nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.