: »

@Victor - cruise missiles are not launched from aircraft, but from ships and submarines.

Really??

To further improve the B-52's offensive ability, Air Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCMs) were fitted.[93] After testing of both the Air Force-backed Boeing AGM-86 and the Navy-backed General Dynamics AGM-109 Tomahawk, the AGM-86B was selected for operation by the B-52 (and ultimately by the B-1 Lancer).[94] A total of 194 B-52Gs and Hs were modified to carry AGM-86s, carrying 12 missiles on underwing pylons, with 82 B-52Hs further modified to carry another eight missiles on a rotary launcher fitted in the aircraft's bomb-bay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress

westdub

Geekness1234 wrote: »

Why bother risk a carrier when you can use F-15C/Es with saddlebags operating out of the U.A.E.?

Because the U.A.E. would not want to get involved and would not let the U.S. operate from their soil to attack Iran...

tac foley

westdub wrote: »

Really??



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress

I could be wrong here, but I don't think that a carrier battle group has B-52s with it.

We ARE talking about a carrier battle group, aren't we?

tac

Victor

tac foley wrote: »

@Victor - cruise missiles are not launched from aircraft, but from ships and submarines. Any military force worth its pay is going to have all pre-selected targets ready to download into the missile and ready to fire.

Sure, but if a particular set of missiles are targeted at somewhere in northern Iran, but are aboard a ship still in the Gulf of Oman, whatever about range, your time on target is going to be a bit off.

Neither ships nor submarines need be in any particular orientation to fire a cruise missile.

Well, the submarine is going to need to be at a shallow depth and away from potential adversaries. Both would like to be somewhere where the missiles can't be easily intercepted during launch and they won't interfere with air operations.

Incidentally, how did the 'mad' face appear? I certainly did not put it there. Did you?

No. I can't edit your posts. When posting, you must have pressed one of the icons under the "Message" box.

tac foley wrote: »

Sir - the fleet in in the water, and the water is the Persian Gulf.

Indeed, but your tasking order will be listed from highest priority to lowest.
Highest priority would be nuclear facilities and air defences.

archer22

tac foley wrote: »

Sir - I think that you are ignoring the overwhelming dominance of America in EVERYTHING else. If Mr Wackybaccajamabad sics one on their carriers, or anything else, he and his country are going to be in a world of pain.

Given the present US dominance in things naval [just pointing out that the US Navy is five times bigger than the nearest competitor by numbers, and twelve times bigger by nuclear carriers alone] I think that you are overly concerned about the unlikelihood of it continuing that way. One and a half USN carriers'-worth of combat aircraft is bigger than the entire Iranian airforce.

One thing is certain, by the end of Day 1 Iran will not have a warship that is not a submarine, or likely an aircraft that is fit for anything except recycling into Coke cans.

tac

One thing America does not have dominance is missile technology.And if Sunburn and DF21D prove to be even half as good as they are reckoned to be Americas global reach is neutralised and while America would still be powerful but only within its own borders.Projecting military power around the globe has its achilles heel and that is the ships that project it.If Sunburn and DF21D live up to their promise...for America it will be like the bottom card being pulled out of their stack.

archer22

Iran's 1500 + torpedo and missile speedboats are a deadly and underestimated threat to any foreign naval force in the confined spaces of the gulf and shows that Iran is "thinking outside the box" if they had invested in warships they would have all their assets in a few easily neutralised units and they would be in the position of a Wolf fighting a Lion and we know how that would end! but using this vast armoury of small boats is akin to a Hornets nest fighting a Lion and no Lion will stand that for long.

Jeboa Safari

westdub wrote: »

Because the U.A.E. would not want to get involved and would not let the U.S. operate from their soil to attack Iran...

This might be a stupid question, is there much chance they'd attack countries like Bahrain or the UAE and try and take out buildings like the Burj Khalifa? Would it be worth their while? Would certainly be symbolic

Lemming

archer22 wrote: »

Iran's 1500 + torpedo and missile speedboats are a deadly and underestimated threat to any foreign naval force in the confined spaces of the gulf and shows that Iran is "thinking outside the box" if they had invested in warships they would have all their assets in a few easily neutralised units and they would be in the position of a Wolf fighting a Lion and we know how that would end! but using this vast armoury of small boats is akin to a Hornets nest fighting a Lion and no Lion will stand that for long.

You are assuming that Iran has the ability to maintain & launch a mass force in one go, or that it can project mass force in one go and not waves. You are also assuming that a foreign force wouldn't spot a build-up coming from a long way off. If the US has a carrier group in the straits, or even contemplating the straits you can bet your "bottom card from the stack" that they have satellites keeping a constant eye on the area beforehand. Next up, you're assuming that there are 1500 crews all ready to plunge headlong into certain death in one go, or that if there are, watching overwhelming annihilation of comrades before even getting a shot off will not have a very severe effect on morale, or that the amount of smoke & wreckage that would ensue wouldn't cloud the ability of follow up forces to aim with any degree of accuracy before being mown down. You are also neglecting to consider how quickly a carrier could launch aircraft (both fixed & rotary wing) in addition to air units scrambled from neighbouring countries bases.

You are also neglecting to look at one very important strategic factor. Iran would not be willing to sacrifice 1500+ boats in one sitting, nor all the crews, nor all the time, money, & effort it would take in replacing loses in both material & manpower. No country would. That's on top of missing the obvious that would be naval facilities being reduced to rubble long before they even got orders placed, courtesy of some B52 & B2 bombers loaded with 2000lb bombs, or if the USAF is feeling adventurous they'll load up some MOAB to experiment with.

In short, Iran would take an absolute pummelling for little, if any, short term gains made in the water. And even less at a geo-political level other than find themselves in an open state of war with a far, far larger and far better equipped & trained armed force. The US wouldn't need to invade Iran, simply reduce its IRG facilities to rubble (which they are more than capable of doing from the air relatively unmolested), thus weakening the state's ability to control its own population.

Victor

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Would certainly be symbolic

Surely the wrong kind of symbolic?

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

This might be a stupid question, is there much chance they'd attack countries like Bahrain or the UAE and try and take out buildings like the Burj Khalifa?

Iran and UAE are quite friendly, so I don't see something like that happening, but certainly American bases in the area can expect attacks.

Would it be worth their while?

Attacking a commercial / residential area has no military merit and can have severe political consequences.

Manic Moran

archer22 wrote: »

One thing America does not have dominance is missile technology.And if Sunburn and DF21D prove to be even half as good as they are reckoned to be Americas global reach is neutralised and while America would still be powerful but only within its own borders.Projecting military power around the globe has its achilles heel and that is the ships that project it.If Sunburn and DF21D live up to their promise...for America it will be like the bottom card being pulled out of their stack.

Logic fail, I'm afraid. There is little doubt that Sunburn and DF21D are at the top end of anti ship missile technology, but that doesn't mean that the US is behind. The reason that the US doesn't mount anything bigger than Harpoon on its ships is simply because with some 40 fast attack boats and dozen aircraft carriers, it doesn't need to.

The only country, as far as I know to have developed and deployed a sea borne anti ballistic missile is the US. (Technology also available for sale: Japan tested its fleet of Kongo destroyers against MRBMs in 2007 after their upgrades from the US). Still the best system against multiple supersonic missiles is Aegis.

The latest generations of anti ship missiles are threats to be respected. But if respected, they are not uncounterable.

NTM

Manic Moran

tac foley wrote: »

@Victor - cruise missiles are not launched from aircraft, but from ships and submarines.

Given the Royal Navy's experience at the receiving end of air launched anti ship cruise missiles that's a bit of an odd statement. Off the top of my head, such missiles include Harpoon, Exocet, Krypton and ASMP.

NTM

tac foley

Manic Moran wrote: »

Given the Royal Navy's experience at the receiving end of air launched anti ship cruise missiles that's a bit of an odd statement. Off the top of my head, such missiles include Harpoon, Exocet, Krypton and ASMP.

NTM

Dear Mr Moran - Royal Navy submarines did and can still launch cruise missiles - viz. GW1 and 2.

Your cynical thoughtful response, based on knowledge of the unfortunate experience of 30 years in the past, is taken on board.

That took place in a combat zone where there was no long-range air cover - here we are discussing an active and war-footing carrier battle group and its likely defence against such an attack, not a ship whose search radar has been turned off so that the crew can make chatty home-calls without interference.

Anyhow, I've made a few points and lost a few, so you real experts can continue your discussion without me. If it all goes tits-up, history will give us the final verdict, and in spite of the USA probably getting a bloody nose, my money remains firmly on Iran getting a total and well-earned trashing.

tac

PS - since a kind person, taking pity on me, mentioned B-52, I though you all might like to see this movie clip - and Mr Ahmedetc., if he's looking in.

http://www.fark.com/cgi/vidplayer.pl?IDLink=4632948

johngalway

Whether they have the ability or not, it seems like they don't have the stones to actually do it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/22/world/meast/us-iran-aircraft-carrier/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Victor

Manic Moran wrote: »

Given the Royal Navy's experience at the receiving end of air launched anti ship cruise missiles that's a bit of an odd statement. Off the top of my head, such missiles include Harpoon, Exocet, Krypton and ASMP.

Exocet isn't a cruise missile! It's a guided rocket! It is also the most fired anti-ship missile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Iran-Iraq_War

tac foley wrote: »

Dear Mr Moran - Royal Navy submarines did and can still launch cruise missiles - viz. GW1 and 2.

RN only started firing cruise missiles in 2001: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafalgar_class_submarine#Combat_history

johngalway wrote: »

Whether they have the ability or not, it seems like they don't have the stones to actually do it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/22/world/meast/us-iran-aircraft-carrier/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

You mean they didn't start an unnecessary war?