Does Iran have the capability to sink a US carrier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa'ar_5-class_corvette

The Israeli ship you are referring to was constructed in the USA...

Sa'ar 5 (Hebrew: tempest‎ סער) is a class of Israeli Navy corvette, designed based on lessons learned from the Sa'ar 4.5 class ships. Three Sa'ar 5 ships were built by Northrop Grumman Ship Systems (formerly Litton-Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation of Pascagoula, Mississippi) for the Israeli Navy, based on Israeli designs.

During the 2006 Lebanon War, the INS Hanit was attacked by Hezbollah as it was enforcing a naval blockade off Beirut. Hezbollah used an Iranian version of the Chinese C-802 missile. The resulting explosion caused the landing pad to cave in and be engulfed in flames that threatened the aviation fuel storage below, and the flames were not fully extinguished until several hours later. The ship suffered some damage, but stayed afloat, got itself out of the line of fire, and made the rest of the journey back to Ashdod for repairs on its own. The ship was repaired and resumed its combat role three weeks later. Four IDF sailors were killed

westdub wrote: »

The Israeli ship you are referring to was constructed in the USA...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa'ar_5-class_corvette

All the more problematic for the Americans, since its really an American warship and it'll be American ships entering the area. So we can deduce that Iran has the capability to sink a stealth American warship.

Border-Rat wrote: »

All the more problematic for the Americans, since its really an American warship and it'll be American ships entering the area. So we can deduce that Iran has the capability to sink a stealth American warship.

Why?? The ship was built in the US but it was from Israeli plans ..
There were only 3 of the class built for the Israeli Navy, so how does that make the US Navy's ships vulnerable to missile attack??

Also where are you getting the Stealth from? Stealth is not mentioned anywhere or in any way about these ships....

archer22

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The Mig-17, Mig-19 and Mig-21 were obselete eh? That'd be news to the Soviets since they were still in front line use with the USSR at the time, there were still some NATO air forces flying Mig-21'a until recently.

Most US losses were to ground launched SAMs or AAA. The NV air force did perform well in the early encounters with the USAF, USN and MC, a lot of that was down to a presumption on the part of aircraft and missile designers that guns were outmoded and many US fighters initially weren't equipped with them. Once it transpired that the first generation of american air to air missiles were less than effective gun pods were fitted and air losses to fighter aircraft decreased.

And the amount of aces on one side or the other isn't the most relevant issue, its who has control of the battlefield. The Luftwaffe had the top 100+ aces of WW2, but who won the war? A german is still the highest scoring jet ace in history but who had control of the skies over germany in 1944-45? The NV air force could do well on occassion but the US had air superiority and could generally bomb where and when it wished.

the Mig 17 made up the bulk of north Vietnams airforce and was a subsonic aircraft so in that sense it was obsolete they also had Mig 15 also sub sonic mig 19 does not appear to have been a good performer and mig 21 was probably the technical equal or close to of the American aircraft.You mention the German aces and Germany losing,thats a moot point as in this case Vietnam won..actually to correct my earler posts Vietnam had 16 aces and America 2..Also the North Vietnamese air force had 70 pilots at peak..they had around 200 aircraft at peak.To say they only scored well because they had more targets is probably correct but on the other hand more targets mean more enemies with the potential to destroy them.So their performance was even more astounding when you consider they were so vastly outnumbered.They were truly heroic,but of course Hollywood does not make movies about them

Pacifist Pigeon

A surprise attack could do it, which is probably impossible given that the US is probably monitoring all ships (especially naval ships) in the region either using radar, reconnaissance aircraft or satellite.

A success suprise attack could take place as follows.

Converge all Iranian naval vesels with attack capability on one US aircraft carrier.
The first phase of the attack would should have the objective of compromising or limiting the carrier's ability to launch fighter aircraft to counter the attack. A hail of missiles (both from the sea and the mainland) would help reach this objective. A couple of missiles hitted the launch pad(s) would help.
The second phase of the attack would have the objective of sinking the ship or capturing the ship. The sinking of the ship shouldn't be too hard from this point on. The carrier on its own would have very limited ability when it comes to warding off the Iranian naval armada that is heading its way.

westdub wrote: »

Why?? The ship was built in the US but it was from Israeli plans ..
There were only 3 of the class built for the Israeli Navy, so how does that make the US Navy's ships vulnerable to missile attack??

Also where are you getting the Stealth from? Stealth is not mentioned anywhere or in any way about these ships....

The Sa'ar 5 class has stealth panelling. Its size is comparable to a frigate. It has the same type of defences as US ships, neither the stealth nor Phalanx, which is installed on all US ships, stopped the Iranian missile.

Missile technology has evolved faster than naval technology.

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

A surprise attack could do it, which is probably impossible given that the US is probably monitoring all ships (especially naval ships) in the region either using radar, reconnaissance aircraft or satellite.

A success suprise attack could take place as follows.
Converge all Iranian naval vesels with attack capability on one US aircraft carrier.

The first phase of the attack would should have the objective of compromising or limiting the carrier's ability to launch fighter aircraft to counter the attack. A hail of missiles (both from the sea and the mainland) would help reach this objective. A couple of missiles hitted the launch pad(s) would help.

The second phase of the attack would have the objective of sinking the ship or capturing the ship. The sinking of the ship shouldn't be too hard from this point on. The carrier on its own would have very limited ability when it comes to warding off the Iranian naval armada that is heading its way.

If you want to know how Iran will sink US Ships, just refer to the Millenium wargames. I.e. Russian missile technology, swarming, couriers for communication etc. Iranian Navy is nothing next to their missile capacity and willingness to die.

I think the reason that there were so few aces from the American side in the Vietnam war was mainly down to the fact that when the US entered the conflict they did so with a aircraft that had no guns, That combined with the high failure rate of the early air to air missiles led to many missed opportunity's to shoot down a NVAF aircraft.. They learned the hard way that a gun on a fighter is not a optional extra, Its a must have piece of equipment that has been fitted to every US fighter from then on, Even the latest stealth fighter the F-22........

Border-Rat wrote: »

The Sa'ar 5 class has stealth panelling. Its size is comparable to a frigate. It has the same type of defences as US ships, neither the stealth nor Phalanx, which is installed on all US ships, stopped the Iranian missile.

Missile technology has evolved faster than naval technology.

But I dont think the US Navy will be sailing around the gulf with their systems turned off.... :rolleyes:

An investigation into the incident by the Israeli Navy concluded that the missile was indeed a C-802 which hit a crane in the rear of the ship. The ship's radar system was not fully functional at the time, and both the ECM and the Barak anti-missile systems were in a two-minute stand-by mode. An officer ordered that the anti-missile defenses be switched off about an hour prior to the attack without notifying the captain.

Lemming

I'm going to point again the strategic fallacy that you're cheerleading archer, border-rat, & pidgeon.

Assuming for one second that Iran succeeds in a surprise attack. What happens next? Do you think they'd succeed in a non-surprise attack against an enemy that would then come back in larger numbers, and ready for bear?

Assuming that the Iranians manage to lanch 1500 boats en-masse, they are going to take appalling casualties even if they do "win" (and I again ask "win what exactly?"). We're talking numbers that percentage-wise would make the Somme or Paschendale look like handbags at fifty paces. The Iranian military is not going to waste that number of resources because to do so would leave them wide open with no ability to counter a second carrier group.

Again I will ask what happens next if - and that's a big "if" - the Iranians were to succeed? What do they gain strategically from it? Sure they've gained a temporary tactical advantage, but what do they do next given that they will have likely bled themselves dry doing so?

Further, the authorities will be keeping a nervous eye to the home front because when USAF bombers start appearing overhead, the first targets are going to be IRG - used to keep the population at large under the thumb. With that gone ....

westdub wrote: »

But I dont think the US Navy will be sailing around the gulf with their systems turned off.... :rolleyes:

If you believe that, then I dunno what to tell you.

A) They had intelligence of ASCM's in the area

No way in hell, in a hot war, the prime defenses of a frigate will be powered down

They're lying, in short. A ship at battle stations turns all defenses on. SOP.

Lemming wrote: »

Assuming for one second that Iran succeeds in a surprise attack. What happens next? Do you think they'd succeed in a non-surprise attack against an enemy that would then come back in larger numbers, and ready for bear?

I didn't mention anything about a surprise attack. So i dont know why you're quoting me. The Iranians would not be so stupid as to initiate hostilities.

Assuming that the Iranians manage to lanch 1500 boats en-masse, they are going to take appalling casualties even if they do "win" (and I again ask "win what exactly?"). We're talking numbers that percentage-wise would make the Somme or Paschendale look like handbags at fifty paces. The Iranian military is not going to waste that number of resources because to do so would leave them wide open with no ability to counter a second carrier group.

Again I will ask what happens next if - and that's a big "if" - the Iranians were to succeed? What do they gain strategically from it? Sure they've gained a temporary tactical advantage, but what do they do next given that they will have likely bled themselves dry doing so?

Further, the authorities will be keeping a nervous eye to the home front because when USAF bombers start appearing overhead, the first targets are going to be IRG - used to keep the population at large under the thumb. With that gone ....

The Iranians merely have to present a threat to that very narrow gap. Then Lloyds insurance will cease the transport of tankers. The threat can come from

a) Swarming
b) Long ranger artillery, shoot-scoot, thus hard to eradicate
c) The threat of mines
d) The Iranian Navy, initially, at least
e) Anti-ship-cruise-missiles (Land based)
f) Surface-to-surface missiles (Land based)
g) Hijackings

The operational route of the transit is not straightforward either. Certain ships require specific depth. A large area of Hormuz is quite shallow, further bottle-necking the targets for Iran.

Lemming

Border-Rat wrote: »

I didn't mention anything about a surprise attack. So i dont know why you're quoting me. The Iranians would not be so stupid as to initiate hostilities.

With apologies; it was not you who specifically mentioned surprise attacks. The rest of what I wrote was still addressed to you among others.

The Iranians merely have to present a threat to that very narrow gap. Then Lloyds insurance will cease the transport of tankers.

And like before with the suggestion of mines ... the only outcome of the above would be instead of p1ssing off one country, the Iranians p1ss off a lot of countries (incuding neighbours dealing in oil with said tankers); isolating themselves even further and leaving them wide open to further censure.

Also, what happens when their "threat" gets called for a bluff? A single piece of munition leaves the barrel and they [the Iranians] are in for a world of absolute hurt.

Again, strategically ... what do they gain? What gains can they make good upon any initial "success" given the negatives that will be in the post, and addressed first class.

Border-Rat wrote: »

If you believe that, then I dunno what to tell you.

A) They had intelligence of ASCM's in the area

No way in hell, in a hot war, the prime defenses of a frigate will be powered down

They're lying, in short. A ship at battle stations turns all defenses on. SOP.

In fact, the investigative work of Ha'aretz journalists Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff showed that a certain Colonel K., an intelligence officer, had given a lecture already on April 21, 2003, predicting that Hezbollah had shore-to-sea missiles in its possession. Furthermore, on the morning of Friday, July 14, 2006, one of the branch heads of naval intelligence, Lieutenant-Colonel Y. briefed the head of naval intelligence, Colonel Ram Rothberg, telling him that "ships enforcing Israel's naval blockade on Hezbollah should take into account the possibility of a C-802 missile being fired on them." The assessment, however, did not result in a warning. If such a warning had been issued, Israeli ships would have moved further away from the shore and activated their anti-missile systems.
As a result of the incident, two navy officers, two junior officers and the commander of the ship have been formally reprimanded and repositioned to non-commanding positions on land. One of the junior officers had shut down the central radar and parts of the defence system without notifying the commander, in the belief that the ship was not under threat.

Lemming wrote: »

And like before with the suggestion of mines ... the only outcome of the above would be instead of p1ssing off one country, the Iranians p1ss off a lot of countries (incuding neighbours dealing in oil with said tankers); isolating themselves even further and leaving them wide open to further censure.

Also, what happens when their "threat" gets called for a bluff? A single piece of munition leaves the barrel and they [the Iranians] are in for a world of absolute hurt.

Again, strategically ... what do they gain? What gains can they make good upon any initial "success" given the negatives that will be in the post, and addressed first class.

Closung Hormuz forces the card of negotiation. Either way, the Iranians have been backed into a corner. Two scenarios;

a) They are hit with a blockade and their economy is destroyed. Eventually, the Country is invaded after it has been sufficiently weakened. End result: Economic devastation, devastation of infrastructure. Regime change.

b) There is a blockade. Iran refuses the exit of ships from Hormuz (They can enter through Oman waters, but they must exit through Iranian waters). Perfectly within their legal right to stop ships. Having done this, they are attacked by US Warships. The infrastructure of the Country is devastated by air. The closing of Hormuz, like a) devastates the economy, but less so as stockpiling has taken place since 2004. End result, the coalition must cease its attack.

It doesn't matter if Europeans join the aerial bombardment of Iran. To devastate Iran from the air, in fact, Europeans aren't even needed. Russia, again, has also threatened against any actions re: Iran. Either way, Iran will suffer. Strong lessons have been learned from Iraq. This could turn into a potential world war.

westdub wrote: »

Its widely known that 2006 with the Hanit was merely the latest failing of the Phalanx system.

savagecabbages

Border-Rat wrote: »

All the more problematic for the Americans, since its really an American warship and it'll be American ships entering the area. So we can deduce that Iran has the capability to sink a stealth American warship.

Deducing that because Hezbollah managed to hit a solitary stationary Isralei corvette (which didn't sink) with its defense systems turned off, that Iran could sink a US carrier in the centre of a battlegroup - with its own defense systems, along with several other screening fleet defense ships is lunacy!
*I'll even grant you you'r speculation that the defense systems were turned on, but that only proves that a missile can hit a target.

Back on topic, I'd say that with enough missiles/boats converging on one location, some would certainly get through. A carrier could certainly be damaged enough to restrict flight ops, maybe even force the ships company to abandon, but sinking a 100,000 ton Nimitz class carrier with 2000 watertight compartments is no joke;)

johngalway

Border-Rat wrote: »

Closung Hormuz forces the card of negotiation.

:pac: :pac: :pac: :pac: :pac:

You're joking? That went out with Chamberlain.

Closing Hormuz forces a severe battering for Iran.

They should reflect on what they have now and what they will have left afterwards. Some sobering realism is in order.

Lemming

Border-Rat wrote: »

Closung Hormuz forces the card of negotiation. Either way, the Iranians have been backed into a corner. Two scenarios;

a) They are hit with a blockade and their economy is destroyed. Eventually, the Country is invaded after it has been sufficiently weakened. End result: Economic devastation, devastation of infrastructure. Regime change.

b) There is a blockade. Iran refuses the exit of ships from Hormuz (They can enter through Oman waters, but they must exit through Iranian waters). Perfectly within their legal right to stop ships. Having done this, they are attacked by US Warships. The infrastructure of the Country is devastated by air. The closing of Hormuz, like a) devastates the economy, but less so as stockpiling has taken place since 2004. End result, the coalition must cease its attack.

It doesn't matter if Europeans join the aerial bombardment of Iran. To devastate Iran from the air, in fact, Europeans aren't even needed. Russia, again, has also threatened against any actions re: Iran. Either way, Iran will suffer. Strong lessons have been learned from Iraq. This could turn into a potential world war.

To use your own analysis, any which way Iran tries to swing it loses and loses badly. So again I ask .... what, strategically, would Iran gain from attempting to close the strait? I don't see much they can capitalise on considering they'll have boxed themselves into that corner you spoke of; alienating neighbours, friends, and any countries that may have been indifferent, as well as giving the US/UK/etc. reason to push for action. They don't even need to invade; just flatten the IRG's infrastructure and let the Iranian people finish the rest of it for them; has anyone forgotten the riots and protests that occurred only a year or two ago? The Iranian political inner circle are not popular with their own people.

marketty

If Iran sank an American aircraft carrier it'd be 9 11 times a thousand

911,000

archer22

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:.

Border-Rat wrote: »

The Sa'ar 5 class has stealth panelling.

There is no such thing as "stealth panelling". The materials used and architecture of a ship can be designed to minimise its radar contact size.

It has the same type of defences as US ships, neither the stealth nor Phalanx, which is installed on all US ships, stopped the Iranian missile.

Not quite. The Ticonderogas and Burkes can fire RAM, ESSM, SM-2, SM-3 and SM-6 and guns, including Phalanx. The Sa'ar-5 has Barak and Phalanx. That's a big difference.

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

A surprise attack could do it, which is probably impossible given that the US is probably monitoring all ships (especially naval ships) in the region either using radar, reconnaissance aircraft or satellite.

It would depend on what scale of attack is intended. Depending on the ship formation, an attack would take less than a minute.

A success suprise attack could take place as follows.

[*]Converge all Iranian naval vesels with attack capability on one US aircraft carrier.

Element of surprise is gone.

[*]The first phase of the attack would should have the objective of compromising or limiting the carrier's ability to launch fighter aircraft to counter the attack. A hail of missiles (both from the sea and the mainland) would help reach this objective.

The aircraft are likely to be in the air or elsewhere during any such transit.

A couple of missiles hitted the launch pad(s) would help.

Such an aim can be difficult.

[*]The second phase of the attack would have the objective of sinking the ship or capturing the ship.

Capture? That's rather ambitious and would most likely fail as sufficient forces would be unable to board. any attack will be a one-time thing, not some that is sustained.

The sinking of the ship shouldn't be too hard from this point on. The carrier on its own would have very limited ability when it comes to warding off the Iranian naval armada that is heading its way.

And the 6-8 ships with it?

Border-Rat wrote: »

a) They are hit with a blockade and their economy is destroyed. Eventually, the Country is invaded after it has been sufficiently weakened.

Invaded? While a raid would be possible, any invasion would be counter-productive.

b) There is a blockade. Iran refuses the exit of ships from Hormuz (They can enter through Oman waters, but they must exit through Iranian waters).

In the event of war, the normal navigation channels wouldn't be used and revised channels closer to the Omani coast would be used.

Its widely known that 2006 with the Hanit was merely the latest failing of the Phalanx system.

Care to list incidents where Phalanx has been fired in anger?

Lemming wrote: »

To use your own analysis, any which way Iran tries to swing it loses and loses badly. So again I ask .... what, strategically, would Iran gain from attempting to close the strait?

Deterrence.

They don't even need to invade; just flatten the IRG's infrastructure and let the Iranian people finish the rest of it for them; has anyone forgotten the riots and protests that occurred only a year or two ago?

Again, I point to Kosovo.

The Iranian political inner circle are not popular with their own people.

Ther eis more than one circle.

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..

Peace through superior fire power?

For example wars have ceased between India and Pakistan since both became nuclear powers.

I wouldn't be quite so sure about that.

Manic Moran

Border-Rat wrote: »

size is comparable to a frigate.

The Irish Navy has three ships of greater tonnage than Sa'ar 5, the thing's a corvette.

Care to list incidents where Phalanx has been fired in anger?

We have used it in the Counter-Mortar System role...

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

I'm sorry you're taking it in such a manner. Mine was a response expressing surprise at your statement that ALCMs could not be fired from an aircraft. Rocket-propelled or not, Exocet counts. I never attempted to claim that they could not be fired from surface and subsurface mounts, mind.

NTM

Fratton Fred

Does anyone know what the French ship is that sailed through the strait with USS Abraham Lincoln and HMS Argyle through the strait this week?

"The French Navy vessel is thought to be La Motte-Picquet anti-submarine frigate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Leygues_class_frigate

It struck me that a submarine attack is easier than one might think initially, as the shipping lanes are relatively narrow.

Manic Moran

Also means that it's not as hard to play 'find the submarine' when you're an escort clearing the way.

Fratton Fred

Manic Moran wrote: »

Also means that it's not as hard to play 'find the submarine' when you're an escort clearing the way.

Which is exactly what HMS Argyle and Le Motte-Piquet are designed to do, in the north Atlantic.

OS119

Victor wrote: »

It struck me that a submarine attack is easier than one might think initially, as the shipping lanes are relatively narrow.

finding a submarrine in shallow, restricted waters - particularly an SSK thats subject to satelite surveilance whenever it docks - is a damn sight easier than finding a submarine in deep, open waters.

you also don't need to respond symetricly - an Iranian sub fires a few AShM's at a carrier group and the carrier group whacks the **** out of an air base. pain is pain, and while it may be better to hit the dog that can bite you, if you hit the owner hard enough he'll call the dog off.