"Could Iran Sink a U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier?" Topic

"The United States is accusing Iran of testing rockets near one of its aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf as it passed through the Straits of Hormuz. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) denounced the Iranian actions as "highly provocative." But could Iran actually sink one of the U.S. Navy's mighty flattops?

According to CENTCOM, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) naval vessels conducted live-fire drills less than 1,500 yards away from the Nimitz-class carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75), the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Bulkeley (DDG-84) destroyer and the French frigate FS Provence on Saturday. Moreover, civilian shipping traffic was in the area…"
See here
link

If they throw everything …. including the kitchen sink …. there is probably a very good chance that Iran will be able to sink a U.S. aircraft carrier. They will need to do it at the right place, at the right time, and with a lot of luck. But the consequences of such an action would be immense…

Amicalement
Armand

I'm sure they could, if it doesn't fight back, and is ordered to "stand down".

Apparently, the Iranians didn't learn their lesson properly the last time they got into a tussle with us.

Anything can be sunk. I don't think Cruise Missiles would do it but if you sneak a diesel-electric close enough and pump three torpedoes into the side of the carrier, not much can survive that.

If the Iranians are crazy enough to try that then they damn well better succeed because regardless of what damage they do God's own wrath will look pale in comparison to the hell that will be unleashed on them.

Sinking an American Carrier is one of the few true casus belli the US government would make good on.

First mistake is letting Iranian warships within 1.5km of Aircraft Carrier group.

Nobody intercepted them, nobody placed escorts between Iranians and carrier, or swarmed the Iranians with planes and helos or small boats before they could get that close.

Without defensive countermeasures, of course the Iranians could sink anything.

Well before the veterans come swaggering in denouncing any such idea as treasonous, let me add my point. Supercavitation torpedoes are a cheap and effective way to do the trick. There isn't any solid defensive measure one can use and one torpedo can do a world of hurt if the propulsion system is hit. Once one makes it through, the chaos and damage or reduced power makes it an easier target. How many torpedo boats do the Iranians have? And submarines? Destroyers? Plenty of ways to get them off and going, but it would need to be a first strike before the Americans destroy the ships.

The French Saphir submarine also showed that you do not need new technology to win, just the will to be bold. On top of all this, we have only speculation as to what goodies the Chinese and or Russians may have sold to the Iranians in the way of anti-ship missiles or EMP weaponry. Earlier this year the U.S.S. Donald Cook got a up close and personal taste of what Russian electronic warfare is capable of.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Iranians would win in the long run, but they're quite capable of inflicting a lot of pain in a first strike if they chose to do so.

The USS Donald Cook did not have its defenses neutralized by a pair of Su-24s. It merely ignored their provacative fly-bys. You really believe 40 year-old Su-24s have that much ECM capabilities? C'mon!

The Russians claimed to have shut down its Aegis system, with no proof. Russians choose to believe the unsubstiated claims.

Don't fall for bogus propaganda.

I blame the ingestion of copious amounts of vodka.

I believe it was the Millennium Challenge wargames that had Iranian asymmetric attacks crippling a carrier battle group. It takes some creativity and boldness, and the knowledge that pulling it off is a huge win.

I don't believe there is any speculation that Iran has a functional supercavitation torpedo.

For that matter, it has never been confirmed that Russia has a working and deployed supercavitating torpedo system.

First mistake is letting Iranian warships within 1.5km of Aircraft Carrier group.

Not much choice when you're transiting the Straits of Hormuz. Unless you think that the US should declare war and close the straits? Bit of an over-reaction just to transit a carrier group, don'tcha think?

Anything can be sunk. I don't think Cruise Missiles would do it but if you sneak a diesel-electric close enough and pump three torpedoes into the side of the carrier, not much can survive that.

Actually, the USS America survived 4 Mk48 torpedoes exploding under the keel. Somehow. Keep in mind that ONE Mk48 will blow an escort in half so completely that the two halves sink in about 3 minutes.

So I'm pretty sure that you'd need a lot more than 3 or 4 torps hitting the side of a carrier. Surface fleet loves it's compartmentalization.

"Actually, the USS America survived 4 Mk48 torpedoes exploding under the keel."

how do you know that? Has anything on the America SINKEX been published?

No. Because to tactically array sufficient power to sink a carrier implies such a failure of US military protocols, as to portray a world that does not (yet) exist….

Regardless, this provocative act by Iran, if true, can't be let to pass. So many in the West, lauded the Iran nuc deal. Failed to pay attention to many others saying you can't deal with or trust them. And like a self fulfilling prophecy, we see, the Persians are going to do what they want, when ever they want, etc., … And as many have mentioned these supporters of militant Shia islam are a threat to the West and Isreal, not to mention many Sunni moslems.

The Persians played a double game and got or will get what they want. Including $$$ from the US for one, not to mention the lifting of sanctions, etc. … They most likely will get nucs and they will get deployment systems. They clearly saw some of the weak leadership in the West went to the "Chamberlin" School of geo-politics. And we all know how that turned out.

The US/West hopefully with UN support[good luck with that !] needs to turn back the hand of time and continue or re-start any and all sanctions at this time. And even impose stricter sanctions and punitives … Or we will be watching a nuc armed Iran start a war with with Israel, the West, and Sunnis that will certainly get out of control …

Someone needs send a photo of Chamberlin waving that piece of paper, with that quote of "Peace in our time." To the extremely weak Western leadership that the Persians clearly read like a book … You don't have read Nostradamus to figure out what is happening. And will occur now and in the near future …

Legion – what Iran does in its own territorial waters is none of your damned business. They can conduct a live fire exercise within twenty feet if they so chose, just so long as they stay in their own turf.

If the Iranians get their jollies from annoying the Americans, best of British luck to them because it's not like the Americans don't do it to other people.

Not an unexpected reply from you stu … once again anti-US rhetoric from you. Re-read my post … the Iranians the largest supporter of Shia Islamic terrorism, sense the West's weakness, etc. … And are taking full advantage of it. And the US is already putting stricter sanctions on Iran. With more to come, it appears. You should change your screen name to Chamberlin. Because once they get deployable nucs, it will be too late. And we know based on their chants, rantings, etc., where that first Nuc will go. And the IDF will have no choice but to retaliate in kind.

And again based on your anti-Israeli well known previous rantings. I guess that would be just be fine with you.

And something else you refuse to get. The US and Iran are not geopolitical equals. Or "equal" in many other ways for that matter. Now some like you will call that "American Exceptionalism". It may be but it is also a fact …

America is exceptional, so I'm fine with that.

Navy Times article, IIRC. Having a hard time finding it via google.

The whole squadron office was rather shocked to learn that multiple Mk48s didn't sink the beast. We're used to thinking that one Mk48 is one dead surface ship. The only reason to fire two at a submarine is to keep the sub target from getting outside the seeker angle.

'Apparently, the Iranians didn't learn their lesson properly the last time they got into a tussle with us.'

I guess not. Wasn't having one commercial airliner full of innocent civilians enough for them?

Well you can believe what you like. But calmer clearer minds saw that incident for what it was. A tragic accident … Which as we see again in the Ukraine and recently at Kunduz … things can get very confused in a hot/combat zone.

But again, believe as you like, your opinion in this event is not isolated and alone. Some choose to believe that US is the Great Satan, or at least in this case. But many others see the reality of what happened. A very sad, unfortunate accident. Some times we say, "being at the wrong place, at wrong time …" Or " happens !" … to less PC …

Legion – all the Iranians did was to exercise in their own territorial waters.

Yes, I'm entirely fine with that.

I fail to see how Iran doing so, or supporting their right to do so can be in any way regarded as being anti-American.

Doubtless you'd elucidate?

America can apply all the sanctions it wants on Iran. I'm sure the EU will pick up the business.

America is exceptional, so I'm fine with that.

Me as well … but soon the "US Haters" will rise up like zombies from the grave. And state their opinion. Which is fine, as everyone is entitled to an opinion. But it may just not agree with many others … as we so often see here. And elsewhere … it's the nature of this type of topic. But none-the-less stones will be thrown. Whether one lives in a glass house or not …

Again, your reply is not unexpected stu … But as I predicted in my previous post that your kind will come around. Like sharks on chum …

And if the EU and probably the Russians and Chinese pick up the slack. Created by US sanctions … So be it. But that works both ways … Regardless to you stu, the US and Israel will always be the Great Satan. Maybe … You should convert to radical fanatical fundamentalist islam ?!? I hear they have some openings in Iraq and Syria … With many, many more to come …

Not much choice when you're transiting the Straits of Hormuz. Unless you think that the US should declare war and close the straits? Bit of an over-reaction just to transit a carrier group, don'tcha think?

Lion, actually, the narrowest part of the Straits of Hormuz is 54km wide. It isn't as narrow as some may think. There is room to operate safely for everyone.

You don't think the US Navy, when operating strategic assets in such a hotspot, would take extra care to screen potential military aggressors?

These weren't disguised tankers or local dhows, these were Iranian missile boats.

An effective naval commander would have warned military craft off while screening his ships with a flood of jets, helos and small craft. None of this apparently happened and the carrier force was taken by surprise by the Iranian launch.

Either the naval force commander was incompetent, or he was likely ordered by superiors to not make waves against the Iranians.

or he was likely ordered by superiors to not make waves against the Iranians.

Based on the passed predilections, etc. … of the US leadership … I see this as the probable reason. For better or worse.

[ As in the past, Bill and his minions will probably see my comment as political. Where it is not … but I may end up starting the New Year out in the Dawg Haus. Which happens far too often, IMO ! And some may wonder why I am not a Supporting Member !?!?!!!! LOL !!!! ]

Yep, ordered to stand down, no doubt.

"The USS Donald Cook did not have its defenses neutralized by a pair of Su-24s. It merely ignored their provacative fly-bys. You really believe 40 year-old Su-24s have that much ECM capabilities? C'mon!

The Russians claimed to have shut down its Aegis system, with no proof. Russians choose to believe the unsubstiated claims.

Don't fall for bogus propaganda."

=>And yet what sources do you have it is all made up? Snopes? The US military is flying primarily planes designed in the 70's with electronic upgrades. The B-52 being the eldest of the lot. We get lied to all the time here, saying don't believe the propaganda when you don't have a reliable source doesn't back your case. One didn't hear anything talking about the total failure of the Theodore Roosevelt Strike group against the Saphir, but the USN's lack of discussing it doesn't mean it did not occur.

Nah, better to build an armed orbital station with those rods from god.

They'd have a much faster response time.

Ortillery rules!

There are ways of sinking a CVN if you're willing to expend the men and ships. If the amount of power is no option nukes are always on the table. Particularly with the prevailing sentiment of most of the hand-wringers out there who think "the little nations should have them too!"

I'm with Legion 4 on this one. I believe some sort of command malfeasance took place in order to allow this type of security breach. One of the drawbacks to going "All Nuclear" in our subs and carriers is that we have no truly expendable assets. By "Expendable" I mean assets we would be willing to risk in a danger zone. Diesel electric subs would be idea for sneaking around areas like the Straits of Hormuz. Diesel carriers would be cheaper to risk in such areas. As such, the high command would be more willing to take a "bolder" course of action.

The idea that the USA is 'exceptional' and hence above the law is, of course, why it is widely hated.

Legion, could you please explain to me why the Iranians arne't permitted, if your eyes, to do as they please isnide Iranian waters? And indeed why they should give a tinkers' cuss what any pasisng foreign warship should think?

You can illustrate your answer by indicating exactly how much the USN cares about the opinions of foreign warships when operating in US waters….

The idea that the USA is 'exceptional' and hence above the law is, of course, why it is widely hated.

Legion, could you please explain to me why the Iranians arne't permitted, if your eyes, to do as they please isnide Iranian waters? And indeed why they should give a tinkers' cuss what any pasisng foreign warship should think?

You can illustrate your answer by indicating exactly how much the USN cares about the opinions of foreign warships when operating in US waters….

'Well you can believe what you like. But calmer clearer minds saw that incident for what it was.'

I didn't say a word about what it ‘was'. I just stated it happened, which it did.

We should build more Carriers and close all our overseas bases…Think of the money we could save….

I like this plan. Focus on Expeditionary Naval/Amphibious Warfare. And with a smaller overseas footprint and smaller Army/Air Force, the US would be less able to unilaterally enact "regime change", which would be a good thing IMO.

better to build an armed orbital station with those rods from god.

They'd have a much faster response time.

I like this too. But I'm sure the Chinese would double their anti-satellite missile efforts if we weaponized space in this matter. A dangerous precedent…

One of the drawbacks to going "All Nuclear" in our subs and carriers is that we have no truly expendable assets. By "Expendable" I mean assets we would be willing to risk in a danger zone. Diesel electric subs would be idea for sneaking around areas like the Straits of Hormuz. Diesel carriers would be cheaper to risk in such areas.

Diesel subs would be nice, but they tend to have comparatively short ranges, so we would need overseas submarine bases or additional/better submarine tenders ( my preferred option). I think our LHD/LHA ships are close to filling the "non-nuclear carrier" role. Assuming we ever get to the point where the F-35B can actually contribute to a fight… The new America-class LHAs are ~$3.4B each compared to $10.4 USDB for the Ford-class…

The idea that the USA is 'exceptional' and hence above the law is, of course, why it is widely hated.

A well known concept. And what is above the law is always in the eyes of the beholders.

Legion, could you please explain to me why the Iranians arne't permitted, if your eyes, to do as they please isnide Iranian waters? And indeed why they should give a tinkers' cuss what any pasisng foreign warship should think?

Yes, the Persians are purposely being provocative and looking for a fight. The US wisely didn't that the bait … But like a civilized society complained about this clear provocation … instead of blowing the provocateurs out of the water …

You can illustrate your answer by indicating exactly how much the USN cares about the opinions of foreign warships when operating in US waters….

Oh, yes, the USN and USAF are very protective of the US, it's coastline and assets, etc. … Oh yes, if you notice many in the US don't give a "tinker's damn" about what many of it's "enemies" think about them. Only what the enemies' next moves are … and how to "handle" those moves … And yes, stu … I think the US with all it's faults, etc., is "exceptional" … regardless what You believe … To quote kyote –

I love the United States of America, warts and all.

I guess I'll even go as far as saying something I heard a lovely female professional model say –

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful !

Sorry stu you think you are the ugly gal at the ball. And those glass slippers don't fit ! LOL !

I didn't say a word about what it ‘was'. I just stated it happened, which it did.

Agreed … it did happen and the US paid reparations link … Again a very unfortunate event … No matter how much tech is involved. Human error is always a factor in some cases. In aircraft crashes, it comes down to two or three considerations. 1) Mechanical Failure, 2) Pilot/Crew Error, 3) Both …

Yes, the Persians are purposely being provocative and looking for a fight.

You don't think the Iranians might argue sailing a CBG through Hormuz mightn't count a provocation?

I mean you have a track record of killing Iranian civilians. They've never done that much to you.

And yes the US did eventually pay reparations. Considerably less than they extracted from the Libyans.

Though I'll guess more than the Russians are likely to shell out.

Whilst it is tempting to wind up the more reactionary elements on this forum, and with all due respect to my welsh co poster, I suspect this situation is probably down to Iranian posturing. I was a little surprised that this still goes on as I thought the US and Iran had an understanding these days.

BTW, several EU countries have had a go at policing the globe but this didn't go down very well in certain places, including if I recall correctly the United States.

You don't think the Iranians might argue sailing a CBG through Hormuz mightn't count a provocation?

Only if you are looking for trouble … otherwise … you complain to the UN, etc. …

I mean you have a track record of killing Iranian civilians. They've never done that much to you.

Me … I never killed any Iranians AFAIK … They have never done anything personally to me … However, that whole violent take over of the US Embassy and holding US hostages for 444 days … kind of left a mark … And the "Death to America" chanting is kind of annoying. Maybe that's just me ?

And come on Legion 4…what did I tell you…..

"Don't hate me because I'm beautiful ! " … you never told me that !!!!!

Though I'll guess more than the Russians are likely to shell out.

You calling Putin cheap !?!? HE ain't going to like that ! As I'm sure he reads your posts on TMP and holds your input in such high regard !

Of course the Iranians are posturing.

Willy-waving is what militaries do when place din close proximity to other militaries.

But sailing a Carrier Battle Group through Hormuz is also posturing…

Yes … it is … posturing is one of the first steps to possibly reduce the possibility of violence. If you know you have a good chance you're going to get clobbered … then you might think twice about going after the biggest guy in the room.

The problem with some islamists … they want to go to "paradise". And that makes them particularly dangerous … as we see and have seen.

This picture shows the traffic separation scheme in the Straits:

Notice how close the traffic lanes are at the eastern end. Get Iranian ships in the outbound lane as the carrier group transits in (or vice versa), and you have an instant close approach situation. Also, Iranian territorial waters go all the way up to the edge of the inbound shipping lane (and beyond, in some places). You cannot order another nation's navy to stay clear of your ships inside their own territorial waters.

Apparently you can because '!

Now, there is still the matter of professionalism and politeness to not hold a live-fire particularly close to someone else's warships, that's bad form and just begging for an 'accident'.

It's certainly impolite, but then I think the US armed forces lost the right to complain about that some decades ago…

I'm not surprised you'd say that … Regardless … The Persians are just taking advantage of the current situation of the perceived US weakness … And when it comes to the Persians they are never polite to the US … for a number of reason. For better or worse.

The US still posts advanced warning about live-fire exercises and tries to herd idiots out of the way, Stu. Just like every other civilized nation.

Yes they could.

Lion – it wasn't exercises I was thinking about….

Yes, we know it wasn't an exercise … It was the Persians playing Putin with the US. But the Persians ain't the Russians. And as we all know when it comes to geopolitics, the US ain't what it used to be. And may never be again.

We all know like the Roman Empire the US is a failing state. Soon we will all be living in Tee Pees and hunting buffalo …