Does Iran have the capability to sink a US carrier

Border-Rat · 26-01-2012 05:38PM

invalid wrote: »

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.

Steven Irlanger has been caught lying about IAEA reports.

archer22 · 26-01-2012 05:39PM

invalid wrote: »

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

in the interests of fairness why did you not put up the reports for Israel and the USA as well so we can get some of this perspective you talk about.

Border-Rat · 26-01-2012 06:38PM

archer22 wrote: »

in the interests of fairness why did you not put up the reports for Israel and the USA as well so we can get some of this perspective you talk about.

Some people enjoy their obsequiousness. They're not really interested in facts or logic.

clonmahon · 26-01-2012 06:53PM

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

Lemming wrote: »

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.

Originally Posted by clonmahon
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.

Lemming wrote: »

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

So if I understand you correctly you think that Iran would allow the USA to bomb it back into the stone age, but it will not react to this by targeting soft economic targets in the region, because of some nuanced reading of the regional political situation and how un-popular it might make them in Saudi coffee shops. Clearly you are discounting the possibility that a desperate Iran might resort to desperate measures, how do you know this to be a fact.

Originally Posted by clonmahon
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.

Lemming wrote: »

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.

You know this how, because it seems to me that both Russia and China have made clear that a US attack on Iran is a matter of the greatest strategic concern to them. Over 60% of the worlds conventional oil reserves are in this region, is it credible that Russia and China are going to stand back and watch the US and the West make a play for it and do nothing.

All this talk about the utilitarian value of this weapon system versus that weapons system is missing the point. This is the most strategically sensitive region on earth, it is also one of the most politically unstable, and any war is likely to spread and engulf the whole region. If this happens the USA may control the Persian Gulf but it would be a Pyrrhic victory if the oil and gas infrastructure of the region was in ruins. The global economy will be thrashed and we will be looking back on the current downturn as good times.

In the worst case scenario a wider regional war will spark WWIII. Machiavelli wrote "you may start a war whenever you want, but you may not end it whenever you please". If military history teaches us anything is that war is a very risky and unpredictable business. A war between the US and Iran will be a very risky and unpredictable thing. The problem the US will face is not militarily defeating Iran but stopping the war spreading, and this is about politics not weapon systems.

War is always risky, no plan survives the first moment of contact, I am not in the least bit convinced by all the confident and certain predictions being made in this thread. I think the risks of a war are increasing, I think the risks of it engulfing the entire region are high, I think the risks it will cause vast economic damage are high and I think the risk that it will involve a great loss of life are high. If it plays out like this no one will win, everyone will loose.

goldie fish · 26-01-2012 07:44PM

This thread should really be in the "walter mitty" forum.

Border-Rat · 26-01-2012 08:05PM

goldie fish wrote: »

This thread should really be in the "walter mitty" forum.

The Russians designed missiles to take out US Warships, for the express reason that Russia could not keep up with the might of the US Navy and its development. And they've given Iran these weapons, probably, to avoid direct intervention themselves. China has done the same thing. I'd also be surprised if these are the only weapons Russia has given them.

savagecabbages · 26-01-2012 08:34PM

goldie fish wrote: »

This thread should really be in the "walter mitty" forum.

To be fair to the OP, he only asked if the Iranians could sink a carrier in the straits of Hormuz. Straightforward enough question...

It wasn't him that introduced Israel, repercussions, human rights etc.

invalid · 26-01-2012 10:07PM

Border-Rat wrote: »

Some people enjoy their obsequiousness. They're not really interested in facts or logic.

Being a bit one sided yourself there. Just because i don't subscribe to an anti-Americanism or anti Israeli agenda does not mean I do not see there warts. I was making a point about Iran, that some ops seemed to be of the opinion that Iran was somehow the victim in this stand-off. They are not. You cannot deny that it is Iran that is threatening to close the straits.

As for the record of the USA and Israel, they have very serious question to answer about many things and there hands are not clean. Rendition, Gaza, Git-bo, these are terrible things. I equally do not absolve Bin laden or Hezbolla of there crimes.

But at least the USA and Israel are democracies and you can ask the questions of them without fear of imprisonment and torture.

archer22 · 26-01-2012 10:56PM

invalid wrote: »

Being a bit one sided yourself there. Just because i don't subscribe to an anti-Americanism or anti Israeli agenda does not mean I do not see there warts. I was making a point about Iran, that some ops seemed to be of the opinion that Iran was somehow the victim in this stand-off. They are not. You cannot deny that it is Iran that is threatening to close the straits.

As for the record of the USA and Israel, they have very serious question to answer about many things and there hands are not clean. Rendition, Gaza, Git-bo, these are terrible things. I equally do not absolve Bin laden or Hezbolla of there crimes.

But at least the USA and Israel are democracies and you can ask the questions of them without fear of imprisonment and torture.

Abu Ghraib,Mavi Marmara,Haditha.operation cast lead,extraordinary rendition etc etc.........cant be bothered listing them all it would take a week at least.Iran is not even in their race never mind in their league.As for Irans threat to close the strait you forgot to mention that was in response to an act of war ie sanctions..as for supporting Hezbollah,in the 2006 war the vast majority of Israeli,s killed by Hezbollah were military the vast majority of lebanese killed by Israel were civilians..so how can Hezbollah be classed as terrorists..No Israel is the terrorist..ok lets call it the terrorist Democracy!

Border-Rat · 26-01-2012 11:58PM

invalid wrote: »

Being a bit one sided yourself there. Just because i don't subscribe to an anti-Americanism or anti Israeli agenda does not mean I do not see there warts. I was making a point about Iran, that some ops seemed to be of the opinion that Iran was somehow the victim in this stand-off. They are not. You cannot deny that it is Iran that is threatening to close the straits.

They are threatening to close the straits as retaliation to severe provocation.

As for the record of the USA and Israel, they have very serious question to answer about many things and there hands are not clean. Rendition, Gaza, Git-bo, these are terrible things. I equally do not absolve Bin laden or Hezbolla of there crimes.

But at least the USA and Israel are democracies and you can ask the questions of them without fear of imprisonment and torture.

They are not Democracies. They're nuclear-armed plutocracies, with histories of vote fraud, massive cronyism and wealth disparity, which repeatedly invade other Countries. This is like the murderer pointing the finger at the thief who stole the loaf of bread, and anyone who supports them is indeed obsequious; at best susceptible to outrageous propaganda and at worst knowlingly indulging in WWF-style theatrics.

Border-Rat · 27-01-2012 12:01AM

archer22 wrote: »

Abu Ghraib,Mavi Marmara,Haditha.operation cast lead,extraordinary rendition etc etc.........cant be bothered listing them all it would take a week at least.Iran is not even in their race never mind in their league.As for Irans threat to close the strait you forgot to mention that was in response to an act of war ie sanctions..as for supporting Hezbollah,in the 2006 war the vast majority of Israeli,s killed by Hezbollah were military the vast majority of lebanese killed by Israel were civilians..so how can Hezbollah be classed as terrorists..No Israel is the terrorist..ok lets call it the terrorist Democracy!

Israel is no Democracy. I'd call it a theocracy, only Jewish extremist doctrine running the Country deems a Jew to be determined by what race his ethnic mother is. Israel is a nuclear-armed supremacist menace.

BostonB · 27-01-2012 12:11AM

twinytwo wrote: »

...America is just one of the few countries that can actually afford to build/run them....

Thats debatable...;)

http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us/

invalid · 27-01-2012 09:50AM

Guys I'm not going to even start a debate on the USA & Israel, You have your views, i have mine and no debate here is going to change that. It is perhaps one of the most polarising topics in this country. I know our Amnesty meeting gets very easily sidetracked by them.

The initial question was does Iran have the capability to sink a USN Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier and my opinion is in reality they do not. They have neither the willingness to do it, the proven military ability to do it and they most certainly do not want do deal with the consequences of even trying.

Iran has a few cards to play in its stand off with the West on its nuclear program, and this is one of them. We will have to see where it goes, i just hope that some peaceful solution can be found, I've met a few Iranians in my time and i really like them, they are a really generous and kind people, just led by a dick wad and are a bit intense about religion.

There is no Gulf state that has the military capability to take out a USN Carrier Battle Group and there are perhaps only 2 countries on the planet that could even give it a good shot, although I tend to think that at the moment China does not yet have that capability as they are really only recently started looking to the sea.

stuar · 28-01-2012 03:52PM

I believe that Iran has got the ability to sink a US aircraft carrier, they have a variety of torpedo's and missiles well capable of getting through the accompanying ships barrier and in war they won't back down. And remember there's one way in and one way out of the gulf, once US ships are in there they are sitting ducks.
Then there's the Russian/Chinese who may throw a few pieces of kit Irans way should they be attacked, then if anybody decides to use their "mini nukes" that US congress approved for conventional warfare a few years ago, only God knows where this will go.
They have been reverse engineering and mass producing Russian/Chinese and others weapons for years and stockpiling them all over the vast land mass that is Iran.
They also have some new toys in their arsenal that they will proudly show to the public in a week or so, they have survived sanctions for years and have been aware for a long time that uncle sam/Israel would eventually come looking for a fight, this will be a fight like the US/Israel have never seen, Iran won't be foolish enough to stand at one end of a field and US/Israel at the other and each throw their best at each other, Iran will use guerilla tactics, and the B52's won't be dropping bombs with impunity as they have in other conflicts, Iran has the capability to take them out of the sky as soon as they see them enter iranian airspace.

Iran to Unveil New Military Achievements in Days
TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi announced that the country plans to unveil several achievements in the field of defense in the next few days.
Vahidi said new achievements in defense, aerospace and missile fields will be unveiled during the Ten-Day Dawn ceremonies from February 1 to 11, celebrating the victory of the Islamic Revolution back in 1979.

"Some of these key achievements have been mass produced and will be delivered to the Armed Forces as soon as they are unveiled to the public," Vahidi said.

The minister further noted that these achievements will once again prove the ineffectiveness of the sanctions imposed on Tehran by the West.

In December 2011, Vahidi unveiled 20 important projects in energy, nanotechnology, microelectronic, optic, laser, missile and naval fields.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010172751

Cork boy 55 · 28-01-2012 03:54PM

No ones mentioned the nuclear reactors on board a carrier

Would sinking a nimitz class carrier in the Hormuz strait not be a long-term disaster environmental for the Iranian people leaving there?

Any expert opinons on that? (I am not)

Cork boy 55 · 28-01-2012 04:12PM

skelliser wrote: »

In fact They arent even arabs, They are Persians. A distinction thats usually overlooked by the US media.

The demographics of Iran are under-reported in the western media
From a ethnic point of view there is no such thing as an "Iranian"
From a ethnic perspective it is a made-up state. a bit like Yugoslavia with the Persians being the serbs( the domniant group)
Irans borders was thrown together by history of the various empires around it
and the imperial past of the perisans.

It breaks down as follows
Persian, Luri, Gilaki and Mazandarani 66%,
Azeri and other Turkic languages 18%,
Kurdish 10%,
Arabs 2%,
Baloch 2%,
other 2%.

If the maps of the middle east where redrawn by redrawing of boundaries to reflects ethnic affinities and religious communalism then Iran would be renamed Persia and would lose significant land
To a free Kurdistan,various Arab states, Azeribajian, Turkmenistan and free Balochistan
The Iranian land and most of the popualted islands( see map) around the straits of Hormuz areacutally largely populated by Iranian arabs
That land should really belong to one the Arab states opposite and not the persians if we where starting from day one nation building again.
Having said that the Iranian arabs are shia not sunni
and during the Iran-Iraq war the shia arabs stayed loyal to Iran rather than desert and fight for the sunni arab regime of Saddam iraq.
The main aim of the Iraq invasion of Iran(1980) was to aquire the Iranian Arab province in south-west corner of Iran, Also there are on-going separist insurgencies in the baloch and Kurdish parts fo Iran
the UAE and Iran have a number of territory dispute about islands in the gulf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musa

Kintarō Hattori · 28-01-2012 04:20PM

Sinking an american aircraft carrier would be incredibly difficult:

1 - It doesn't just sail alone. When part of a strike group there's a huge amount of ships which support it which include frigates, guided missile cruisers, guided destroyers and a submarine or two on occasion.

2 - Several of these ships carry tomahawk missiles, torpedoes and Phalanx anti-aircraft guns among other offensive weapons. Some aircraft carriers also have the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile which is relatively new. Just search for some of these weapons on YouTube and you can see just how deadly they can be.

3 - The aircraft carrier itself carries multiple strike aircraft as well as planes that survey the airspace for hundreds of square miles- so there's little around them that they aren't aware of. Typical there are about 64 aircraft carried with a mixture of strike/fighter aircraft, electronic surveillance, early warning, logistic aircraft and several helicopters.

As another poster pointed out- aircraft carriers are incredibly expensive and the Americans go to great lengths to secure them when on operation.

stuar · 28-01-2012 05:26PM

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Sinking an american aircraft carrier would be incredibly difficult:

1 - It doesn't just sail alone when part of a strike group, there's a huge amount of ships which support it which include frigates, guided missile cruisers guided destroyers and a submarine or two on occasion.

2 - Several of these ships carry tomahawk missiles, torpedoes and Phalanx anti-aircraft guns among other offensive weapons. Some aircraft carriers also have the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile which is relatively new. Just search for some of these weapons on YouTube and you can see just how deadly they can be.

3 - The aircraft carrier itself carries multiple strike aircraft as well as planes that survey the airspace for hundreds of square miles- so there's little around them that they aren't aware of. Typical there are about 64 aircraft carried with a mixture of strike/fighter aircraft, electronic surveillance, early warning, logistic aircraft and several helicopters.

As another poster pointed out- aircraft carriers are incredibly expensive and the Americans go to great lengths to secure them when on operation.

But not impossible, the SS-N-22 Sunburn is a decent enough missile to take any ship with any defences out of action and create an artificial reef.

SS-N-22 Sunburn
This weapon has a top speed of Mach 3, and is considered one of the most lethal anti-ship missiles in the world. The high speed of the missile means a typical response time for the target of only 25 to 30 seconds, giving a target little time to react.
The submarine-launched version of this missile was also designated as an SS-N-22 Sunburn by NATO but was known to the Soviets as the P-100 Oniks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_Iranian_Army#Surface-to-surface_missiles

Anti ship missiles
Model Type Quantity Acquired Origin Notes
Kowsar 1/2/3 Anti-ship missile Iran Light ASCM based on Chinese C-701 and TL-10
Nasr-1 Anti ship missile Iran Light ASCM based on Chinese C-705 and TL-6
Noor Anti-ship missile Iran ASCM based on Chinese C-801 and C-802
Ra'ad Anti-ship missile Iran Iranian origin Heavy ASCM similar to Chinese C-401
Qader Anti ship missile Iran
Khalij Fars Anti-ship ballistic missile Iran Based on Fateh-110

Manic Moran · 29-01-2012 07:58AM

This weapon has a top speed of Mach 3, and is considered one of the most lethal anti-ship missiles in the world

And it's up against...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/aegis-core.htm

The Aegis Weapon System is the world's premier naval surface defense system. When paired with the Lockheed Martin-developed MK-41 Vertical Launching System, it is capable of delivering missiles for every mission and threat environment in naval warfare

Sunburn is good, no question about it. Aegis is also very good. And the US has more Aegis missiles than Iran has Sunburns.

NTM

Sunnyisland · 29-01-2012 08:23AM

The Pentagon is set to launch a floating naval base in the Middle East, a move which would make the military more flexible but could cause friction with America's friends and foes alike.

The vessel, which has unofficially been called the 'mothership', is set to be converted from an out-of-date warship, and could be ready for deployment by this summer.

Its probable destination is the Persian Gulf, where tensions have been rising between the U.S. and Iran.

USS Ponce: The 40-year-old ship was due to be decommissioned but will instead by fitted into a permanent 'mothership' base for smaller vessels

The USS Ponce, a 40-year-old ship which was due to be decommissioned at the end of this year, will instead be turned in to a mobile base for smaller vessels.

These vessels will be used by Navy SEALs to help them on missions such as the rescue of an American woman and a Danish man from Somali pirates this week.

Ironically, the use of a floating base would mimic the practice of East African pirates, who often use ships they have hijacked as a base for their own skiffs.The plan to use the Ponce as a 'mothership' was first reported by the Washington Post after the military published a document calling for private firms to bid to remodel the ship to turn it in to in a permanent presence.

As well as a base on the shore of Bahrain, the Persian Gulf currently hosts a U.S. aircraft carrier and several warships which are used to deploy smaller ships.

However, these ships must move around the waters regularly, while a 'mothership' can remain in the same place for weeks.

Base: The 'mothership' is most likely to be located in the Persian Gulf, pictured

Although the Pentagon has not confirmed where the 'mothership' would be based, another document has specified that the ship must be delivered to the Persian Gulf.

The Gulf has become a major flashpoint in recent weeks after Iran threatened to shut it off to U.S. vessels in response to the latest round of sanctions designed to target the country's nuclear programme.

Top Iranian officials have warned that closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz would be 'easier than drinking a glass of water'.

The establishment of a new permanent base in international waters would doubtless strain relations further - and could also intimidate American allies such as Saudi Arabia.

A Pentagon official told Fox News that the military was concerned about the possibility of mines being placed in the Strait of Hormuz or elsewhere in the Gulf, and a tender document specified that the 'mothership' should have anti-ballistic capabilities.

However, despite the dangers, there would be significant upsides for the U.S. having a base which is not located in any one country, as they would no longer be dependent on the hospitality of an autocratic Middle Eastern regime.

Work on converting the Ponce could begin within three weeks, according to military documents.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093035/Navy-launch-mothership-floating-base-Middle-East-summer.html#ixzz1kpjM8vi7

It doesn't look like the USN is to worried about Iran's missile or otherwise strike capability if there putting this in the waters.

Raging_Ninja · 29-01-2012 05:33PM

realies wrote: »

Ironically, the use of a floating base would mimic the practice of East African pirates, who often use ships they have hijacked as a base for their own skiffs.

The Daily Fail is enough to make a grown man cry. Every ship that has smaller boats is a 'mothership'.

goldie fish · 29-01-2012 05:41PM

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

No ones mentioned the nuclear reactors on board a carrier

Would sinking a nimitz class carrier in the Hormuz strait not be a long-term disaster environmental for the Iranian people leaving there?

Any expert opinons on that? (I am not)

No more so than the amount of oil they dumped into the gulf during their attacks on tankers in the 1980s.

BostonB · 29-01-2012 05:53PM

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

The Daily Fail is enough to make a grown man cry. Every ship that has smaller boats is a 'mothership'.

Nothing more devastating then a tactical dictionary strike.

Throwing the book at them, literally.

Border-Rat · 29-01-2012 06:13PM

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

No ones mentioned the nuclear reactors on board a carrier

Would sinking a nimitz class carrier in the Hormuz strait not be a long-term disaster environmental for the Iranian people leaving there?

Any expert opinons on that? (I am not)

Bombing Bushehr will do that anyway. Bushehr is at the head of the Gulf. It will create an irradiated maritime disaster. Incredibly, there are people with mental issues who support this. Presumably these people do not drive cars or heat their houses, because I'd like to know how a Fukishima/Chernobyl right on 30% of the worlds oil transit won't affect them. I'd also like to know how the cleanup operation of a nuclear reactor takes place during a war. We know that it was hard enough in peacetime Pripyat and Japan.

If someone bombed Sellafield in London maybe it would be a bit more realistic to consider. You bomb several reactors belonging to Shi'ite Iran, you'd better expect them to do the whole 'to the death' thing immediately and internationally. The **** will hit the fan and oil wells from Kuwait to Saudi will be bombed, Lloyds tanker insurance will refuse to work in waters where the fish are floating because of radiation, real terrorist attacks will hit the UK and USA, Afghanistan will erupt and affect Pakistan, all oil in Iraq will be shut down, the EU economy will not stand and these are just the start of it.

Jimmy Garlic · 29-01-2012 06:24PM

goldie fish wrote: »

No more so than the amount of oil they dumped into the gulf during their attacks on tankers in the 1980s.

I suppose you don't know that nimitz class carriers are powered by 4 nuclear reactors. If one was sunk it would be a longterm environmental disaster.

johngalway · 29-01-2012 06:45PM

Border-Rat wrote: »

If someone bombed Sellafield in London

I see a small but not insignificant problem with that plan there...

Border-Rat · 29-01-2012 07:25PM

Another victim in an assault against Iran will be Baku, Azerbaijan. Baku outputs three major pipelines of gas and oil to Turkey and Georgia. Well within range of Iranian MRBM's. Like the SCUD's of 1991, these can be launched from random spots and are difficult to eradicate, especially when there is no ground supremacy (which there won't be). Unlike SCUD's Iran's missiles are highly accurate and powerful. Additionally, Azerbaijan is historically an Iranian influenced region. Shi'ite bombings will occur there. There is no case for putting NATO troops on the ground there to combat Shi'ite terrorism against energy targets - it is too close to Russian territory and would result in a Russian invasion to block NATO troops.

Sunnyisland · 29-01-2012 07:48PM

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

The Daily Fail is enough to make a grown man cry. Every ship that has smaller boats is a 'mothership'.

I got that from the daily mail but read it first on al jazeera,Its also on the BBC world service news site.

savagecabbages · 29-01-2012 08:14PM

Border-Rat wrote: »

Another victim in an assault against Iran....

Who is assaulting Iran?

Border-Rat · 29-01-2012 08:59PM

savagecabbages wrote: »

Who is assaulting Iran?

Spam.

Does Iran have the capability to sink a US carrier

Comments