Does Iran have the capability to sink a US carrier

archer22

old_aussie wrote: »

Would Iran even entertain the thought of a terrorist attack on innocent civilians just going about their daily routine.

To cause economic damage to their enemies.I dont believe Iran would consider it other than in a doomsday scenario.It carries great risk such as accidentaly hitting the ships of their friends like China, Russia, India etc.Saddam tried it and even ended up hitting an American warship with an Exocet.Rather embarrassing as America was giving him support at that stage.

archer22

constantg wrote: »

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.

Any ship can be sunk..its some are more difficult than others.A massed missile attack combined with subs speedboats and air assault would be best bet as it may overwhelm defences.But if the Sunburn missile does prove to be immune to anti-missile defences..well then they can just take the Carriers and their support vessels apart bit by bit.

Victor

old_aussie wrote: »

Would Iran even entertain the thought of a terrorist attack on innocent civilians just going about their daily routine.

Not least that such shipping may be passing through Iranian territorial waters, a party at war is entitled to inspect shipping and deprive the enemy of contraband.

"Heave-to or else".

Separately, a warring party could probably declare an exclusion zone, although I don't know how that might operate in international straits - that is straits beyond which there is a second / third (or more) country.

clonmahon

Three questions.

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.

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.

Three, even in the best case scenario for the West, are we not likely to see massive disruption of global oil supplies with all the economic implications of that.

Basically folks I don’t see how anyone can win this kind of war. I can however see many way in which we could all loose. This kind of war, in this place, at this time is a very high risk and uncertain venture and while talking about weapons systems on Boards.ie is great fun, the truth is that none of us have any idea how it would play out.

randd1

If they do have the capability of sinking a US carrier they still wont do it. The Americans, and particularly Obama with the election coming, are not going to get bogged down in another war, especially one that could drain their economy. If the Iranians do attack the US carrier, I would expect rather than ground troops the Americans might just bomb the hell out of them instead.

If Iran gets its hands on a nuke, it wont bring stability to the region like some people think, remember they and Iraq still have bad blood, not to mention the threat they carry to other countries. If they do attack an American carrier it'll be an act of war and I can't see the Iranians being that stupid, though they're crazy enough to try anything, especially if they acquire nuclear weapons, though I suspect if they did get nukes Israel and America would hit them first and destroy them.

invalid

The Initial question was, does Iran have the capability to sink a US Carrier. Personally I would suggest that from the evidence they don’t. As for bringing up Vietnam? Please, that has no relevance whatsoever. The Second Gulf War is there moist recent conflict, with there new doctrines, latest equipment and training. (I talk only about the invasion, not the occupation)

In theory if Iran have the very latest Russian missile technology in sufficient amounts they could possibly do serious damage to a carrier but it would also rely on the carrier Battle Group being unprepared for the attack, and we all have to agree that any US forces in the Persian Gulf are going to be geared for a confrontation.

As for US tactics, I would point to the USS America and its decommissioning. Note the America was a Kitty Hawk Class, Commissioned in 1965 and the current carrier on site is the Nimitz Class USS Abraham Lincoln which was commissioned in 1988, upgraded and refitted in 2010 and is a far superior carrier to Kitty Hawk Class.

I think too much credit is given to Iran, and far too little to the USN. If it comes down to a shooting match then the only loser will be Iran. Not only would it be a Carrier Strike forces on you doorstep, but also the full arm of the US Air Force operating from Diego Garcia and Guam, free from any political interference and most probably with near total air superiority.

What does Iran need to do to achieve a win? They need to force the USN (and all other Western navies) out of the Gulf.

What does the USA need to do? Protect there military assets, Bomb the shyt out of Iran and end or at least significantly delay there Nuclear Power and Weapons program.

If the USA still sails down the Taiwan Strait then do any of you honestly think that they are afraid for a second of Iran?

Victor

invalid wrote: »

As for bringing up Vietnam? Please, that has no relevance whatsoever.

As for US tactics, I would point to the USS America and its decommissioning. Note the America was a Kitty Hawk Class, Commissioned in 1965

Guam

You realise that Guam is 5,000nm or about 11 hours flying time away? And while that might be useful for B-2s, it isn't very practical.

Lemming

Stereomaniac wrote: »

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.

Nothing to do with devastation; everything to do with it being a deeply unpopular war back in America. Politics in other words. Not military embarassement. That is on record as being historical fact.

But as already said, what does Vietnam have to do with this? You can't even begin to compare that conflict with a possible Iranian conflict.

Victor wrote: »

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

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.

clonmahon wrote: »

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.

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

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.

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.

invalid

Victor wrote: »

You realise that Guam is 5,000nm or about 11 hours flying time away? And while that might be useful for B-2s, it isn't very practical.

Practical? we are talking about the military here right?

I mentioned Guam as it was part of a discussion on PBS a while ago,specifically as a base for B2 & B52's for strategic attacks on Iran. It can't be ignored that the US 7th Fleet and the USAF have substantial bases with forward deployed assets there. Imagine what an attack by B2's would do to Iranian Naval Land installations.

I didn't link the article about the USS America, but here is the reports on it :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_%28CV-66%29#Post_decommissioning_service

and

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7081234/#.TyFe4IEvmAY

I really noted that they planned to simulate using Cruise missiles and small boat attacks like the attack on the USS Cole.

Anyway, the thrust of my argument is that the USA's Military capabilities should not be underestimated, especially trying to do so by bringing up Vietnam. I do not believe that you can argue that it was for military reasons that they lost that war, it was the loss of the home front and the political will that lost that war.

Manic Moran

archer22 wrote: »

But if the Sunburn missile does prove to be immune to anti-missile defences..well then they can just take the Carriers and their support vessels apart bit by bit.

It's a big 'if'... The Iranians may be willing to pay the cost for the prestige of knocking out a couple of US warships, but if they have a crack and Sunburn doesn't prove to be invulnerable to Aegis et al, that's a very expensive lesson in learning the lack of capability of the system. Do they want to take that gamble?

archer22

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's a big 'if'... The Iranians may be willing to pay the cost for the prestige of knocking out a couple of US warships, but if they have a crack and Sunburn doesn't prove to be invulnerable to Aegis et al, that's a very expensive lesson in learning the lack of capability of the system. Do they want to take that gamble?

I do not believe for a minute that the Iranians want to attack anyboby.In all my posts I was theorising what they could do in response to an attack.Some glaringly obvious points are being overlooked..First its not Iran who keep making threats to attack a sovereign Nation every day...Second Iran has not attacked anybody for hundreds of years..third Iran has already been attacked by terrorists operated by belligerent Powers...Of the two Nations threatning Iran one is nothing more than a terrorist state and the other one is not really much better if at all...Fourth Iran has broken no laws,it does not possess nuclear weapons and thats a fact..that it may or may not desire nuclear weapons is neither here nor there and is only conjecture.China for instance may want Taiwan but I do not think there would be much enthusiasm for a military strike on China to pre empt that possibility.

Fratton Fred

archer22 wrote: »

I do not believe for a minute that the Iranians want to attack anyboby.In all my posts I was theorising what they could do in response to an attack.Some glaringly obvious points are being overlooked..First its not Iran who keep making threats to attack a sovereign Nation every day...Second Iran has not attacked anybody for hundreds of years..third Iran has already been attacked by terrorists operated by belligerent Powers...Of the two Nations threatning Iran one is nothing more than a terrorist state and the other one is not really much better if at all...Fourth Iran has broken no laws,it does not possess nuclear weapons and thats a fact..that it may or may not desire nuclear weapons is neither here nor there and is only conjecture.China for instance may want Taiwan but I do not think there would be much enthusiasm for a military strike on China to pre empt that possibility.

Is this the same Iran whose president lost the last election, but still remained in power? The same Iran that attacked the British Embassy in Tehrain? And the same one that was funding, arming and training Shia islamists and sending them into Iraq?

Poor devils, they must be so scared of the nasty Americans.

Border-Rat

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's a big 'if'... The Iranians may be willing to pay the cost for the prestige of knocking out a couple of US warships, but if they have a crack and Sunburn doesn't prove to be invulnerable to Aegis et al, that's a very expensive lesson in learning the lack of capability of the system. Do they want to take that gamble?

What is this 'cost', then?

Fratton Fred

Border-Rat wrote: »

What is this 'cost', then?

Last time they damaged a US warship with a mine it cost them a Frigate, a gunboat, several fast patrol craft and two platforms.

Border-Rat

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Last time they damaged a US warship with a mine it cost them a Frigate, a gunboat, several fast patrol craft and two platforms.

For an aircraft carrrier?

Bargain.

Fratton Fred

Border-Rat wrote: »

For an aircraft carrrier?

Bargain.

No, that was for a hole in the front of a destroyer.

Knowing the Americans, I would imagine as aircraft carrier would cost the Iranians most of their fleet and a big chunk of their airforce.

Border-Rat

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, that was for a hole in the front of a destroyer.

Knowing the Americans, I would imagine as aircraft carrier would cost the Iranians most of their fleet and a big chunk of their airforce.

This will happen whether they hit an aircraft carrier or not. The other poster insinuated an inordinate reprisal for sinking a carrier. An additional 'cost'. The entire WMD 2.0 lie is an excuse to wipe out Iranian Navy, airforce and civilian infrastructure. This is expected, but what might the additional 'cost' be for a carrier?

invalid

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

invalid

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.

tricky D

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is this the same Iran whose president lost the last election, but still remained in power?

This analysis disagrees: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60830588&postcount=117

This section starting with this in particular:

Winning the Election With or Without Fraud

We continue to believe two things: that vote fraud occurred, and that
Ahmadinejad likely would have won without it. Very little direct evidence
has emerged to establish vote fraud, but several things seem suspect.

...

follow the link for more

Border-Rat

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

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

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

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

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

Border-Rat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Border-Rat wrote: »

If someone bombed Sellafield in London

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

Border-Rat

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

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

Border-Rat wrote: »

Another victim in an assault against Iran....

Who is assaulting Iran?

Border-Rat

savagecabbages wrote: »

Who is assaulting Iran?

Spam.