Does Iran have the capability to sink a US carrier

johngalway

Jonny7 wrote: »

sweet jesus.. they'll absorb? How exactly?

Presumably they will navigate themselves between the carrier and the incoming threats. Not sure how these missiles are being guided but there are some methods that can be employed to make small ships look like big ships and hopefully confuse the missiles - as well as shooting down as many of the buggers as possible.

tac foley

archer22 wrote: »

None as far as I know..certainly none that are proven.The missiles high speed and erratic flight will make it incredibly difficult to stop and given that the Dong Feng has now appeared,Future is not looking too good at the moment for American naval dominance.

Sir - I think that you are ignoring the overwhelming dominance of America in EVERYTHING else. If Mr Wackybaccajamabad sics one on their carriers, or anything else, he and his country are going to be in a world of pain.

Given the present US dominance in things naval [just pointing out that the US Navy is five times bigger than the nearest competitor by numbers, and twelve times bigger by nuclear carriers alone] I think that you are overly concerned about the unlikelihood of it continuing that way. One and a half USN carriers'-worth of combat aircraft is bigger than the entire Iranian airforce.

One thing is certain, by the end of Day 1 Iran will not have a warship that is not a submarine, or likely an aircraft that is fit for anything except recycling into Coke cans.

tac

Victor

tac foley wrote: »

All these 'what-ifs' are moot.

If Iran attacks a carrier, by any means available to it, including suicide speedboats, that will be a declaration of war,

If you read the scenario again:

Jonny7 wrote: »

If a US carrier were in the straits (Hormez) during the outbreak of a conflict in the region involving Iran

and retaliation from the USA, let alone the USN, will be near instant and overwhelming. For a start, within ~10 minutes, Iran could be at the receiving end of around 100 cruise missiles from the other ship/subs in the carrier group alone, let alone the aircraft that may or may not be available to fly off the damaged carrier.

So you can plan a mission, brief the crews, fuel and load 50+ aircraft in 10 minutes, in narrow waters where you may or may not be able to turn the aircraft carrier into the wind, all on ship that has just been attacked and may have fires, flooding and may be leaking fuel?

Would your other ships be in the correct location to launch missiles at their targets?

If any of you had paid attention to my previous post, you'll notice that the USN flies off every available plane - every time.

No they don't. On a long distance attack mission, why would you fly off all the E-2s / C-2s / S-3s and helicopters? In any case, there would likely be few aircraft on the ship as it transits the straits - they would have been flown off beforehand.

Every single piece of Iranian hardware above ground, and their locations, has its very own personal target numbered coordinates, as do many below ground as well.

You mean like in Kosovo? Iran is 150 times the size of Kosovo, with 40 times the population.

Jonny7 wrote: »

sweet jesus.. they'll absorb? How exactly?

WQith great pain and suffering. Losing a €200m fueler or a $2bn destroyer is preferable to losing a $6-15bn aircraft carrier.

I've heard/read military experts say that Iran would most likely retaliate (e.g if Israel pre-emptively attacked nuclear facilities) by hitting "soft" targets.
Oil depots, resources, shipping, rather than take on the US/Israel military in any direct form.

Potentially. Why take the hard target, when you can take a soft one?

johngalway wrote: »

Not sure how these missiles are being guided but there are some methods that can be employed to make small ships look like big ships and hopefully confuse the missiles

Sensors and computer processing power has come a long way in the last 40 years. Relying on a single solution to counter a missile threat is naive, especially given the ability to visually identify the target by those launching the missiles.

tac foley wrote: »

Sir - I think that you are ignoring the overwhelming dominance of America in EVERYTHING else.

Except oil.

If Mr Wackybaccajamabad

Name-calling and bigotry against one's opponent merely tends to gain them sympathy and brand you as a bully.

One and a half USN carriers'-worth of combat aircraft is bigger than the entire Iranian airforce.

Most likely understating things.

One thing is certain, by the end of Day 1 Iran will not have a warship that is not a submarine, or likely an aircraft that is fit for anything except recycling into Coke cans.

Again, look at the size of the country, and the size of the fleet.

Geekness1234

Why bother risk a carrier when you can use F-15C/Es with saddlebags operating out of the U.A.E.?

tac foley

@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.

Neither ships nor submarines need be in any particular orientation to fire a cruise missile. IIRC from the last time I saw one launched, they go straight up in the air and then sort themselves out - that's what we pay all that money for.

In any event, are you suggesting that a USN carrier battle group would enter the SoH unprepared?

tac

Incidentally, how did the 'mad' face appear? I certainly did not put it there. Did you?

tac foley

Victor wrote: »

...Again, look at the size of the country, and the size of the fleet.

Sir - the fleet in in the water, and the water is the Persian Gulf.

tac

westdub

tac foley wrote: »

@Victor - cruise missiles are not launched from aircraft, but from ships and submarines.

Really??

To further improve the B-52's offensive ability, Air Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCMs) were fitted.[93] After testing of both the Air Force-backed Boeing AGM-86 and the Navy-backed General Dynamics AGM-109 Tomahawk, the AGM-86B was selected for operation by the B-52 (and ultimately by the B-1 Lancer).[94] A total of 194 B-52Gs and Hs were modified to carry AGM-86s, carrying 12 missiles on underwing pylons, with 82 B-52Hs further modified to carry another eight missiles on a rotary launcher fitted in the aircraft's bomb-bay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress

westdub

Geekness1234 wrote: »

Why bother risk a carrier when you can use F-15C/Es with saddlebags operating out of the U.A.E.?

Because the U.A.E. would not want to get involved and would not let the U.S. operate from their soil to attack Iran...

tac foley

westdub wrote: »

Really??



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress

I could be wrong here, but I don't think that a carrier battle group has B-52s with it.

We ARE talking about a carrier battle group, aren't we?

tac

Victor

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.

Sure, but if a particular set of missiles are targeted at somewhere in northern Iran, but are aboard a ship still in the Gulf of Oman, whatever about range, your time on target is going to be a bit off.

Neither ships nor submarines need be in any particular orientation to fire a cruise missile.

Well, the submarine is going to need to be at a shallow depth and away from potential adversaries. Both would like to be somewhere where the missiles can't be easily intercepted during launch and they won't interfere with air operations.

Incidentally, how did the 'mad' face appear? I certainly did not put it there. Did you?

No. I can't edit your posts. When posting, you must have pressed one of the icons under the "Message" box.

tac foley wrote: »

Sir - the fleet in in the water, and the water is the Persian Gulf.

Indeed, but your tasking order will be listed from highest priority to lowest.
Highest priority would be nuclear facilities and air defences.

archer22

tac foley wrote: »

Sir - I think that you are ignoring the overwhelming dominance of America in EVERYTHING else. If Mr Wackybaccajamabad sics one on their carriers, or anything else, he and his country are going to be in a world of pain.

Given the present US dominance in things naval [just pointing out that the US Navy is five times bigger than the nearest competitor by numbers, and twelve times bigger by nuclear carriers alone] I think that you are overly concerned about the unlikelihood of it continuing that way. One and a half USN carriers'-worth of combat aircraft is bigger than the entire Iranian airforce.

One thing is certain, by the end of Day 1 Iran will not have a warship that is not a submarine, or likely an aircraft that is fit for anything except recycling into Coke cans.

tac

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.

archer22

Iran's 1500 + torpedo and missile speedboats are a deadly and underestimated threat to any foreign naval force in the confined spaces of the gulf and shows that Iran is "thinking outside the box" if they had invested in warships they would have all their assets in a few easily neutralised units and they would be in the position of a Wolf fighting a Lion and we know how that would end! but using this vast armoury of small boats is akin to a Hornets nest fighting a Lion and no Lion will stand that for long.

Jeboa Safari

westdub wrote: »

Because the U.A.E. would not want to get involved and would not let the U.S. operate from their soil to attack Iran...

This might be a stupid question, is there much chance they'd attack countries like Bahrain or the UAE and try and take out buildings like the Burj Khalifa? Would it be worth their while? Would certainly be symbolic

Lemming

archer22 wrote: »

Iran's 1500 + torpedo and missile speedboats are a deadly and underestimated threat to any foreign naval force in the confined spaces of the gulf and shows that Iran is "thinking outside the box" if they had invested in warships they would have all their assets in a few easily neutralised units and they would be in the position of a Wolf fighting a Lion and we know how that would end! but using this vast armoury of small boats is akin to a Hornets nest fighting a Lion and no Lion will stand that for long.

You are assuming that Iran has the ability to maintain & launch a mass force in one go, or that it can project mass force in one go and not waves. You are also assuming that a foreign force wouldn't spot a build-up coming from a long way off. If the US has a carrier group in the straits, or even contemplating the straits you can bet your "bottom card from the stack" that they have satellites keeping a constant eye on the area beforehand. Next up, you're assuming that there are 1500 crews all ready to plunge headlong into certain death in one go, or that if there are, watching overwhelming annihilation of comrades before even getting a shot off will not have a very severe effect on morale, or that the amount of smoke & wreckage that would ensue wouldn't cloud the ability of follow up forces to aim with any degree of accuracy before being mown down. You are also neglecting to consider how quickly a carrier could launch aircraft (both fixed & rotary wing) in addition to air units scrambled from neighbouring countries bases.

You are also neglecting to look at one very important strategic factor. Iran would not be willing to sacrifice 1500+ boats in one sitting, nor all the crews, nor all the time, money, & effort it would take in replacing loses in both material & manpower. No country would. That's on top of missing the obvious that would be naval facilities being reduced to rubble long before they even got orders placed, courtesy of some B52 & B2 bombers loaded with 2000lb bombs, or if the USAF is feeling adventurous they'll load up some MOAB to experiment with.

In short, Iran would take an absolute pummelling for little, if any, short term gains made in the water. And even less at a geo-political level other than find themselves in an open state of war with a far, far larger and far better equipped & trained armed force. The US wouldn't need to invade Iran, simply reduce its IRG facilities to rubble (which they are more than capable of doing from the air relatively unmolested), thus weakening the state's ability to control its own population.

Victor

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Would certainly be symbolic

Surely the wrong kind of symbolic?

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

This might be a stupid question, is there much chance they'd attack countries like Bahrain or the UAE and try and take out buildings like the Burj Khalifa?

Iran and UAE are quite friendly, so I don't see something like that happening, but certainly American bases in the area can expect attacks.

Would it be worth their while?

Attacking a commercial / residential area has no military merit and can have severe political consequences.

Manic Moran

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.

Logic fail, I'm afraid. There is little doubt that Sunburn and DF21D are at the top end of anti ship missile technology, but that doesn't mean that the US is behind. The reason that the US doesn't mount anything bigger than Harpoon on its ships is simply because with some 40 fast attack boats and dozen aircraft carriers, it doesn't need to.

The only country, as far as I know to have developed and deployed a sea borne anti ballistic missile is the US. (Technology also available for sale: Japan tested its fleet of Kongo destroyers against MRBMs in 2007 after their upgrades from the US). Still the best system against multiple supersonic missiles is Aegis.

The latest generations of anti ship missiles are threats to be respected. But if respected, they are not uncounterable.

NTM

Manic Moran

tac foley wrote: »

@Victor - cruise missiles are not launched from aircraft, but from ships and submarines.

Given the Royal Navy's experience at the receiving end of air launched anti ship cruise missiles that's a bit of an odd statement. Off the top of my head, such missiles include Harpoon, Exocet, Krypton and ASMP.

NTM

tac foley

Manic Moran wrote: »

Given the Royal Navy's experience at the receiving end of air launched anti ship cruise missiles that's a bit of an odd statement. Off the top of my head, such missiles include Harpoon, Exocet, Krypton and ASMP.

NTM

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.

That took place in a combat zone where there was no long-range air cover - here we are discussing an active and war-footing carrier battle group and its likely defence against such an attack, not a ship whose search radar has been turned off so that the crew can make chatty home-calls without interference.

Anyhow, I've made a few points and lost a few, so you real experts can continue your discussion without me. If it all goes tits-up, history will give us the final verdict, and in spite of the USA probably getting a bloody nose, my money remains firmly on Iran getting a total and well-earned trashing.

tac

PS - since a kind person, taking pity on me, mentioned B-52, I though you all might like to see this movie clip - and Mr Ahmedetc., if he's looking in.

http://www.fark.com/cgi/vidplayer.pl?IDLink=4632948

johngalway

Whether they have the ability or not, it seems like they don't have the stones to actually do it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/22/world/meast/us-iran-aircraft-carrier/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Victor

Manic Moran wrote: »

Given the Royal Navy's experience at the receiving end of air launched anti ship cruise missiles that's a bit of an odd statement. Off the top of my head, such missiles include Harpoon, Exocet, Krypton and ASMP.

Exocet isn't a cruise missile! It's a guided rocket! It is also the most fired anti-ship missile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Iran-Iraq_War

tac foley wrote: »

Dear Mr Moran - Royal Navy submarines did and can still launch cruise missiles - viz. GW1 and 2.

RN only started firing cruise missiles in 2001: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafalgar_class_submarine#Combat_history

johngalway wrote: »

Whether they have the ability or not, it seems like they don't have the stones to actually do it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/22/world/meast/us-iran-aircraft-carrier/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

You mean they didn't start an unnecessary war?

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.