Does Iran have the capability to sink a US carrier

Fratton Fred

archer22 wrote: »

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

And if PAAMS lives up to its billing it will cope comfortably with them.

Until these start thrown around in anger, no one will know. One thing is for certain though, Iran will come off worst.

Raging_Ninja

There was the Millenium Challenge 2002 exercise where a retired marine general pasted a US navy battle group.

Here's some articles:

http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/0-292925-1060102.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2003/03/wargamed.html

archer22

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

There was the Millenium Challenge 2002 exercise where a retired marine general pasted a US navy battle group.

Here's some articles:

http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/0-292925-1060102.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2003/03/wargamed.html

Reminds me of the Air War over North Vietnam.On paper the tiny North Vietnamese air force in their obsolete planes had not a hope in hell.However in reality it turned out much different.They simply did not fight the way they were supposed to.Instead of a head to head slogging match (which they would be guaranteed to lose) they used new and innovative tactics such as hit and run attacks by single aircraft,waiting for American Aircraft to begin bombing runs before attacking,setting elaborate traps and decoys to lure American Aircraft into ambushes or draw them over well hidden anti aircraft guns even on a few occasions getting the Americans to chase them over the border into China forcing the Chinese to intervene.At the end of the war North Vietnam had 15 aces to Americas 3.War is only won on paper if the other side fight by your rules.

BlaasForRafa

tac foley wrote: »

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

?

The Tupolev Tu22, Tu-95 Bear and Tu-160 can all fire air launched cruise missiles, there is an allegation that Iran received some Soviet era cruise missiles from the Ukraine back in the 90's, although what platform they could launch them from, I don't know.

Victor

archer22 wrote: »

Reminds me of the Air War over North Vietnam.On paper the tiny North Vietnamese air force in their obsolete planes had not a hope in hell.However in reality it turned out much different.They simply did not fight the way they were supposed to.Instead of a head to head slogging match (which they would be guaranteed to lose) they used new and innovative tactics such as hit and run attacks by single aircraft,waiting for American Aircraft to begin bombing runs before attacking,setting elaborate traps and decoys to lure American Aircraft into ambushes or draw them over well hidden anti aircraft guns even on a few occasions getting the Americans to chase them over the border into China forcing the Chinese to intervene.At the end of the war North Vietnam had 15 aces to Americas 3.War is only won on paper if the other side fight by your rules.

Getting kills is hard enough when the other guy doesn't have many aircraft, never mind aces. The reality was that the North Vietnamese had little control of their airspace and the Americans usually had air superiority, if not supremacy.

Outlandish claims aside, air-to-air kills are also subject to much fiddling as a damage tends to count as half a kill in some counting systems.

And the Vietnam War was much more about non air-to-air kills than air-to-air kills - approximately 9,000 aircraft lost total compared to a few hundred air-to-air kills.

USAF 2,251
USN 859
USMC 463
US Army 5,131
RAAF 11
SVAF 12+?

NVAF losses
NV claim 131+13
US claim 214+

archer22

Victor wrote: »

Getting kills is hard enough when the other guy doesn't have many aircraft, never mind aces. The reality was that the North Vietnamese had little control of their airspace and the Americans usually had air superiority, if not supremacy.

Outlandish claims aside, air-to-air kills are also subject to much fiddling as a damage tends to count as half a kill in some counting systems.

And the Vietnam War was much more about non air-to-air kills than air-to-air kills - approximately 9,000 aircraft lost total compared to a few hundred air-to-air kills.

USAF 2,251
USN 859
USMC 463
US Army 5,131
RAAF 11
SVAF 12+?

NVAF losses
NV claim 131+13
US claim 214+

Difficult to prove or disprove figures suffice to say that American Airforce has a long history of overclaiming..their claim of 214+ sounds ludicrous given the tiny size of the North Vietnamese air force whose max strength was 70 planes.I would believe the North Vietnamese their figures are more plausible.Oh and the Americans may have had "air superiority" but they never had air supremacy..not for a single day during the entire conflict could they fly over North Vietnam in safety like they could over Iraq.

Border-Rat

Irans proxy force was able to hit a state of the art German frigate in 2006 equipped with stealth plating.

Raging_Ninja

Border-Rat wrote: »

Irans proxy force was able to hit a state of the art German frigate in 2006 equipped with stealth plating.

Did a google, couldn't find anything to back that up. What I did find was a report of Israeli fighters doing a low pass over a German frigate and firing two shots.

BlaasForRafa

archer22 wrote: »

Reminds me of the Air War over North Vietnam.On paper the tiny North Vietnamese air force in their obsolete planes had not a hope in hell.However in reality it turned out much different.They simply did not fight the way they were supposed to.Instead of a head to head slogging match (which they would be guaranteed to lose) they used new and innovative tactics such as hit and run attacks by single aircraft,waiting for American Aircraft to begin bombing runs before attacking,setting elaborate traps and decoys to lure American Aircraft into ambushes or draw them over well hidden anti aircraft guns even on a few occasions getting the Americans to chase them over the border into China forcing the Chinese to intervene.At the end of the war North Vietnam had 15 aces to Americas 3.War is only won on paper if the other side fight by your rules.

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.

Border-Rat

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Did a google, couldn't find anything to back that up. What I did find was a report of Israeli fighters doing a low pass over a German frigate and firing two shots.

The German frigate I was referring to was an Israeli-owned ship. I was adding the point that it was German built. It was hit by Hezbullah, who fired a Chinese ASCM. Iran provided the weaponry and training. A live trial, much like German equipment in the Spanish War. It confirmed one thing for the Iranians - they can sink a state of the art, stealth ship.

The missile was fired from a pickup IIRC.

westdub

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

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

Border-Rat

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.

westdub

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.

1. Converge all Iranian naval vesels with attack capability on one US aircraft carrier.
2. 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.
3. 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.

Border-Rat

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.

Border-Rat

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.

1. Converge all Iranian naval vesels with attack capability on one US aircraft carrier.
2. 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.
3. 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.

westdub

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........

westdub

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 ....

Border-Rat

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.

Border-Rat

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.

westdub

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.

Border-Rat

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:.

Victor

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?

Victor

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

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

Victor

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.

Victor

But finding all 26-28 of them might be another matter.

OS119

Victor wrote: »

But finding all 26-28 of them might be another matter.

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.

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.