Does Iran have the capability to sink a US carrier

archer22

OS119 wrote: »

finding, and killing or driving off 100% of the Iranian SSK fleet is an impossible task - certainly upfront - however there are things you can do to just keep the buggers away from you for a certain period of time, and with an SSK you've got less time to play with.

in the event of a major naval conflict i don't doubt that at least 1 SSK is going to get the drop on at least 1 major vessel, but the USN has a significant ASW heritage, has anti-torpedo and anti-missile counter-measures fitted to pretty much every ship in the fleet, and has been looking for and tracking these boats for years.

it also has the capability to do incredible damage to the Iranian state in revenge, more than enough for that state to decide that enough is enough.

They done incredible damage to Vietnam...and still lost!.The determination and spirit of the Iranian people will be a major factor in the outcome.And another factor is the terrain of Iran which is very mountainous (also along the gulf) not flat open desert like Iraq plus Iran has a fairly large population at around 70 million.In Iraq the invaders were really only fighting 12 million Sunni section of the population.An attack on Iran will unleash a major war nothing like the attack on Iraq

enfant terrible

archer22 wrote: »

Cant understand what all the fuss is about anyhow.If Iran wants to build a nuke so what,it would more than likely bring stability to the region..same as it has elsewhere.For example wars have ceased between India and Pakistan since both became nuclear powers.Ok so Israel would lose its freedom to bully murder and steal but I guess we can learn to live with that :rolleyes:.

Because its not in the US and Israel's interest for Iran to have a nuke and if they have the capability to stop them why wouldn't they.

the_syco

archer22 wrote: »

They done incredible damage to Vietnam...and still lost!.

I think they pulled out of Vietnam due to political rather than military defeat.

As for attacking Iran, it depends if they decide to "help" a "revolution" take place, like Libya, or go half assault like they did in Iraq.

Stereomaniac

I'd imagine they pulled out of Vietnam out of embarrassment at the length of time that it had been going on and the devastation left behind by it was probably very visible at home.

archer22

the_syco wrote: »

I think they pulled out of Vietnam due to political rather than military defeat.

As for attacking Iran, it depends if they decide to "help" a "revolution" take place, like Libya, or go half assault like they did in Iraq.

Yes but the tough and determined military resistance they met led to the political defeat..if they had a quick and easy military victory there would have been a political victory.Nobody expects an impoverished third world nation to conquer the military of a superpower.But they can make it so costly and painfull that their will to continue evaporates.Iran could do the same and be victorious in that sense.I dont know if there is enough disaffected people in Iran for a revolution..I doubt it.

Victor

Alternative. Why bother attacking naval ships when they could get the same level of attention by attacking oil tankers and other shipping?

Stereomaniac

Is there civil unrest in Iran? A man told me today that the U.S had made a threat to Iran..?

archer22

Victor wrote: »

Alternative. Why bother attacking naval ships when they could get the same level of attention by attacking oil tankers and other shipping?

Thats an option at least one of last resource,and look at the problems the ragtag Somali pirates are causing in their skiffs..never mind a well equipped national navy, army and air force like the Iranians have.

old_aussie

Victor wrote: »

Alternative. Why bother attacking naval ships when they could get the same level of attention by attacking oil tankers and other shipping?

Would Iran even entertain the thought of a terrorist attack on innocent civilians just going about their daily routine.

constantg

exocet, exocet, exocet....

killing a carrier is not impossible. it IS difficult with the aegis cruisers for missile interdiction, the CIWS machine guns and missile systems on the carrier itself, but not impossible.

for what its worth i don't think a successful strike on a US navy carrier will be as part of a sustained attack. unless a carrier is a direct threat, its too much hassle to attack it unless you're actually at war with it. better to attack a few embassies or 'soft' targets in the US or europe.

also i reckon that any successful attack on a carrier will be the result of a 'lucky shot', not a massive missile barrage like soviet doctrine dictated. a lucky mine strike, perhaps a lucky missile able to evade the fleet's countermeasures or a suicide attack.

facing facts you don't need to sink the carrier to take it out of the fight, you just need to cripple it. A carrier serves one purpose only; to put a portion of the carrier airgroup, with significant offensive capabilities, several hundred miles off your native shore, thus projecting american military power. if you slow the carrier down enough through damage to ensure that they cannot conduct flight ops, then you've effectively removed the airgroup from the field. you've also opened up a hole in the carrier fleet rotation, not easily filled due to reduced numbers of carriers in the post cold war period.

archer22

old_aussie wrote: »

Would Iran even entertain the thought of a terrorist attack on innocent civilians just going about their daily routine.

To cause economic damage to their enemies.I dont believe Iran would consider it other than in a doomsday scenario.It carries great risk such as accidentaly hitting the ships of their friends like China, Russia, India etc.Saddam tried it and even ended up hitting an American warship with an Exocet.Rather embarrassing as America was giving him support at that stage.

archer22

constantg wrote: »

exocet, exocet, exocet....

killing a carrier is not impossible. it IS difficult with the aegis cruisers for missile interdiction, the CIWS machine guns and missile systems on the carrier itself, but not impossible.

for what its worth i don't think a successful strike on a US navy carrier will be as part of a sustained attack. unless a carrier is a direct threat, its too much hassle to attack it unless you're actually at war with it. better to attack a few embassies or 'soft' targets in the US or europe.

also i reckon that any successful attack on a carrier will be the result of a 'lucky shot', not a massive missile barrage like soviet doctrine dictated. a lucky mine strike, perhaps a lucky missile able to evade the fleet's countermeasures or a suicide attack.

facing facts you don't need to sink the carrier to take it out of the fight, you just need to cripple it. A carrier serves one purpose only; to put a portion of the carrier airgroup, with significant offensive capabilities, several hundred miles off your native shore, thus projecting american military power. if you slow the carrier down enough through damage to ensure that they cannot conduct flight ops, then you've effectively removed the airgroup from the field. you've also opened up a hole in the carrier fleet rotation, not easily filled due to reduced numbers of carriers in the post cold war period.

Any ship can be sunk..its some are more difficult than others.A massed missile attack combined with subs speedboats and air assault would be best bet as it may overwhelm defences.But if the Sunburn missile does prove to be immune to anti-missile defences..well then they can just take the Carriers and their support vessels apart bit by bit.

Victor

old_aussie wrote: »

Would Iran even entertain the thought of a terrorist attack on innocent civilians just going about their daily routine.

Not least that such shipping may be passing through Iranian territorial waters, a party at war is entitled to inspect shipping and deprive the enemy of contraband.

"Heave-to or else".

Separately, a warring party could probably declare an exclusion zone, although I don't know how that might operate in international straits - that is straits beyond which there is a second / third (or more) country.

clonmahon

Three questions.

One, if it comes to a shooting war between Iran and the USA what is to stop Iran destroying the oil and gas production infastructure of the region and therefore the global economy.

Two, Russia have said that any attack on Iran has implications for its security, so what will stop any war in the region becoming World War III and destroying our civilisation.

Three, even in the best case scenario for the West, are we not likely to see massive disruption of global oil supplies with all the economic implications of that.

Basically folks I don’t see how anyone can win this kind of war. I can however see many way in which we could all loose. This kind of war, in this place, at this time is a very high risk and uncertain venture and while talking about weapons systems on Boards.ie is great fun, the truth is that none of us have any idea how it would play out.

randd1

If they do have the capability of sinking a US carrier they still wont do it. The Americans, and particularly Obama with the election coming, are not going to get bogged down in another war, especially one that could drain their economy. If the Iranians do attack the US carrier, I would expect rather than ground troops the Americans might just bomb the hell out of them instead.

If Iran gets its hands on a nuke, it wont bring stability to the region like some people think, remember they and Iraq still have bad blood, not to mention the threat they carry to other countries. If they do attack an American carrier it'll be an act of war and I can't see the Iranians being that stupid, though they're crazy enough to try anything, especially if they acquire nuclear weapons, though I suspect if they did get nukes Israel and America would hit them first and destroy them.

invalid

The Initial question was, does Iran have the capability to sink a US Carrier. Personally I would suggest that from the evidence they don’t. As for bringing up Vietnam? Please, that has no relevance whatsoever. The Second Gulf War is there moist recent conflict, with there new doctrines, latest equipment and training. (I talk only about the invasion, not the occupation)

In theory if Iran have the very latest Russian missile technology in sufficient amounts they could possibly do serious damage to a carrier but it would also rely on the carrier Battle Group being unprepared for the attack, and we all have to agree that any US forces in the Persian Gulf are going to be geared for a confrontation.

As for US tactics, I would point to the USS America and its decommissioning. Note the America was a Kitty Hawk Class, Commissioned in 1965 and the current carrier on site is the Nimitz Class USS Abraham Lincoln which was commissioned in 1988, upgraded and refitted in 2010 and is a far superior carrier to Kitty Hawk Class.

I think too much credit is given to Iran, and far too little to the USN. If it comes down to a shooting match then the only loser will be Iran. Not only would it be a Carrier Strike forces on you doorstep, but also the full arm of the US Air Force operating from Diego Garcia and Guam, free from any political interference and most probably with near total air superiority.

What does Iran need to do to achieve a win? They need to force the USN (and all other Western navies) out of the Gulf.

What does the USA need to do? Protect there military assets, Bomb the shyt out of Iran and end or at least significantly delay there Nuclear Power and Weapons program.

If the USA still sails down the Taiwan Strait then do any of you honestly think that they are afraid for a second of Iran?

Victor

invalid wrote: »

As for bringing up Vietnam? Please, that has no relevance whatsoever.

As for US tactics, I would point to the USS America and its decommissioning. Note the America was a Kitty Hawk Class, Commissioned in 1965

Guam

You realise that Guam is 5,000nm or about 11 hours flying time away? And while that might be useful for B-2s, it isn't very practical.

Lemming

Stereomaniac wrote: »

I'd imagine they pulled out of Vietnam out of embarrassment at the length of time that it had been going on and the devastation left behind by it was probably very visible at home.

Nothing to do with devastation; everything to do with it being a deeply unpopular war back in America. Politics in other words. Not military embarassement. That is on record as being historical fact.

But as already said, what does Vietnam have to do with this? You can't even begin to compare that conflict with a possible Iranian conflict.

Victor wrote: »

Alternative. Why bother attacking naval ships when they could get the same level of attention by attacking oil tankers and other shipping?

Again, that would earn them the ire of the world, not just the US. Many enemies, not just one big one, including their own neighbours.

clonmahon wrote: »

One, if it comes to a shooting war between Iran and the USA what is to stop Iran destroying the oil and gas production infastructure of the region and therefore the global economy.

See above about p1ssing everyone off, not just the US.

Two, Russia have said that any attack on Iran has implications for its security, so what will stop any war in the region becoming World War III and destroying our civilisation.

Sabre rattling. The Russians are concerned about potential power-plays between other regional nationalities on their doorstep, and endangering their own resources. They are not 'siding' with the Iranians in saying what they've said.

invalid

Victor wrote: »

You realise that Guam is 5,000nm or about 11 hours flying time away? And while that might be useful for B-2s, it isn't very practical.

Practical? we are talking about the military here right?

I mentioned Guam as it was part of a discussion on PBS a while ago,specifically as a base for B2 & B52's for strategic attacks on Iran. It can't be ignored that the US 7th Fleet and the USAF have substantial bases with forward deployed assets there. Imagine what an attack by B2's would do to Iranian Naval Land installations.

I didn't link the article about the USS America, but here is the reports on it :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_%28CV-66%29#Post_decommissioning_service

and

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7081234/#.TyFe4IEvmAY

I really noted that they planned to simulate using Cruise missiles and small boat attacks like the attack on the USS Cole.

Anyway, the thrust of my argument is that the USA's Military capabilities should not be underestimated, especially trying to do so by bringing up Vietnam. I do not believe that you can argue that it was for military reasons that they lost that war, it was the loss of the home front and the political will that lost that war.

Manic Moran

archer22 wrote: »

But if the Sunburn missile does prove to be immune to anti-missile defences..well then they can just take the Carriers and their support vessels apart bit by bit.

It's a big 'if'... The Iranians may be willing to pay the cost for the prestige of knocking out a couple of US warships, but if they have a crack and Sunburn doesn't prove to be invulnerable to Aegis et al, that's a very expensive lesson in learning the lack of capability of the system. Do they want to take that gamble?

archer22

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's a big 'if'... The Iranians may be willing to pay the cost for the prestige of knocking out a couple of US warships, but if they have a crack and Sunburn doesn't prove to be invulnerable to Aegis et al, that's a very expensive lesson in learning the lack of capability of the system. Do they want to take that gamble?

I do not believe for a minute that the Iranians want to attack anyboby.In all my posts I was theorising what they could do in response to an attack.Some glaringly obvious points are being overlooked..First its not Iran who keep making threats to attack a sovereign Nation every day...Second Iran has not attacked anybody for hundreds of years..third Iran has already been attacked by terrorists operated by belligerent Powers...Of the two Nations threatning Iran one is nothing more than a terrorist state and the other one is not really much better if at all...Fourth Iran has broken no laws,it does not possess nuclear weapons and thats a fact..that it may or may not desire nuclear weapons is neither here nor there and is only conjecture.China for instance may want Taiwan but I do not think there would be much enthusiasm for a military strike on China to pre empt that possibility.

Fratton Fred

archer22 wrote: »

I do not believe for a minute that the Iranians want to attack anyboby.In all my posts I was theorising what they could do in response to an attack.Some glaringly obvious points are being overlooked..First its not Iran who keep making threats to attack a sovereign Nation every day...Second Iran has not attacked anybody for hundreds of years..third Iran has already been attacked by terrorists operated by belligerent Powers...Of the two Nations threatning Iran one is nothing more than a terrorist state and the other one is not really much better if at all...Fourth Iran has broken no laws,it does not possess nuclear weapons and thats a fact..that it may or may not desire nuclear weapons is neither here nor there and is only conjecture.China for instance may want Taiwan but I do not think there would be much enthusiasm for a military strike on China to pre empt that possibility.

Is this the same Iran whose president lost the last election, but still remained in power? The same Iran that attacked the British Embassy in Tehrain? And the same one that was funding, arming and training Shia islamists and sending them into Iraq?

Poor devils, they must be so scared of the nasty Americans.

Border-Rat

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's a big 'if'... The Iranians may be willing to pay the cost for the prestige of knocking out a couple of US warships, but if they have a crack and Sunburn doesn't prove to be invulnerable to Aegis et al, that's a very expensive lesson in learning the lack of capability of the system. Do they want to take that gamble?

What is this 'cost', then?

Fratton Fred

Border-Rat wrote: »

What is this 'cost', then?

Last time they damaged a US warship with a mine it cost them a Frigate, a gunboat, several fast patrol craft and two platforms.

Border-Rat

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Last time they damaged a US warship with a mine it cost them a Frigate, a gunboat, several fast patrol craft and two platforms.

For an aircraft carrrier?

Bargain.

Fratton Fred

Border-Rat wrote: »

For an aircraft carrrier?

Bargain.

No, that was for a hole in the front of a destroyer.

Knowing the Americans, I would imagine as aircraft carrier would cost the Iranians most of their fleet and a big chunk of their airforce.

Border-Rat

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, that was for a hole in the front of a destroyer.

Knowing the Americans, I would imagine as aircraft carrier would cost the Iranians most of their fleet and a big chunk of their airforce.

This will happen whether they hit an aircraft carrier or not. The other poster insinuated an inordinate reprisal for sinking a carrier. An additional 'cost'. The entire WMD 2.0 lie is an excuse to wipe out Iranian Navy, airforce and civilian infrastructure. This is expected, but what might the additional 'cost' be for a carrier?

invalid

On an aside, since when were the Iranians the good guys in this? We are talking about an extreme theocratic government that ignores basic Humans rights for there own people. I know its fun and fashionable for some to be Anti American, but get a sense of perspective on things, the Iranian Government is belligerent, nasty, cruel and fund a hell of a lot of paramilitary organisations.

http://www.amnesty.ie/our-work/iran

invalid

plus it is not a lie that Iran has a nuclear program, they are admitting that. what they are saying is that is civilian yet they will not let the inspectors from the IAEA visit many of there sites and labs.

tricky D

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is this the same Iran whose president lost the last election, but still remained in power?

This analysis disagrees: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60830588&postcount=117

This section starting with this in particular:

Winning the Election With or Without Fraud

We continue to believe two things: that vote fraud occurred, and that
Ahmadinejad likely would have won without it. Very little direct evidence
has emerged to establish vote fraud, but several things seem suspect.

...

follow the link for more