NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a few notes, this is all hypothetical, and I am not advocating a war on Iran.

I'm just trying to see what everyone thinks of Iran's ability to hit a CVN in the event that a shooting war were to break out.

It doesn't really matter how it were to start. There are many ways it could happen, border incursion involving Iraq (has actually happened on occasions, but hasn't escalated), something like the incident in March with the sailors, or any number of events.

I know a ground war with Iran would be a disaster at this point, but we all know that Iran would try to go for a US CVN as it would be a huge morale blow and a huge success for Iran in any war. No US fleet carrier has been sunk by an enemy since October 1942.

My assumption is that the US Navy would be fairly safe. The Iranians do possess a good paper air force. For example, on paper they have 50+ F-14A Tomcats.

If you were to just look at the paper, this is quite a force, but you have to look closer into the claim. Many independent military researchers will claim that less than a third of them are running. Many of the estimates claim that only 5 are at flight status.

Even if this claim is wrong and more are active, the F-14A is meat in a dogfight. I love the F-14, but the Alpha is an underpowered aircraft. It carries the P&W TF30 engine. The engine was built for the F-111 and is not meant for fighter aircraft. Grumman used it as they had a close partnership with P&W. The engine failed to give the F-14A a thrust to weight ratio of greater than 1:1. Iran's F-14s have this engine.

An even greater problem is that this underpowered engine is prone to disastrous failure when put to the stresses that fighters are expected to endure. When the aircraft goes to high AoA (as fighters would in combat) the engine was prone to compressor stalls which would induce flat spins (see Top Gun, that's about all they got right). The engine also was prone to fan blade breakups. Another issues is that the engine would fail during simple maneuvers. For example, the manual of the F-14A instructs that pilots are not to attempt a forward slip as it could lead to engine failure (as it did in the fatal crash of LT Kara Hultgreen). A forward slip is a really simple maneuvers that I have been able to perform in a 182. It's really sad when a Cessna 182 can do something the F-14 can't.

Of course the B and D were great aircraft, but they carried the GE F110. Either way, all F-14s are known as "hangar queens" and require over 20 hours of maintenance per flight hour. The swing wings added a lot of movable parts which wear out. While Iran has been looking on the black market for parts, they have had to cannibalize the majority of their F-14 fleet for parts.

Iran has other planes in their inventory. They have some good 4th generation fighters like the MiG-29, but they are few in numbers and would be overwhelmed by the greater number of American 4th and 5th generation fighters. They do have a large number of inferior outdated Vietnam era jets like the F-4.

In the end, pilot training will be the deciding factor in actual dogfights. It doesn't matter what you have on paper if the pilots aren't well trained. US pilots have flown combat missions and fly training missions like Red Flag which simulate combat. We also have E-2 and E-3s providing support. They increase the effectiveness of a fighter exponentially.

When it comes to the Iranian Navy, they have some covettes and frigates, but it isn't anything to write home about. Their best weapon will be small speedboats with C-802 missiles. The C-802 is a pretty poor missile. It is a knockoff of the Harpoon missile. Anyone familiar with US weapon systems will point out that no one in the Navy loves the harpoon missile. It is really a piece of junk and inferior compared to any of the great ASMs and SSMs the Russians developed.

The C-802 even when launched in swarm attacks would be cake for the Aegis system that CGs and DDGs protecting carriers have. Should some of them hit, they would cause casualties, but not sink a carrier. Remember that one of them struck a 1,200 ton Israeli corvette. That ship looked pretty good and was able to still continue on her own power after taking a hit from one. It just shows how weak US (and Chinese copies of them) SSMs are, but Iran relies on them too. It did only moderate damage to a vessel that is about 1.5% the size of a carrier. If it struck a carrier, I don't think the CVN would be in much danger.

It could be a major problem if it got a good hit on a DDG, FFG, or CG, but escorts are expendable in war. Besides, given how two exocet hits didn't sink an OHP class FFG, I think they could survive a single hit from a weaker C-802.

The biggest danger IMO is from the Kilos. Iran has 3 Kilos. SSKs are great in the waters of the Arabian Gulf. The problem is that the escort Kilos have had reliablity issue leading to Iran having the 3 of them spend far too much time in drydock at Bandar Abbas.

Should Iran get them out to sea, they will have to get through several rings of sonobuoys, SH-60s with dipping SONAR, and of course the tin cans. Training is important in operating a submarine and we don't have a good idea of how well trained Iranian crews are.

We know that a well trained SSK crew can get in close to a carrier, but given the time spent at dock, I don't think Iran's crews are well trained. Iran just doesn't put great emphasis on their navy.

Yes.

So...many...acronyms...

I think you should be more concerned with Surface to Surface missiles than with any Air to Surface attack. I can't imagine a non-nuclear strike that would disable, let alone inconvenience a CVN.

My my, thats such a dose of military fetishism. What the hell is a CVN?

So...many...acronyms...

The military has an acronym for everything.

FITREPs
PFA
CinCLANT
PRB
etc.

CVN=Nuclear aircraft carrier. Though prefacing it as US CVN is a bit redundant, as I'm pretty sure we're alone in numbering our carriers with that prefix.

Even though we are the only ones who number then that way, other CVNs are labeled as such when referenced in most publications.

So...many...acronyms...

CVN=Nuclear aircraft carrier. Though prefacing it as US CVN is a bit redundant, as I'm pretty sure we're alone in numbering our carriers with that prefix.

There would be no ground war. It would be an air attack.

People are building up Iran in the same way that they built up Saddam's military in 1990-1991. It's all bs. It's not about mass infantry anymore, it's about technology and intel.

The Iranian military at it's highest level was unable to win a war with Iraq over years of ground war. The same Iraqi army that the US completely obliterated with air and sea forces.

They have no chance to do anything except use nuclear weapons, the same with North Korea. That's why it's such a big deal.

CVN=Nuclear aircraft carrier. Though prefacing it as US CVN is a bit redundant, as I'm pretty sure we're alone in numbering our carriers with that prefix.
Does anyone else even maintain fixed wing carriers? That's the 'V' part of CVN.

For more that you want on ship categories...
http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/genord_541.htm

i was stationed anboard CVN 68 THE USS NIMITZ and yes iran is on paper an obsolete fighting force but they have anti-ship missles that could split a cvn in half.

Does anyone else even maintain fixed wing carriers? That's the 'V' part of CVN.

For more that you want on ship categories...
http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/genord_541.htm

France and Russia do. China is considering building one, but that is all speculation. They did purchase the rusted hulk of the Varyag. Britain is building 2 new ones.

India is considering a new one.

I seem to recall reading something about a so-called "Carrier-killer" ballistic missile of Russian design a while back, that flew low over water and allegedly could duck under the radar of AEGIS systems. But I can't remember the name nor find it in a quick wiki search. Anyone know if I'm imagining this missile, or if it really exists?

And if so, one would expect Russia to sell or smuggle a few of those in Iran just to spite the US and make them stop thinking they're untouchable behind all their nice technology.

I seem to recall reading something about a so-called "Carrier-killer" ballistic missile of Russian design a while back, that flew low over water and allegedly could duck under the radar of AEGIS systems. But I can't remember the name nor find it in a quick wiki search. Anyone know if I'm imagining this missile, or if it really exists?

And if so, one would expect Russia to sell or smuggle a few of those in Iran just to spite the US and make them stop thinking they're untouchable behind all their nice technology.

Russia billed the SS-N-22 Sunburn as an Aegis killer. The US has purchased some and tested them against Aegis. Supposedly the results of the test are the reason the US is dumping the Phalanx CIWS in favor the RAM. Either way, the US has claimed to have a fix for the SS-N-22.

BTW, just a semantics thing, but it's a cruise missile, not a ballistic missile. Just an FYI

Their air power would be decimated fairly quickly. Could they hit a CVN w/ either a A-S or S-S? Sure. Fire enough and one or more is bound to get past the screening forces and Phalanx systems. Could they actually sink one? Possible but highly doubtful. The size alone coupled w/ the multiple redundant damage control systems make it unlikely w/o numerous hits on critical areas.

I was on the Kitty Hawk. I would like to know which systems they have that could "split a CVN in half".

Their air power would be decimated fairly quickly. Could they hit a CVN w/ either a A-S or S-S? Sure. Fire enough and one or more is bound to get past the screening forces and Phalanx systems. Could they actually sink one? Possible but highly doubtful. The size alone coupled w/ the multiple redundant damage control systems make it unlikely w/o numerous hits on critical areas.

I was on the Kitty Hawk. I would like to know which systems they have that could "split a CVN in half".

I would believe the claim if they had the Sunburn, Shipwreck, or other advanced Russian models, but Iran doesn't possess them. They instead bought the cheap C-802, which in combat failed to do significant damage to a 1,200 ton warship. Compare that to a 104,000 ton carrier.

Russia billed the SS-N-22 Sunburn as an Aegis killer. The US has purchased some and tested them against Aegis. Supposedly the results of the test are the reason the US is dumping the Phalanx CIWS in favor the RAM. Either way, the US has claimed to have a fix for the SS-N-22.

Yeah. But is that fix currently floating around all their precious billion-dollar CVN, or is the fix just getting out of the test labs and ready to be implemented in the new vessels that will be put to see in the coming 5 years?

Because, you know... if it's option a), then Iran has pretty much the USA by the gonads. We all know that Russia has sold weapons to Iran often, and I see no reason why Iran couldn't get its hands on this particular missile if it means profits for the Russians, defeat for the USN and means of telling "Fuck off from us" for Iran.

Yeah. But is that fix currently floating around all their precious billion-dollar CVN, or is the fix just getting out of the test labs and ready to be implemented in the new vessels that will be put to see in the coming 5 years?

Because, you know... if it's option a), then Iran has pretty much the USA by the gonads. We all know that Russia has sold weapons to Iran often, and I see no reason why Iran couldn't get its hands on this particular missile if it means profits for the Russians, defeat for the USN and means of telling "Fuck off from us" for Iran.

The conversion to the RAM began in 2002 and has pretty much been completed. They also made other fixes in the software.

RAM is a CIWS and is a last resort. The SM-2 should be able to intercept it before it gets close. The US has upgraded the SM in order to deal with the threat.

Besides, the SS-N-22 needs a good ship with a good RADAR to be launched. Iran probably only has 2 ships capable of carrying them, and even then they would only be able to carry 4 per ship.

I'm going to have to say that even if Iran could sink a CVN...

CVN's aren't the entire military.

No.

I was an Electronic Warfare Technician aboard U.S.S. George Washington. My primary role was Anti-Ship Missile Defense. That's what I did. My job was specifically to prevent my ship from being hit by anti-ship missiles. Now that my credentials are on the table, let me qualify what I say by making it clear that I've been out of the Navy for seven years.

As of seven years ago, Iran had weapon systems capable of targeting and attacking aircraft carriers and inflicting significant damage. Especially in the Strait of Hormuz. However, we knew where ALL of them were, what parametrics their radars used, what jamming techniques to use to delay launches and what deception techniques to prevent impacts.

The crew of a U.S. Battle group doesn't just pick it's ass as they sail through potentially hazardous waters. You'd better believe that we are prepared for any credible threat Iran could level against an aircraft carrier. They'd never get off a shot. qualified EWs can easily prevent a surface-to-surface missile launch long enough for air assets to neutralize the platform. That's what EWs do: Buy time.

I think you should be more concerned with Surface to Surface missiles than with any Air to Surface attack. I can't imagine a non-nuclear strike that would disable, let alone inconvenience a CVN.

40 P-700 Granit missiles utilizing the swarm leader algorithms older Soviet missiles had. Or the P-270 Moskit.

Now that my credentials are on the table, let me qualify what I say by making it clear that I've been out of the Navy for seven years.

Was it for pieing your captain? Or for wrapping his toilet in shrink wrap? :p

No.

I was an Electronic Warfare Technician aboard U.S.S. George Washington. My primary role was Anti-Ship Missile Defense. That's what I did. My job was specifically to prevent my ship from being hit by anti-ship missiles. Now that my credentials are on the table, let me qualify what I say by making it clear that I've been out of the Navy for seven years.

As of seven years ago, Iran had weapon systems capable of targeting and attacking aircraft carriers and inflicting significant damage. Especially in the Strait of Hormuz. However, we knew where ALL of them were, what parametrics their radars used, what jamming techniques to use to delay launches and what deception techniques to prevent impacts.

The crew of a U.S. Battle group doesn't just pick it's ass as they sail through potentially hazardous waters. You'd better believe that we are prepared for any credible threat Iran could level against an aircraft carrier. They'd never get off a shot. qualified EWs can easily prevent a surface-to-surface missile launch long enough for air assets to neutralize the platform. That's what EWs do: Buy time.

I can see you now.

http://www.costumehub.com/_static/webUpload/731/00878navy_3.jpg

The military has an acronym for everything.

FITREPs
PFA
CinCLANT
PRB
etc.FTS :D

Remember that Iran would be responding to our own attack. The US knows where Iranian long range Surface to Surface missles are based. I imagine they would be right behind Iranian Nuclear facilities on the target list.

A reminder that a CVN (that would be Aircraft Carrier, General Purpose - Nuclear Powered for the acronymn-impaired) is -not- invunerable.

If you recall the Viet-Nam War, the USS Forrestal was very nearly sunk when one of it's own armed A-7E Corsair aircraft misfired a missile into another aircraft, armed on deck, fueled and ready to go. The North Vietnamese had nothing to do with it, they did it to themselves.

Also, USS Cole was nearly sunk by one little group of terrorists in a small boat, with a crack running nearly all the way around the ship and damage to the keel. Only heroic efforts of the crew saved her.

The fabled AGEIS system (again an acronymn, this time for a system of radars which can track and target many many targets simultaneously) has not really been tested in a true combat or war situation. It -is- possible to overwhelm or jam it, it just takes a lot of work. I do not know if Iran has the kind of technology to do that, but they have the kind of money that will buy anything - oil.

Never, ever, assume you are invulnerable. As soon as you do someone will find your weakness and twist your arm behind your back with it.

i was stationed anboard CVN 68 THE USS NIMITZ and yes iran is on paper an obsolete fighting force but they have anti-ship missles that could split a cvn in half.

Those missiles have to get to the CVN first.

A reminder that a CVN (that would be Aircraft Carrier, General Purpose - Nuclear Powered for the acronymn-impaired) is -not- invunerable.

If you recall the Viet-Nam War, the USS Forrestal was very nearly sunk when one of it's own armed A-7E Corsair aircraft misfired a missile into another aircraft, armed on deck, fueled and ready to go. The North Vietnamese had nothing to do with it, they did it to themselves.

Basicly a similarity to what happend at Midway when the US Carrier planes caught three Japanese Carriers with their planes on deck with bombs and fuel and sank them and then later the fourth carrier with them.

Also, USS Cole was nearly sunk by one little group of terrorists in a small boat, with a crack running nearly all the way around the ship and damage to the keel. Only heroic efforts of the crew saved her.

Destroyers are alot more vulnerable than carriers are and they caught the destroyer flat footed in a friendly port at that.

A reminder that a CVN (that would be Aircraft Carrier, General Purpose - Nuclear Powered for the acronymn-impaired) is -not- invunerable.

If you recall the Viet-Nam War, the USS Forrestal was very nearly sunk when one of it's own armed A-7E Corsair aircraft misfired a missile into another aircraft, armed on deck, fueled and ready to go. The North Vietnamese had nothing to do with it, they did it to themselves.
They aren't invulnerable. I would never make such a claim, but I will make the claim that the C-802 missile sucks and it would take a lot of hits to sink one of them. If a 1,200 ton ship can survive a hit from one with only moderate damage, then I'm sure a ship almost 100 times her size would fair pretty well.

As for the Forrest Fire, the incident was one where an F-4 Phantom II had a Zuni rocket strike an A-4 Skyhawk (pilotted by LT CDR John S McCain III). The rocket ignited fuel tanks and old Comp B bombs cooked off in the heat of the inferno. Of course other bombs exploded and holes in the flight deck allowed burning gas to drip into the hangar deck and then lower decks.

The Forrest Fire is a poor example as everything that could go wrong with the firefighting crew did go wrong. Forty years ago, only the fire brigade was trained in how to fight a fire. Now every sailor is a firefighter. The fire brigade was killed when the first bomb cooked off. The poorly trained sailors then sprayed water on the deck and washed the AFFF off the ship. Had the crew been trained in how to fight a fire, then the fire would not have gone on as long as it did and kill as many as it did.

Either way, while the fire was bad, there really wasn't too much of a chance she would go down during the fire.


Also, USS Cole was nearly sunk by one little group of terrorists in a small boat, with a crack running nearly all the way around the ship and damage to the keel. Only heroic efforts of the crew saved her.
The Cole could never occur to a CVN. CVNs actually have thick hulls and are designed to survive hits.

DDGs have 1/4 to 1/2 inch hulls and are designed to be expendable for the CVN. The Cole was a Burke class DDG and the fact that she did survive that blast shows how well she was built. That was a 40 x 30 foot hole in her hull. It had the area of 1200 square feet. The fact that she didn't sink shows how well built the bulkheads on the ship were.

Of course the crew had to use shoring lumber to reinforce the bulkheads under the stress of the water. They were also lucky that fire didn't break out.

If you want to talk about US Navy ships taking damage, the Roberts took far more critical damage than the Cole did. She was nearly blown in half. by a mine that detonated just off the keel.

The Stark also took worse damage than the Cole. Her missile magazines were in danger of cooking off.


The fabled AGEIS system (again an acronymn, this time for a system of radars which can track and target many many targets simultaneously) has not really been tested in a true combat or war situation. It -is- possible to overwhelm or jam it, it just takes a lot of work. I do not know if Iran has the kind of technology to do that, but they have the kind of money that will buy anything - oil.

Never, ever, assume you are invulnerable. As soon as you do someone will find your weakness and twist your arm behind your back with it.

Just a nit pick, but Aegis is not an acronym. It is a name from Greek mythology. I believe it was Zeus's shield. I'm too lazy to check that one though.

The Aegis system has had missiles launched at it. Sure it hasn't faced the missile swarm in real combat, but the US Navy has done testing as close to real war as you can get. They have gone to great lengths to procure the best Russian missiles available to test it.

As for jamming it, the RADAR puts out millions of watts of energy. That would be pretty tough to jam.

As for Iran having money and oil, their oil fields aren't producing too well. They actually are having an energy crisis and their economy is going in the crapper with high inflation.

Could Iran actually coble something together to sink one... yeah. The only carriers during WWII that were unsinkable were the ones built on islands (Of course island carriers loose a little something in the whole manuverability and range department, but you can't sink them. ;) ). However, I doubt that Iran could get that to the carrier in question and get it to work. Somehow I don't see the crew of said carrier and her battle group waiting politely for the Iranians to hang whatever it is off the carrier's hull.

They aren't invulnerable. I would never make such a claim, but I will make the claim that the C-802 missile sucks and it would take a lot of hits to sink one of them. If a 1,200 ton ship can survive a hit from one with only moderate damage, then I'm sure a ship almost 100 times her size would fair pretty well.

I believe Iran is purchasing SS-N-22s. Whether they have a viable land or sea platform to launch (you can't seriously expect me to believe a naval missile can't be adapted to a land launch) and in sufficient numbers to make a difference is unknown.


The Cole could never occur to a CVN. CVNs actually have thick hulls and are designed to survive hits.

That's why when you want to kill a CVN, you need a missile with armor piercing caps. Aircraft carriers are essentially ammo dumps on the move with an airfield attachment after all.


As for jamming it, the RADAR puts out millions of watts of energy. That would be pretty tough to jam.

LG being an EW technician, he could probably do this better, but jamming is ludicrously easy. All you need is a noise emitter on the same band with a higher output. Preferably more than one emitter.


As for Iran having money and oil, their oil fields aren't producing too well. They actually are having an energy crisis and their economy is going in the crapper with high inflation.

It's how they juggle the money. NK has an economy you could lift with a thumb, but for an economic sinkhole, they do have a comparatively (considering their lack of money) well equipped army.

I believe Iran is purchasing SS-N-22s. Whether they have a viable land or sea platform to launch (you can't seriously expect me to believe a naval missile can't be adapted to a land launch) and in sufficient numbers to make a difference is unknown.

I just rechecked and Iran only has 3 vessels capable of carrying the missile. As for land based launchers, they will need a good RADAR system tied into it.

Even if Iran got the Sunburn, the US Navy solved the problem they had with the missile 5 years ago. If Iran had the Sunburn in 2001 or 2002 and attacked a carrier, we would be in trouble. In 2007, the Sunburn isn't an issue.


That's why when you want to kill a CVN, you need a missile with armor piercing caps. Aircraft carriers are essentially ammo dumps on the move with an airfield attachment after all.

In the end, it doesn't matter as the missile wouldn't get close enough to do anything. There really aren't any armor piercing ASMs. There are just ones with larger warheads. ASMs just can't penetrate large loads of steel. They have to hope their HE warheads are enough to get through the hull. In the case of a CV, should they breach the hull, it would be above the waterline. As for the ammunition, it is kept in a spot that would be safe from a missile. It wouldn't be in an exterior compartment.


LG being an EW technician, he could probably do this better, but jamming is ludicrously easy. All you need is a noise emitter on the same band with a higher output. Preferably more than one emitter.
LG can tell you that the Aegis puts out several million watts of power and can concentrate it down a single degree of bearing. It is the most powerful RADAR afloat and is more powerful than any jammer that exists. There is also the fact that there would be several such ships attached to a CVBG. You can't jam the Aegis as the SPY-1 RADAR puts out far more energy than the best jammers.



It's how they juggle the money. NK has an economy you could lift with a thumb, but for an economic sinkhole, they do have a comparatively (considering their lack of money) well equipped army.
Iran's currency is in deep shit. I don't know how many foreign governments would accept it. Their nuclear program is draining their funds like no other.

0All you need is a whole swarm of small civilian craft, a couple of which are packed with explosives. I doubt the US will fire on a hundred small unarmed civilian vessels.

They could do it under the guise of the 'people of Iran' just taking a Greenpeace tactic and trying to get in the way.

0All you need is a whole swarm of small civilian craft, a couple of which are packed with explosives. I doubt the US will fire on a hundred small unarmed civilian vessels.

They could do it under the guise of the 'people of Iran' just taking a Greenpeace tactic and trying to get in the way.

The US knows how Iran does this. The US dealt with this during Operation Praying Mantis in 1988 and smaller engagements in 1988. The Vincennes was actually fighting off smaller boats from Iran when it shot down the Airbus. It was because she was in a surface engagement that they thought the plane was an Iranian aircraft.

The US Navy would likely be able to keep good speed and make the Iranians spend too much time closing the distance.

After the Cole, the US Navy would not have issue opening fire.

0All you need is a whole swarm of small civilian craft, a couple of which are packed with explosives. I doubt the US will fire on a hundred small unarmed civilian vessels.

They could do it under the guise of the 'people of Iran' just taking a Greenpeace tactic and trying to get in the way.

Actually...if they are in a restricted zone and they do not leave...the military can use deadly force.

Actually...if they are in a restricted zone and they do not leave...the military can use deadly force.

they can and will.

The US would not be caught off guard if Iran tried this as this was their tactic in 1988 against civilian shipping and solo US ships. The US opened fire in those cases.

they can and will.

The US would not be caught off guard if Iran tried this as this was their tactic in 1988 against civilian shipping and solo US ships. The US opened fire in those cases.

from my understanding, you are right!

And ever since the Cole...

This thread is super lulz, I consider it the equivalent of 'naaaa iran suzorz, joos and mericanz betta!'

sinking a large nimitz class would be rather hard, the smaller escort carriers, are not as well armored though. To Sink any Carrier though would be a feat as you would need to do massive damage to it, to sink it. A single Torpedo fired from a Sub would not sink, only damage a US Carrier. Think on terms of Titanic only improved. You would need to created a large hole in the side to sink one as the bulk heads would simply close and stop the flooding. The Japanese where aware of this fact and that is why they used air craft most of the time, as bombs tend to do alot of damage, but it took sevral bombs to sink a WW2 class Carrier. Also a sub would have a hard time getting near a Carrier to begin with as the Destroyers are activly pinging the water around them, thus creating a net around the carrier. Now Subs in a wolf pack might pull it off, but 3 isnt enough, simply because the destroyers would spot them and sink them before they got in range, and even if all 3 got in range, they can only fire 6 torpedos between all 3, and you'd have to be very good shots to make 6 sink a carrier these days.

Here's a better question. I think it can happen if Hillary is elected.

This thread is super lulz, I consider it the equivalent of 'naaaa iran suzorz, joos and mericanz betta!'

Say something intelligent or don't say anything at all.

Try to make an argument, it isn't hard.

sinking a large nimitz class would be rather hard, the smaller escort carriers, are not as well armored though. To Sink any Carrier though would be a feat as you would need to do massive damage to it, to sink it. A single Torpedo fired from a Sub would not sink, only damage a US Carrier. Think on terms of Titanic only improved. You would need to created a large hole in the side to sink one as the bulk heads would simply close and stop the flooding. The Japanese where aware of this fact and that is why they used air craft most of the time, as bombs tend to do alot of damage, but it took sevral bombs to sink a WW2 class Carrier. Also a sub would have a hard time getting near a Carrier to begin with as the Destroyers are activly pinging the water around them, thus creating a net around the carrier. Now Subs in a wolf pack might pull it off, but 3 isnt enough, simply because the destroyers would spot them and sink them before they got in range, and even if all 3 got in range, they can only fire 6 torpedos between all 3, and you'd have to be very good shots to make 6 sink a carrier these days.
The way to sink any warship isn't to punch holes into it. Sure if you do enough, it will sink, but WWII's battle record will show more ships were lost to fire than to flooding.

That is why bombs were so good. They started fires on wooden flight decks (yes they were actually made of wood)

Even if Iran got the Sunburn, the US Navy solved the problem they had with the missile 5 years ago. If Iran had the Sunburn in 2001 or 2002 and attacked a carrier, we would be in trouble. In 2007, the Sunburn isn't an issue.

That's what they say. Cut out the usual feelgood propaganda that follows any announcement of their capabilities, and at best, I'd only give them a 50% interception ratio in actual wartime conditions.


In the end, it doesn't matter as the missile wouldn't get close enough to do anything.


The as in singular? Most likely. Actual wartime conditions with wartime considerations? Where it would be in a swarm? Hardly.


There really aren't any armor piercing ASMs.


Pffft. Hahahahahahahahaha.


There are just ones with larger warheads. ASMs just can't penetrate large loads of steel.

Carrier hulls aren't "large loads of steel" armor wise. It's multiple bulkheads with a decent amount of steel in between. They don't build carriers to be armored dreadnoughts where the warhead can't penetrate the armor. They build them to be able to take damage, but still keep going.


They have to hope their HE warheads are enough to get through the hull. In the case of a CV, should they breach the hull, it would be above the waterline. As for the ammunition, it is kept in a spot that would be safe from a missile. It wouldn't be in an exterior compartment.

Of course it wouldn't be in an exterior compartment. That's why you don't launch peewee payload sized missiles at a high value targets like that. You send lots supersonic missiles with payloads of 300kg and more.


Iran's currency is in deep shit. I don't know how many foreign governments would accept it. Their nuclear program is draining their funds like no other.

Still, I'd say Iran's currency is worth more than whatever they use for a dollar in North Korea and consequently can afford better kit. And unlike NK, Iran is actually exporting something that foreign governments do like, even if its not very efficiently. Oil.

The way to sink any warship isn't to punch holes into it. Sure if you do enough, it will sink, but WWII's battle record will show more ships were lost to fire than to flooding.

That is why bombs were so good. They started fires on wooden flight decks (yes they were actually made of wood)

Actually, the best way to sink it is to break the keel. Large explosives detonated directly under the hull would lift a portion of the ship, causing extreme deformations, and when it fell back down, the stress would snap it. Once the keel's gone, the ship is almost certainly doomed. Stresses involved in any form of movement, which would probably be leftover inertia in this case, would do the rest, and tear it apart.

Say something intelligent or don't say anything at all.

Try to make an argument, it isn't hard.
Sorry, but this thread is just a sad Islamophobic right-wing pro-US/Israel tirade of spewing garbage.

That's what they say. Cut out the usual feelgood propaganda that follows any announcement of their capabilities, and at best, I'd only give them a 50% interception ratio in actual wartime conditions.
Per missile launched, but each RAM launcher can carry a lot of missiles and CVNs have many of them. The Aegis ships carry between 90 and 122 long range SAMs plus RAM launchers. Combine those systems and any battlegroup is capable of dealing with over a hundred missiles simultaneously.

That is true even with a less than 50% interception ratio. Let's say it takes 3 or 4 missiles to intercept a single vampire (25-33% success) even then you have enough missiles in your magazines to deal with a swarm.



The as in singular? Most likely. Actual wartime conditions with wartime considerations? Where it would be in a swarm? Hardly.
Swarm is exactly what Aegis was built for. The Soviet strategy developped in the late 60s and early 70s was swarming missiles from either SSGNs or Backfires. An Aegis ship can empty its entire magazine of 90 or 122 Standard Missiles in little more than a minute. More than enough time to deal with a swarm.

On top of that, some Aegis ships are carrying a new version of the ESSM (4 can take the place of a single SM). This allows further AAW defense. Let's face it, dealing with incoming missiles is the specialty of the US Navy.



Pffft. Hahahahahahahahaha.
Most anti-ship missiles aren't built to pierce armor. There is no such thing as a battleship anymore so the world's Navys have decided to go with faster more maneuverable SSMs and ASMs which compensate with a smaller warhead. Case in point is the C-802, Harpoon, Exocet, etc. None of these weapons would do significant damage on an armored target.

Most anti-ship missiles explode on impact so it will take a huge warhead to get deep within the hull.



Carrier hulls aren't "large loads of steel" armor wise. It's multiple bulkheads with a decent amount of steel in between. They don't build carriers to be armored dreadnoughts where the warhead can't penetrate the armor. They build them to be able to take damage, but still keep going.
That in itself is the defense. The anti-ship missiles explode on impact with the hull so compartments such as berthing spaces would be affected and critical spaces would be safe. The space between compartments is passive armor.



Of course it wouldn't be in an exterior compartment. That's why you don't launch peewee payload sized missiles at a high value targets like that. You send lots supersonic missiles with payloads of 300kg and more.
Which fly straight and are meat for SMs, RAMs, and ESSMs. Heck, even the Phalanx could deal with the huge Russian ones.



Still, I'd say Iran's currency is worth more than whatever they use for a dollar in North Korea and consequently can afford better kit. And unlike NK, Iran is actually exporting something that foreign governments do like, even if its not very efficiently. Oil.
Read up on Iran's economy. They can't even provide enough oil to meet their own domestic needs. They are in serious trouble. They have had to ration gas in Iran and have had something like 20 gas stations burned to the ground in protest.

North Korea can only afford better equipment because they have gone almost completely to the guns side of the guns vs. butter. If Iran were to go the same route, their populous would rise up. Ahmadenijad and the Mullahs don't have a strong enough hold on their population to do anything major.

Sorry, but this thread is just a sad Islamophobic right-wing pro-US/Israel tirade of spewing garbage.

cite and back that up. What is Islamophobic about the Aegis being the best integrated AAW system afloat.

If anyone is spewing garbage here it is you. I and others are talking about the finer points of Naval warfare.

Actually, the best way to sink it is to break the keel. Large explosives detonated directly under the hull would lift a portion of the ship, causing extreme deformations, and when it fell back down, the stress would snap it. Once the keel's gone, the ship is almost certainly doomed. Stresses involved in any form of movement, which would probably be leftover inertia in this case, would do the rest, and tear it apart.

True, but that is easier said than done. The keel of the Samuel B. Roberts was damaged by a mine impact to her hull and she managed to survive. That was a 3,800 ton Oliver Hazard Perry class FFG.

A US CVN can survive a direct hit from a torpedo (yes I know modern torpedoes don't strike the side but rather explode under the keel). It would take probably 4 very heavy torpedo hits directly under the keel to fracture it.

I'm sure you've seen the demonstration of the Collins launching an ADCAP at a 2000 ton retired destroyer. While that was certainly a heavy blow, a carrier is too big for a single hit from 800 lbs of torpex to fracture her hull.

Only the 3 Kilo classes Iran has can go to sea and attempt this. It would take a really well trained crew to do that. I believe the closest anyone has gotten to a CV/CVN is when the Han class got within 24 nm of the Kitty Hawk in 1994.

Sorry, but this thread is just a sad Islamophobic right-wing pro-US/Israel tirade of spewing garbage.

You're just begging for another ban aren't you Andaras Prime?

Well, simple answer. Can a CVN float? If so, then it can be sunk.

Does Iran have all the bits and pieces it would need to do this? Perhaps. My guess is yes, most likely. Modern naval ships are a lot more fragile than earlier ones. The only question is getting the needed munitions to the CVN itself. That's a lot of airpower and escorts... but can it happen in warfare? Of course! And if the US and Iran were at war I think a lot of unchallenged assumptions would get challenged. Bloodily.

Well, simple answer. Can a CVN float? If so, then it can be sunk.

Does Iran have all the bits and pieces it would need to do this? Perhaps. My guess is yes, most likely. Modern naval ships are a lot more fragile than earlier ones. The only question is getting the needed munitions to the CVN itself. That's a lot of airpower and escorts... but can it happen in warfare? Of course! And if the US and Iran were at war I think a lot of unchallenged assumptions would get challenged. Bloodily.

I remember this sort of talk before Iraq - myself I'd bet on a complete collapse by Iran.

I remember this sort of talk before Iraq - myself I'd bet on a complete collapse by Iran.

Which before Iraq? Before Desert Storm, or before Operation Iraqi Freedom Goodness?

Per missile launched, but each RAM launcher can carry a lot of missiles and CVNs have many of them. The Aegis ships carry between 90 and 122 long range SAMs plus RAM launchers. Combine those systems and any battlegroup is capable of dealing with over a hundred missiles simultaneously.

That is true even with a less than 50% interception ratio. Let's say it takes 3 or 4 missiles to intercept a single vampire (25-33% success) even then you have enough missiles in your magazines to deal with a swarm.


Considering that the built in swarm specific routines the Soviets built into the Granit, I find it hard for them not to incorporate it into later models. Fired in swarms, one missile takes the intermittent position of swarm leader and only pops up now and then. If it's taken out, another takes its place. The rest fly extremely low, making detection much less interception difficult.

Every second you take to acquire and take down that new leader is another second the supersonics can close in.


Swarm is exactly what Aegis was built for. The Soviet strategy developped in the late 60s and early 70s was swarming missiles from either SSGNs or Backfires. An Aegis ship can empty its entire magazine of 90 or 122 Standard Missiles in little more than a minute. More than enough time to deal with a swarm.

On top of that, some Aegis ships are carrying a new version of the ESSM (4 can take the place of a single SM). This allows further AAW defense. Let's face it, dealing with incoming missiles is the specialty of the US Navy.


Considering the doctrines of the US Navy and equipment performance, I would most likely put it at early and medium late generation Soviet era missiles as its specialty. Late generation Russian missiles, or Granit class, not so much.

Whether Iran has those late generation missiles, I don't know.


Most anti-ship missiles explode on impact so it will take a huge warhead to get deep within the hull.

Most, not all. More than a few have delayed timers to allow detonation after penetration.



That in itself is the defense. The anti-ship missiles explode on impact with the hull so compartments such as berthing spaces would be affected and critical spaces would be safe. The space between compartments is passive armor.

Never said it wasn't a defense. But calling it a large load of steel is clearly false.


Which fly straight


Ahahahahaha


and are meat for SMs, RAMs, and ESSMs.


Ahahahahaha

Come on, you must be joking. You really think that the Russian designers didn't take into account anti missile defenses when they built those things? Most late 80s era ASMs from Russia have had violent terminal maneuvers. Did they suddenly forget how to make it like that?


Read up on Iran's economy. They can't even provide enough oil to meet their own domestic needs. They are in serious trouble. They have had to ration gas in Iran and have had something like 20 gas stations burned to the ground in protest.

North Korea can only afford better equipment because they have gone almost completely to the guns side of the guns vs. butter. If Iran were to go the same route, their populous would rise up. Ahmadenijad and the Mullahs don't have a strong enough hold on their population to do anything major.

Eh, we'll see whether they have that strong a hold or not. More saber rattling from America only serves to consolidate the Mullah's holds anyway.

I would use a submarine. All ships, no matter how well protected, still have some vulnerabilities.

IDF, what happens once the missiles are all depleted? What if the enemy still has more missiles to fire then? Could they still stop them with something else?

Which before Iraq? Before Desert Storm, or before Operation Iraqi Freedom Goodness?

:)

The last one - all sorts of theories on how Iraq might cause serious damage, the dangers for the American troops, ironically the greatest danger came when they'd 'won' already - unless you were British, in which case the greatest danger came from American troops.

I would use a submarine. All ships, no matter how well protected, still have some vulnerabilities.

Iran has one crappy Kilo class submarine which will be swamped by British and American subs in the first day of the war and sent to the bottom, like the rest of the Iranian Navy.

Their Navy is no threat;

So far, we know Iran has C-801 and C-802, plus Sunburn. Now, the Chicomm missiles you don't need to worry about. Sunburn is the hard hitter. I don't know how many the Iranians have, but I don't know if you can hit a carrier. Its not a video game, you can't make the missile attack the carrier specifically unless you have closer guidance systems like AWACS and such, which won't get close to the US Fleet (again, will probably be grounded on the first day, like the rest of the Iranian airforce)

I'm quite certain that Iran can't sink a US CVN, but if it could, I wouldn't be to too surprised about it. They'd still get annihalated.

Without their missiles, Iran can't touch US carriers. Their Navy blows and will certainly die and their airforce won't get anywhere NEAR to drop a bomb.

IDF, what happens once the missiles are all depleted? What if the enemy still has more missiles to fire then? Could they still stop them with something else?

That is the only way a missile swarm could work, but ships still have ESSM and RAM for once they deplete SM-2s (and SM-3s on some ships now).

If under attack, the Aegis ships would not fire any more missiles than they'd have to. The way it would work is they would fire one per incoming missile. If one missed, then they'd fire more to replace the one that missed.

In the end, with all of the escorts out there, the US Navy would have far more SAMs than the enemy has anti-ship missiles.

If we went head to head with Russia or China, they could swarm enough. Iran just doesn't have the numbers to do it.

True, but that is easier said than done. The keel of the Samuel B. Roberts was damaged by a mine impact to her hull and she managed to survive. That was a 3,800 ton Oliver Hazard Perry class FFG.


Damaged or broken? The difference is similar to a misaligned and broken spine. One's fatal. The other almost certainly fatal.

My specification was breaking it.


A US CVN can survive a direct hit from a torpedo (yes I know modern torpedoes don't strike the side but rather explode under the keel). It would take probably 4 very heavy torpedo hits directly under the keel to fracture it.


Most attack subs these days have 4 forward tubes anyway. And what kind of dumbass captain would only fire one at an undamaged carrier?


Only the 3 Kilo classes Iran has can go to sea and attempt this. It would take a really well trained crew to do that. I believe the closest anyone has gotten to a CV/CVN is when the Han class got within 24 nm of the Kitty Hawk in 1994.

I seem to remember an exercise some time ago where a Dutch sub not only sank the carrier, but multiple escorts and got away.

Whether Iran's sub crews are that well trained, well, we won't know unless they actually do attack.

IDF, what happens once the missiles are all depleted? What if the enemy still has more missiles to fire then? Could they still stop them with something else?

No. If the missiles are exhausted, all that's left are the Phalanx point defense systems. Good for stopping the one or two that get through, but not a full scale assault.

Listen folks, do you not think that the CIA and military intel is keeping track of where Iranian SSMs are based? They aren't very hard to find. Don't you think that the US navy will place their carriers outside the range of land based SSMs? Before you ask, Iran does not have the capability to launch an air to surface attack on any sort of scale. They simply lack the delivery systems to launch the big, carrier-killer missiles.

And, if the US attacks, why wouldn't they they target land based SSMs?

Iran has one crappy Kilo class submarine which will be swamped by British and American subs in the first day of the war and sent to the bottom, like the rest of the Iranian Navy.

Their Navy is no threat;

So far, we know Iran has C-801 and C-802, plus Sunburn. Now, the Chicomm missiles you don't need to worry about. Sunburn is the hard hitter. I don't know how many the Iranians have, but I don't know if you can hit a carrier. Its not a video game, you can't make the missile attack the carrier specifically unless you have closer guidance systems like AWACS and such, which won't get close to the US Fleet (again, will probably be grounded on the first day, like the rest of the Iranian airforce)

I'm quite certain that Iran can't sink a US CVN, but if it could, I wouldn't be to too surprised about it. They'd still get annihalated.

Without their missiles, Iran can't touch US carriers. Their Navy blows and will certainly die and their airforce won't get anywhere NEAR to drop a bomb.

You just need one submarine going all out against the CVN's underbelly.

Modern warships tend to be fairly unarmored compared to their forebears, due to the advent of the missile and thus the importance becoming more on interception than deflection.

However, submarines are still a deadly threat to any large warship.

I seem to remember an exercise some time ago where a Dutch sub not only sank the carrier, but multiple escorts and got away.

Whether Iran's sub crews are that well trained, well, we won't know unless they actually do attack.

I would like to see a source on that one.

As a sub captain, you NEVER engage the escorts. That tells the enemy exactly where you are, and exactly what depth you are at. When you fire, you want to make your shots hurt the most, then haul ass out of there. You do NOT stay around and mix it up with the escorts, who are bound to be mad as hell.

A NATO sub sneaking into torpedo range of a carrier? Eh, unlikely, but possible. "Sinking" the carrier, and multiple escorts, AND getting away? Nigh impossible, I think.

Considering that the built in swarm specific routines the Soviets built into the Granit, I find it hard for them not to incorporate it into later models. Fired in swarms, one missile takes the intermittent position of swarm leader and only pops up now and then. If it's taken out, another takes its place. The rest fly extremely low, making detection much less interception difficult.

Every second you take to acquire and take down that new leader is another second the supersonics can close in.
The reason the SPY-1 is so powerful is to identify individual targets that are clumped together. Realize that the horizon isn't an issue in a large battlegroup.

An E-2C Hawkeye would be high enough to identify sea skimmers. When engaging over the horizon, each SM has its own RADAR so this wouldn't be a problem.

Realize that Aegis was built to intercept these missiles. The Granit isn't anything new. It's even older than the first Aegis cruiser.



Considering the doctrines of the US Navy and equipment performance, I would most likely put it at early and medium late generation Soviet era missiles as its specialty. Late generation Russian missiles, or Granit class, not so much.

Whether Iran has those late generation missiles, I don't know.
Granit isn't as new as you'd think. It was put in service in 1980 while the first Aegis cruiser entered service in 1983.
Aegis can deal with Granit and newer weapons like the Sunburn.

As far was it is known, Iran possesses none of those weapons. The C-802 is their primary anti-ship missile. They do even possess a few harpoons.



Most, not all. More than a few have delayed timers to allow detonation after penetration.


Never said it wasn't a defense. But calling it a large load of steel is clearly false.
The aluminium skinned missiles have no problem piercing the 1/2" steel of most Navy ships, but they would have trouble getting into the carrier. I know they aren't like BBs with their armor, but they obviously have far more armor than the DDGs escorting them.

A good hit would put a CVN out of operation, but it wouldn't sink it.



Ahahahahaha



Ahahahahaha
The high speed supersonic missiles with large warheads fly straight paths and don't perform maneuvers in the middle of flight (not terminal). The Russian missiles are easy to shoot down. The Russians hoped that in swarm attacks they would launch them and have them close at speeds greater than the US ships could react.

The Soviet designers didn't realize that Aegis is a 100% automatic system so that human response times are not a factor in intercepting the missiles.

Come on, you must be joking. You really think that the Russian designers didn't take into account anti missile defenses when they built those things? Most late 80s era ASMs from Russia have had violent terminal maneuvers. Did they suddenly forget how to make it like that?
Their terminal maneuvers are fantastic, but they are in the terminal phase. The SMs and ESSMs intercept the missiles before terminal phase. During the rest of the flight, they are running "straight and true."

The Phalanx couldn't deal with the eratic maneuvers, but the RAM can. That is why the Navy installed it.

You just need one submarine going all out against the CVN's underbelly.

Modern warships tend to be fairly unarmored compared to their forebears, due to the advent of the missile and thus the importance becoming more on interception than deflection.

However, submarines are still a deadly threat to any large warship.

Problem is, a Nimitz class supercarrier isn't out there on it's own. It's got a dozen escorts, some fitted specifically to find and kill enemy subs. It would take a sub skipper with incredible skills, balls of steel, and an arseload of luck to get within striking range of a CVN. Possible? Yes. Probable? I wouldn't put money on it.

Damaged or broken? The difference is similar to a misaligned and broken spine. One's fatal. The other almost certainly fatal.

My specification was breaking it.
In all honesty, I don't know. The case study we did on the Roberts didn't really specify.

Either way, the mine blew up just off the centerline and if the keel didn't break, then it shows that breaking one is more difficult that most realize.



Most attack subs these days have 4 forward tubes anyway. And what kind of dumbass captain would only fire one at an undamaged carrier?
True, but the Iranian Kilo commanders and crews aren't well trained. The approach would be near impossible against a good ASW crew.



I seem to remember an exercise some time ago where a Dutch sub not only sank the carrier, but multiple escorts and got away.

Whether Iran's sub crews are that well trained, well, we won't know unless they actually do attack.
The Dutch have great subs and training. The Iranian subs have had maintenance issues since delivery. They don't really have the chance to wargame against top Navy's either.

Plus, they would have to go against US 688, Seawolf, and Virginia class subs in addition to surface ASW forces and airborne assets.

I have heard cases where allied subs have gotten in on our CVNs, but Iran doesn't have the training they have had. Huge difference.

There is also the fact that wargames often put on stupid rules which restrict what each side can do.

Hmm... Actually, I think they could take a CVN now that I think about it. If they have something that is flyable, then they have the chance for kamikaze strikes. IIRC, the Navy has moved away from CVNs actually being able to deflect that threat beyond their own CAP.

And there might be some Iranians nutty enough to do it too.

Hmm... Actually, I think they could take a CVN now that I think about it. If they have something that is flyable, then they have the chance for kamikaze strikes. IIRC, the Navy has moved away from CVNs actually being able to deflect that threat beyond their own CAP.

And there might be some Iranians nutty enough to do it too.

Now that's something I hadn't thought of. Perhaps some crazy jihadist takes an Iran Air Airbus and tries to crash it in to a carrier? After the incident with the USS Vincennes, perhaps the US Navy would be less apt to pull the trigger.

Problem is, a Nimitz class supercarrier isn't out there on it's own. It's got a dozen escorts, some fitted specifically to find and kill enemy subs. It would take a sub skipper with incredible skills, balls of steel, and an arseload of luck to get within striking range of a CVN. Possible? Yes. Probable? I wouldn't put money on it.

Not probable, no. But possible. And that was the question. Can they sink a CVN? They probably won't do so, but it is possible.

Was it for pieing your captain? Or for wrapping his toilet in shrink wrap? :p

They never caught me...aaa... whoever did it. ;

LG being an EW technician, he could probably do this better, but jamming is ludicrously easy. All you need is a noise emitter on the same band with a higher output. Preferably more than one emitter.

Basically, yes. When a targeting radar is detected, in order to jam it, you pump out a high powered stream of signal at the same parametrics. The radar cannot easily discern between it's own returning signal and the jamming signal. Sometimes the radars can get damaged. An aircraft carrier's AN/SLQ-32(V)4 can pump out a lot of power. Close to ten times what the same system on a Destroyer of Guided Missile Cruiser can.

Keep in mind that you only jam targeting radars to prevent missile launch. You don't jam missiles.

I would like to see a source on that one.


The news sources must have cycled them out. A brief skim through google brings this up.

http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/boats/boat_walrus2.htm

Was the carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt. Doesn't say escorts, but many ships, so my mistake.

Basically, yes. When a targeting radar is detected, in order to jam it, you pump out a high powered stream of signal at the same parametrics. The radar cannot easily discern between it's own returning signal and the jamming signal. Sometimes the radars can get damaged. An aircraft carrier's AN/SLQ-32(V)4 can pump out a lot of power. Close to ten times what the same system on a Destroyer of Guided Missile Cruiser can.

Keep in mind that you only jam targeting radars to prevent missile launch. You don't jam missiles.

Know nothing about radar so please forgive if this is a daft question but if jamming works by overloading the responses received on a particular frequency then why don't radar systems rotate the frequencies they emit to get around this?

Just a few notes, this is all hypothetical, and I am not advocating a war on Iran.

I'm just trying to see what everyone thinks of Iran's ability to hit a CVN in the event that a shooting war were to break out.


Iran wouldn't need to sink a US CVN.

It would just disappear as soon as it got close, like homosexuality does.

It would just disappear as soon as it got close, like homosexuality does.


FTW.


Brings up another interesting question. What if a "Gay Cruise" ship sailed into Iranian waters on accident. Would it then make the gays straight?


Also, does anyone else think it would be funny if GW threatened to drop the "Mother of All Gays Bomb" on Tehran.

I'd love to join this interesting discussion, unfortunately my expertise on the world's navies is limited to Pre-Cold War.

It's sad that the big guns of the grand Battleship have been made obsolete by all these acronymed missile systems and gadgets. :(

You mean something that happened to the USS Stark (http://www.navybook.com/nohigherhonor/pic-stark.shtml)?

An Exocet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet) was used for this job.

And the British could tell you some nice adventures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_war#Sinking_of_HMS_Sheffield) about those things.

Btw, Iran is having Exocets.

I'd love to join this interesting discussion, unfortunately my expertise on the world's navies is limited to Pre-Cold War.

It's sad that the big guns of the grand Battleship have been made obsolete by all these acronymed missile systems and gadgets. :(

The funny thing is, in a real way they haven't. There was a good reason for pulling the Iowa class ships out of mothballs and refitting them towards the end of the Cold War - they were so heavily armoured, so tough, that nothing in the US or Soviet arsenals, short of a nuke, could reasonably be expected to take one out. (And since we know that a Washington class could survive a near-miss from a nuke, reasonably so could an Iowa.)

Of course, there was also a good reason to decommission them, too - they were far too expensive to maintain and operate.

Know nothing about radar so please forgive if this is a daft question but if jamming works by overloading the responses received on a particular frequency then why don't radar systems rotate the frequencies they emit to get around this?

This is quite true. Modern military radar systems have what is called frequency agility. The best of them can change frequency with each radar pulse. There are other methods of avoiding jamming, but most of them are classified and I can't remember which ones are and which aren't.

I worked with the AEGIS weapons system as a fire controlman so I have some idea what I'm talking about.

Someone mentioned the SM-3 missile, that is an anti ballistic missile weapon. I believe what you are referring to is the SM-2 Block IV ER (extended range) missile. That weapon was developed to kill the sunburn missile with a fairly high Pk (probablilty of kill.

Also, there isn't an active radar seeker on the SM-2 class of missiles. They are designed to home in on reflected RF (radio frequency) energy from a CWI (continuous wave illuminator). So, the over the horizon scenario doesn't work for that. Of course I'm not saying everything. Any ommissions are on purpose due to my not wanting to share classified information on an unclassified board.

I remember this sort of talk before Iraq - myself I'd bet on a complete collapse by Iran.

I would not be surprised.

I'm just trying to see what everyone thinks of Iran's ability to hit a CVN in the event that a shooting war were to break out.

The biggest danger IMO is from the Kilos. Iran has 3 Kilos. SSKs are great in the waters of the Arabian Gulf.

Meh. A Kilo makes as much noise as a steam-powered freight train...

I think that the Iranians have a good chance of sinking, or incapatitating for long time, a US carrier if they can get hold of some of the latest Russian antiship supersonic beauties. US carriers have no defence against such missiles: their only hopes are to find the missile's launch site before the missile's up in the air.

You mean something that happened to the USS Stark (http://www.navybook.com/nohigherhonor/pic-stark.shtml)?

An Exocet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet) was used for this job.

And the British could tell you some nice adventures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_war#Sinking_of_HMS_Sheffield) about those things.

Btw, Iran is having Exocets.

You do realize that the Stark was a frigate and not a Carrier right?

And this from wikipedia:

No weapons were fired in defense of Stark. The Phalanx CIWS remained in standby mode, Mark 36 SRBOC countermeasures were not armed, and the attacking Exocet missiles and Mirage aircraft were in a blindspot of the defensive STIR (Separate Target Illumination Radar) fire control system, preventing usage of the ship's Standard missile defenses. The ship failed to maneuver to bring its weapons batteries to bear prior to the first missile impact.[1]

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/reading_room/65.pdf <--link of the report

In other words, it got caught with its pants down.

Know nothing about radar so please forgive if this is a daft question but if jamming works by overloading the responses received on a particular frequency then why don't radar systems rotate the frequencies they emit to get around this?

Ther are two different major types of radars; crystal controlled and electronically controlled.

Crystal controlled radars, which make up the majority of non-american military radars have a limited number of operating parametrics to choose from. Yes, they can be switched, but usually between one of two, three or (rarely) four modes. What makes it relatively easy(russian operators are very skilled in rapid mode shifts) to shift with the radar almost as rapidly is the fact that crystal controlled radars have very specific parametrics. As a matter of fact, no two crystal controlled radars have exactly the same parametics. That means that not only can we tell what kind of platform a detected radar is on, often we can identify the specific unit by it's unique parametrics! There is actually a master listing(an EW's bible) of every known radar and it's known operating modes. :)

Electronically controlled radars are potentially a bit more versatile, but this very rarely turns out to be the case. The design of the radars(waveguides etc.) require that for maximum efficiency, they operate in relatively narrow bands of parametrics. While it's possible to construct multi-band, virtually unlimited mode radars, there is a tremendous cost in space and equipment. Aegis is one such system. *nod*

You mean something that happened to the USS Stark (http://www.navybook.com/nohigherhonor/pic-stark.shtml)?

An Exocet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet) was used for this job.

And the British could tell you some nice adventures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_war#Sinking_of_HMS_Sheffield) about those things.

Btw, Iran is having Exocets.

Even when I was in the Navy, the Exocet was the EW's bogeyman. We didn't have a deception technique for it. I remember when they finally did. What a happy day that was! A lot of people blamed the EWs for not doing their job that day, but truth be told, they did exactly what their procedures told them to do; identify the platform(which they did), identify the threats( which they did) and inform the TAO(Tactical Action Officer)and battle group of the potential exocet threat(which they did). At the time, their procedures were NOT To TRY to deceive an exocet because no technique existed. Well, the rest you know.

That procedure changed. When I was an EW, if we were aware of a potential exocet threat and detected an incoming missile, we would instruct our equipment to identify it as a different missile and attempt to deceive it. We would actually rotate deception techniques in an attempt to confuse the missile. But even that is a moot point now. *nod*

Ther are two different major types of radars; crystal controlled and electronically controlled.

Crystal controlled radars, which make up the majority of non-american military radars have a limited number of operating parametrics to choose from. Yes, they can be switched, but usually between one of two, three or (rarely) four modes. What makes it relatively easy(russian operators are very skilled in rapid mode shifts) to shift with the radar almost as rapidly is the fact that crystal controlled radars have very specific parametrics. As a matter of fact, no two crystal controlled radars have exactly the same parametics. That means that not only can we tell what kind of platform a detected radar is on, often we can identify the specific unit by it's unique parametrics! There is actually a master listing(an EW's bible) of every known radar and it's known operating modes. :)

Electronically controlled radars are potentially a bit more versatile, but this very rarely turns out to be the case. The design of the radars(waveguides etc.) require that for maximum efficiency, they operate in relatively narrow bands of parametrics. While it's possible to construct multi-band, virtually unlimited mode radars, there is a tremendous cost in space and equipment. Aegis is one such system. *nod*

Hmm a clown who knows about radar. Suspicious if you ask me.

Because the TAO ignored the EW's recommendation. *nod*

From my reading into it...yep.

You do realize that the Stark was a frigate and not a Carrier right?

And this from wikipedia:



In other words, it got caught with its pants down.


Because the TAO ignored the EW's recommendation. *nod*

About submarines - the US would probably have a few of our own subs in the area. Do you think a Kilo could get past a Los Angeles or Seawolf? I doubt it.

I don't know the details of naval warfare, but from this discussion, I doubt Iran would succeed. They would need major luck, and probably a good dose of incompetence on the US side.

Assuming the US didn't obliterate their anti-shipping missiles in the opening hours of the war.

About submarines - the US would probably have a few of our own subs in the area. Do you think a Kilo could get past a Los Angeles or Seawolf? I doubt it.

I don't know the details of naval warfare, but from this discussion, I doubt Iran would succeed. They would need major luck, and probably a good dose of incompetence on the US side.

Assuming the US didn't obliterate their anti-shipping missiles in the opening hours of the war.

Each battlegroup has at least 2 assigned to it.

Hmm a clown who knows about radar. Suspicious if you ask me.

<.<

>.>

:D

Ther are two different major types of radars; crystal controlled and electronically controlled.

Crystal controlled radars, which make up the majority of non-american military radars have a limited number of operating parametrics to choose from. Yes, they can be switched, but usually between one of two, three or (rarely) four modes. What makes it relatively easy(russian operators are very skilled in rapid mode shifts) to shift with the radar almost as rapidly is the fact that crystal controlled radars have very specific parametrics. As a matter of fact, no two crystal controlled radars have exactly the same parametics. That means that not only can we tell what kind of platform a detected radar is on, often we can identify the specific unit by it's unique parametrics! There is actually a master listing(an EW's bible) of every known radar and it's known operating modes. :)

Electronically controlled radars are potentially a bit more versatile, but this very rarely turns out to be the case. The design of the radars(waveguides etc.) require that for maximum efficiency, they operate in relatively narrow bands of parametrics. While it's possible to construct multi-band, virtually unlimited mode radars, there is a tremendous cost in space and equipment. Aegis is one such system. *nod*

So does that mean that in the case presented in this thread that this would actualy play into the hands of the Iranians as their systems will be mainly land based? Also, in an electronic warfare environment, would it not be better to have systems able to operate at below their peak efficiency in order to sidestep jamming?

:)

The last one - all sorts of theories on how Iraq might cause serious damage, the dangers for the American troops, ironically the greatest danger came when they'd 'won' already - unless you were British, in which case the greatest danger came from American troops.

Oh, well that was silly. Iraq was practically harmless by then.

Iran is a different story.

cite and back that up. What is Islamophobic about the Aegis being the best integrated AAW system afloat.

If anyone is spewing garbage here it is you. I and others are talking about the finer points of Naval warfare.

His claim of Islamaphobia is from the impression that this thread is basically trash talk about how the Iranian military is impotent and insignificant in the event that the United States and Israel decides to attack or invade it.

His claim of Islamaphobia is from the impression that this thread is basically trash talk about how the Iranian military is impotent and insignificant in the event that the United States and Israel decides to attack or invade it.

That is kind of the case though. About 95% of the militaries in the world also fall into the same catagory. I struggle to see how calling a spade a spade is islamaphobia.

Hmm... Actually, I think they could take a CVN now that I think about it. If they have something that is flyable, then they have the chance for kamikaze strikes. IIRC, the Navy has moved away from CVNs actually being able to deflect that threat beyond their own CAP.

And there might be some Iranians nutty enough to do it too.

Doubt that would happen. Even if they hesitate until the last few moments, they could engage the inbound from miles out. When the plane is dropping altitude down to only a few angels over the escorts, then they will engage.

Heck, the CVN itself can engage with ESSM.

You mean something that happened to the USS Stark (http://www.navybook.com/nohigherhonor/pic-stark.shtml)?

An Exocet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet) was used for this job.

And the British could tell you some nice adventures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_war#Sinking_of_HMS_Sheffield) about those things.

Btw, Iran is having Exocets.



The Sheffield only went down because the British did something really dumb and built a superstructure out of aluminum. Their crews also sucked at DC.

The Stark took two hits (she couldn't defend herself as her CO had the RADAR system off and the CIWS on stand-by. The first warning of the missile was visual siting seconds before impact). A 3,800 ton ship should not survive two hits. That just shows how bad the Exocet's warhead is.

The Sheffield only went down because the British did something really dumb and built a superstructure out of aluminum. Their crews also sucked at DC.

The Stark took two hits (she couldn't defend herself as her CO had the RADAR system off and the CIWS on stand-by. The first warning of the missile was visual siting seconds before impact). A 3,800 ton ship should not survive two hits. That just shows how bad the Exocet's warhead is.

From my understanding, the first missile did not explode which actually saved the ship. If it had...*shudders*

*stares blankly a list of acronyms*

If the Iranians have any ORLYs with the ability to carry OMFGPWNJOO111 missiles then they could potentially cause a lot of damage before the Americans could DEAT them.

*nods sagely*

The Sheffield only went down because the British did something really dumb and built a superstructure out of aluminum. Their crews also sucked at DC.

Wrong and wrong. Sheffield's superstructure was built from steel, but her corridors from aluminium. The corridors burnt and it was impossible for DC teams to cross them because ... well, I'd like to see you cross melting metal. The crew couldn't even assemble on deck because it was too hot at that point. And the fact that, you know, it knocked out the electric systems when it hit, and DC without electricity is almost impossible.

The Sheffield only went down because the British did something really dumb and built a superstructure out of aluminum. Their crews also sucked at DC.

The Stark took two hits (she couldn't defend herself as her CO had the RADAR system off and the CIWS on stand-by. The first warning of the missile was visual siting seconds before impact). A 3,800 ton ship should not survive two hits. That just shows how bad the Exocet's warhead is.

The Sheffields' crews' efforts were probably hindered by the fact the the initial impact took out both the water main and electrical generation systems. It's a little hard to fight a fire with no water or power.

Don't post much but I have some Naval experience that might lend credence. I was Navy EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) for 12 years and got out in 2000. That being said, the biggest Iranian threat to the US Navy was and still are underwater mines. It doesn't take much to get in a couple of speedboats and sow likely avenues of approaches with hundreds of mines in restricted areas (part of the current Iranian doctrine). It's extrememly difficult to locate and then destroy these sown mines in shallow or murky water. It gets really hard to locate, dive, and then blow these mines when someone's shooting at you. Add to the mix that your very small EOD community has been diving for 96 hours straight with a carrier battle group bearing down on you at 20 knots and you have a problem. The US Navy simply doesn't have the capability to counter a significant mine threat in a restricted waterway once the shooting starts, nobody does. The current anti-mine triad consists of helocopters, minesweepers, and monkeys on a rope (EOD) to locate, then clear sea lanes quickly. Hundreds of mines in a narrow, shallow waterways (Hormuz) quickly overwhelm the Navy's ability to counter this threat and do all of the other things it supposed to do to include; carrier based strikes, counter missle threats, as well as subsurface launched missles or torpedos.

That's true, but the big problem then becomes design. Warships should be designed with redundancies for damage control.

Um, no. US ships (or any for that matter) don't have backup systems for damage control if the electricity is knocked out and its impossible for the DC teams to move across the ship.

The Sheffields' crews' efforts were probably hindered by the fact the the initial impact took out both the water main and electrical generation systems. It's a little hard to fight a fire with no water or power.
That's true, but the big problem then becomes design. Warships should be designed with redundancies for damage control.

On a serious note, I remember a millitary exercise conducted a while before the Iraq war showed that a poorly equipped Middle Eastern nation (played by a retired Marine-General) could inflict crippling losses on the US Navy through unconventional tactics: small civilian ships were sent to the vicinity of the US fleet, and their numbers were gradually increased until there were enough to sink most of the fleet in a mass suicide attack. If I remember correctly, the military went into a sulk, started the game again and pretended nothing had happened. The US military isn't renowned for its ability to learn from previous mistakes so I don't know if they've changed their tactics or not.

On a serious note, I remember a millitary exercise conducted a while before the Iraq war showed that a poorly equipped Middle Eastern nation (played by a retired Marine-General) could inflict crippling losses on the US Navy through unconventional tactics: small civilian ships were sent to the vicinity of the US fleet, and their numbers were gradually increased until there were enough to sink most of the fleet in a mass suicide attack. If I remember correctly, the military went into a sulk, started the game again and pretended nothing had happened. The US military isn't renowned for its ability to learn from previous mistakes so I don't know if they've changed their tactics or not.

Probably not but in a warzone, I doubt that they would take risks with small civilian ships. Then again, it is the navy :D

I'm quite sure the defending Admiral made a few problems there. Joint US/British actual combat ops in the first gulf war showed that small patrol boats don't stand a chance against HELO ops. RN Lynx and USN A-6s tore the Iraqi Navy's FCs apart.

Probably not but in a warzone, I doubt that they would take risks with small civilian ships. Then again, it is the navy :D

I would imagine that it's much harder to open fire on civilian ship than on confirmed military vessels. That hesitation is what I would rely on if fighting an asymetrical engagement.

I would imagine that it's much harder to open fire on civilian ship than on confirmed military vessels. That hesitation is what I would rely on if fighting an asymetrical engagement.

Same here.

So does that mean that in the case presented in this thread that this would actualy play into the hands of the Iranians as their systems will be mainly land based? Also, in an electronic warfare environment, would it not be better to have systems able to operate at below their peak efficiency in order to sidestep jamming?

Heh. I can jam a Furuno. :p

Lunatic, were you enlisted or an officer? Because being an EW(correct acronym?) sounds like an awesome job and I was wondering if it was possible for an enlisted man to become one.

Heh. I can jam a Furuno. :p

K.

*points back at post whereI said I knew nothing about radar*

What the hell are you on about sir?

Also

http://www.areavoices.com/sdoeden/images/thumbnail/jamtart004.jpg

Have you been confusing custard tarts and jam tarts again you naughty scamp you?

K.

*points back at post whereI said I knew nothing about radar*

What the hell are you on about sir?

Also

http://www.areavoices.com/sdoeden/images/thumbnail/jamtart004.jpg

Have you been confusing custard tarts and jam tarts again you naughty scamp you?

*drool*
Uh... what were we talking about? :confused:

Lunatic, were you enlisted or an officer? Because being an EW(correct acronym?) sounds like an awesome job and I was wondering if it was possible for an enlisted man to become one.

Enlisted. I have heard that since I left, the Electronic Warfare rate has been merged with the CT rate.

That kind of makes sense since the CT receives similar training. There are many sub-categories of CT; CTA, CTR CTM(which was closest to what EWs did). I don't know if CTMs do what EWs did, or if there is a new subcategory(CTE?)

But look into it and avoid CTA. You won't like it. :p

Also, be warned that the EW's nickname is "Eternally Waterbound" because there are almost no land-based assignments for EWs. :p

Edit: I just looked it up. EWs are CTTs now. *nod*

Enlisted. I have heard that since I left, the Electronic Warfare rate has been merged with the CT rate.

That kind of makes sense since the CT receives similar training. There are many sub-categories of CT; CTA, CTR CTM(which was closest to what EWs did). I don't know if CTMs do what EWs did, or if there is a new subcategory(CTE?)

But look into it and avoid CTA. You won't like it. :p

Also, be warned that the EW's nickname is "Eternally Waterbound" because there are almost no land-based assignments for EWs. :p

Edit: I just looked it up. EWs are CTTs now. *nod*
Ah, okay. Thanks Lunatic. It's always good to truly understand what I'm getting into. The Navy website is more of a propaganda "Here's all the good stuff and none of the bad stuff!" fest than a true info site.

Ah, okay. Thanks Lunatic. It's always good to truly understand what I'm getting into. The Navy website is more of a propaganda "Here's all the good stuff and none of the bad stuff!" fest than a true info site.

There is good and bad. Just like any other job. I left because I couldn't do my job anymore due to a partial hearing loss. It isn't much, but EWs rely on their ears so I was told I could either honorably discharge after four years(instead of the six I had signed up for), or change rates. I chose to leave.

What I miss most was the travel. I loved the travel. What I miss least was the duty sections. If you're fortunate enough to have three sections, you might actually get something close to normal sleep, but if you're in two sections and have an evil Division Officer, you end up with 6hrs on, 6 hours off or worse; 8 on, 8 off. Let me tell you, nothing wrecks your body's rhythms like 8 on, 8 off. >.<

There is good and bad. Just like any other job. I left because I couldn't do my job anymore due to a partial hearing loss. It isn't much, but EWs rely on their ears so I was told I could either honorably discharge after four years(instead of the six I had signed up for), or change rates. I chose to leave.

What I miss most was the travel. I loved the travel. What I miss least was the duty sections. If you're fortunate enough to have three sections, you might actually get something close to normal sleep, but if you're in two sections and have an evil Division Officer, you end up with 6hrs on, 6 hours off or worse; 8 on, 8 off. Let me tell you, nothing wrecks your body's rhythms like 8 on, 8 off. >.<

I'll be sure to keep that in mind, thanks.

You mean something that happened to the USS Stark (http://www.navybook.com/nohigherhonor/pic-stark.shtml)?

An Exocet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet) was used for this job.

And the British could tell you some nice adventures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_war#Sinking_of_HMS_Sheffield) about those things.

Btw, Iran is having Exocets.

The Stark is a frigate, and we're talking about carriers (large difference in size). Also, the Stark didn't sink. It survived 2 Exocet hits, limped into port, and was repaired.

I recently heard a rumor that the US Navy has a tactic for Exocet missiles. If it's not classified, maybe LG can enlighten us.

You mean something that happened to the USS Stark (http://www.navybook.com/nohigherhonor/pic-stark.shtml)?

An Exocet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet) was used for this job.

And the British could tell you some nice adventures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_war#Sinking_of_HMS_Sheffield) about those things.

Btw, Iran is having Exocets.

Ancient history.

The Exocet hasn't changed in the 20 years since the most recent incident, whilst the US Navy, and it's guided missile ships have.

The military has an acronym for everything.

FITREPs
PFA
CinCLANT
PRB
etc.

There is no longer a CinCLANT. In fact, there is no Atlantic Command any more. In fact, there is only one CinC left in the United States. Someone got an itch about the fact that MajCom commanding generals were called CinC when "only the President is Commander in Chief". Atlantic Command has been renamed and retasked as the US Joint Forces Command. The commander is COMUSJFCOM.

If you think you have ever seen acronyms before, drive around a Naval station some time. They have the most absurd, unweildy acronyms of any service.

There is good and bad. Just like any other job. I left because I couldn't do my job anymore due to a partial hearing loss. It isn't much, but EWs rely on their ears so I was told I could either honorably discharge after four years(instead of the six I had signed up for), or change rates. I chose to leave.

What I miss most was the travel. I loved the travel. What I miss least was the duty sections. If you're fortunate enough to have three sections, you might actually get something close to normal sleep, but if you're in two sections and have an evil Division Officer, you end up with 6hrs on, 6 hours off or worse; 8 on, 8 off. Let me tell you, nothing wrecks your body's rhythms like 8 on, 8 off. >.<

I've done the 8 on 8 off routine. I didn't sleep straight for weeks afterwards. My two section routine on the ship was 12 on 12 off. That wasn't too bad.

Spent all of my time as a west coaster so I saw lots of Asian countries.

If I remember correctly, the military went into a sulk, started the game again and pretended nothing had happened. The US military isn't renowned for its ability to learn from previous mistakes so I don't know if they've changed their tactics or not.

They didn't start the game again. They traded in their admirals caps for necromancer hats and raised their "dead".

"Oops, you used up all your assault resources. My troops all died, but guess what? They're now all undead! Fear my assault of US Zombie marines!"

Then they brought in some kind of mind control psychic.

"You do not want to use motorcycle messengers. You cannot. You must use our US standard issue cellphones."

J
The biggest danger IMO is from the Kilos. Iran has 3 Kilos. SSKs are great in the waters of the Arabian Gulf. The problem is that the escort Kilos have had reliablity issue leading to Iran having the 3 of them spend far too much time in drydock at Bandar Abbas.

Should Iran get them out to sea, they will have to get through several rings of sonobuoys, SH-60s with dipping SONAR, and of course the tin cans. Training is important in operating a submarine and we don't have a good idea of how well trained Iranian crews are.

We know that a well trained SSK crew can get in close to a carrier, but given the time spent at dock, I don't think Iran's crews are well trained. Iran just doesn't put great emphasis on their navy.

Yeah, the Kilo is the biggest hazard... One of the quietest diesel boats in the world.

As for SH-60's dipping sonar, or the capability of surface born ASW operations; I'm really not at all that impressed with the capability of surface ships to track and engage submerged targets... The Kilo's real worry is the 2-3 SSN's attached to the battlegroup the CVN is heading up.