Does Iran have the capability to sink a US carrier

Geekness1234

I really don't understand why the Israelis are desperate to strike, because no amount of bombs can kill an idea.

P.S. this is coming from me,anyone who has argued with me on this will know where I stand.

Border-Rat

Because Iran will ultimately dominate the region. Economically and militarily. This means an end to Israeli hegemony and their aspirations for a 'greater Israel'. Iran has already outlined its intentions for a more fair influence in Palestine. The objective is to set back Iranian infrastructure by 20 years and stall this regional supremacy, nothing more. The means is to get idiots in the West to do it, by telling them lies about WMD. The Israelis want to get this done before the USA implodes.

It won't go that way, of course. Russia and China have armed and advised Iran too well.

goldie fish

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

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.

Only if the reactor is breached. Remember submarines, of the nuclear powered variety sink every day, and cause no environmental issues.

Victor

johngalway wrote: »

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

You just need a really big bomb.

goldie fish wrote: »

Only if the reactor is breached. Remember submarines, of the nuclear powered variety sink every day, and cause no environmental issues.

Either (a) they don't sick every day or (b) its called submerging.

Manic Moran

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

This is serious reporting? Small boat tenders have been in use by militaries since 1877.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_tender_Velikiy_Knyaz_Konstantin

NTM

Jimmy Garlic

goldie fish wrote: »

Only if the reactor is breached. Remember submarines, of the nuclear powered variety sink every day, and cause no environmental issues.

Yes, every single day, under control.

tac foley

goldie fish wrote: »

Only if the reactor is breached. Remember submarines, of the nuclear powered variety sink every day, and cause no environmental issues.

Mind telling us which one sank today, please?

Thanks.

tac

goldie fish

tac foley wrote: »

Mind telling us which one sank today, please?

Thanks.

tac

SHH


ALL OF THEM!


shh.

That's what submarines do.

Manic Moran

Two pages of off-topic nonsense deleted.

savagecabbages

Out of curiosity, I was wondering what kind of attack profile different anti-ship missiles have? And of course their effectiveness on such a tall, flat sided + decked carrier as opposed to a more traditional warship....

Are they mostly designed to go straight in and impact the ship at the waterline, higher up the superstructure, or do some come top-town like a Javelin? Do the high supersonic missiles operate differently to the slower ones?
Delayed fuses or impact?

Victor

savagecabbages wrote: »

Out of curiosity, I was wondering what kind of attack profile different anti-ship missiles have?

It will vary. Early air-lauched missiles tended to be lauched at medium-high altitude and ship/submarine-launched missiles went up to medium-high altitude immediately after launch as this is fuel-efficient. However, it tends to mean early detection by radar and other means.

By the 1970s, sea-skimming was all the vogue, but that is fuel inefficient, thereby limiting range and may not work in very rough seas. Some shorter range missiles, some of which were designed for the surface to air role (Sea Cat, Standard) will have a direct approach at low altitude.

All the time, missiles have tended to get faster. However, in the age of stealth, that may reverse, as very high speed crease a huge heat signature.

Are they mostly designed to go straight in and impact the ship at the waterline, higher up the superstructure, or do some come top-town like a Javelin? Do the high supersonic missiles operate differently to the slower ones?

Sinking the target isn't always the objective. Doing major damage and a 'mission kill' is actually more useful, as the other side will still have to protect the damaged ship (may require substantial military resources), rather than just mourning a lost one (requires no military resources). Ideally, the explosion would be at or below the water line and/or deep in the hull resulting in damage, fire and/or flooding.

The very first anti-ship missiles were essentially glide bombs like Fritz X http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X and the Hs 293 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hs_293

In the final phase, high altitude missiles will often try to make a vertical drop on the target. This is outside the detection / guidance angle of some radars. It has the advantage that even if the missile is shot down, shrapnel will fall on the target.

Those that cruise at lower altitude will tend to make a low altitude or sea-skimming attacks.

Those with a sea-skimming approach will tend to make a sea-skimming attack. However, some, like some models of Harpoon can make a pop-up attack, by climbing in the final moments and then slammming down into the target. This makes tracking / countering the missile more difficult. The American "New Thread Update" dealt with that, but I don't know how others dealt with it.

As well as maximising range and warhead and likelyhood of hitting the target, the newest missiles will tend to engage in a number of tactics to minimise the risk of detection and counter the risk of being shot down, all having to be offset by the total system weight and cost. So with the ideal missile would be launched at / too a high altitude giving it a better range, but as it gets closer to the target it will adopt a sea-skimming approach, availing of the horizon, land other ships to prevent detection and being shot-down. Mid-course, it may change course to present a threat to a new target. It will only reach maximum speed during attack phase. In the final attack, it may do a pop-up or a wild weaving approach, making it difficult to hit, and changing the threat axis that the target is trying to counter and/or presenting multiple threat axes.

While for many targets, an attack with one missile is good enough, modern SAM systems can normally deal with that thread and it becomes a very expensive war of wills and numbers for either side. A successful brute force attack with modern "silver bullet" missiles on an AEGIS ship would cost perhaps €100-200m (in missile costs only, add the cost of buying and maintaining the whole launch system) to do. So there are alternatives. Fire your anti-ship missiles piecemeal and keep the target engaged for an extended period, reducing its ability to carry out its mission or go for a "cheap as chips" swarm attack using bargin basement missiles - they will still take at least one SAM each to shoot down. While a modern warship can defeat these missiles with electronic counter measures (ECM), they can't risk a lucky hit. With the ship's SAMs expended, using a few high end anti-ship missiles with different guidance systems will defeat the ECM.

However, the AEGIS ships can mutually support each other, making a successful attack very difficult. Putting all you egg in the one basket of having enough missiles to attack such a multiple target is precarious.

And of course their effectiveness on such a tall, flat sided + decked carrier as opposed to a more traditional warship....

If you have a missile with a fixed size warhead, it will do most damage to a larger ship as less of the explosion is wasted. However, a bigger ship will tend to have a better ability to survive.

Delayed fuses or impact?

Very short delay so that it explodes in the ship, not on the hull. Semi-armour piercing warheads feature in some missiles. A small number of missiles also have hte option of cluster munition warheads.

Anti-radiation missiles tend to be airburst to do maximum damage to antennae.

Capt'n Midnight

Plan B :pac:

tac foley

goldie fish wrote: »

SHH


ALL OF THEM!


shh.

That's what submarines do.

Not so, submarines deliberately submerge, they do not sink unless something goes badly wrong.

tac