Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 2/22/2007 1:41:41 PM EST
Iran demonstrated a high speed torpedo in the last 'war game' exercise. They also have
other means to launch surface to surface missiles. Will the West wait until we lose a ship
before we attack?

Link Posted: 2/22/2007 1:44:15 PM EST
If Iran sank a US Carrier it would be 'Game Over' for Iran… period!

ANdy
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 1:45:05 PM EST
IMHO If Iran was to take one of our carriers out They would suffer such a massive nuclear attack the likes the world has never seen.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 1:45:13 PM EST

Given their size, I think it's pretty hard to "lose" one.



Oh wait - you meant that the Iranians could destroy a carrier?




Link Posted: 2/22/2007 1:45:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By Carhlr:
IMHO If Iran was to take one of our carriers out They would suffer such a massive nuclear attack the likes the world has never seen.
I would like to think so.....
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 1:45:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By AmericanPatriot:
Iran demonstrated a high speed torpedo in the last 'war game' exercise. They also have
other means to launch surface to surface missiles. Will the West wait until we lose a ship
before we attack?




The high speed torpedo isn't all that it's cracked up to be. IIRC, it's a straight shoot, non homing torpedo. If they can change course fast enough the torpedo will swim harmlessly by.

I would be more worried about ASM's fired in barrages from shore, but even then, our ships aren't exactly defenseless.

Tankers and the like would be another case entirely.


I figure LWilde or Dport will be along shortly with a better answer.

-K
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 1:49:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By Carhlr:
IMHO If Iran was to take one of our carriers out They would suffer such a massive nuclear attack the likes the world has never seen.


I doubt our leadership could muster the backbone to use nukes against iran if they used them first.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 1:55:34 PM EST
What would happen to the reactor if a CVN was sunk? Would we try to recover it from the ocean, what type of damage could it do environmentally if any?

Steve
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 1:58:30 PM EST
That torpedo is on par with their "flying boat" all show and no go.

Our Navy is more than capable of controlling the Gulf.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:01:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By NUcadet07:
What would happen to the reactor if a CVN was sunk? Would we try to recover it from the ocean, what type of damage could it do environmentally if any?

Steve


That may the least of our worries...

After the 'dust' settles I would assume some sort of salvage would commence.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:02:40 PM EST
well Iran did find a cure for AIDS, so they can sunk a carrier
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:02:48 PM EST
An overt attack on a national asset such as a carrier will be followed by the rapid demise of the Iranian regime.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:03:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By Carhlr:
IMHO If Iran was to take one of our carriers out They would suffer such a massive nuclear attack the likes the world has never seen.


Not likely. We might hit a strictly military target with a small tactical nuke. But I'd bet against even that.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:06:00 PM EST
Maybe not a carrier cause of the screen but look at an Exocet type attack like the Argentines did to the Sheffield picket ship during the Falklands.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:06:33 PM EST
First, I think that it would take more than one Iranian super torpedo to sink a US aircraft carrier.

Second, even if it did then the two other carriers along with their battle groups and the air forces already in the gulf would instantly initiate an all out air war against Iran, the likes of which has not been seen.

They'd be better off bombing one of their own cities. Then at least they'd only lose one city.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:07:42 PM EST
Hitting one of our carriers would be the best thing in the world for our War on Terror.

It would help bring the nations of the world together against Iran. It would sway some of the fence-sitting nations in our favor.



Unless of course this is another "Gulf of Tonkin" incident.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:08:07 PM EST
Nope
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:08:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2007 2:10:17 PM EST by TheFringe]
To Hell with the environment !! (over there anyway)
My foremost concern would be for the 6000 lost lives and their surviving family members.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:08:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2007 2:11:14 PM EST by The_Macallan]

Will we lose an Aircraft Carrier in the Gulf?

Oh how that would make the Left in this country absolutely overjoyed.

The sight of a burning sinking American carrier would bring them nothing less than orgasmic satisfaction.

And then they'd follow it up with dancing and protesting any possible American military response and flood the streets chanting "Revenge Is For Jerks".

Just like after 9-11.

Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:09:28 PM EST
Iran would pretend that "Terrorists" did it. We would go in, blow up their infrastructure, remove their leader and open up McDonalds there.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:09:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2007 2:11:26 PM EST by LTCetme]
While the carrier is at sea it is perhaps the most defencive position on earth. You can't even get remotely close to one with out us knowing. We have aircraft in the sky nearly 24/7 when we are in a threat area. There are also between 8 and 12 other various warships deticated to defending it dozens of miles in every direction. I sincerly doubt Iran could get a launch platform close enough to launch agains a carrier.

Now in port is another story. Thats scary.

Oh and BTW they are probably more difficult to sink than you might think.

(former AT2 USN USS Enterprise (CVN-65) and USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71))
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:11:31 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2007 2:17:08 PM EST by vito113]
Actually, the carriers are very vulnerable as they transit the straits of Hormuz. It's narrow with little searoom to manouvere. An Iranian Kilo inside it's own territorial waters could get in a salvo at an inbound carrier with ease, you are inside Iranian littoral waters in places. There are missile batteries all along the coast too, hundreds of them.


HOWEVER! It's generally accepted, that an attack on a US Carrier is considered a direct attack on the US proper. Sinking one would result in VERY bad things happening to you



ANdy

Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:12:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2007 2:12:45 PM EST by NME]

Originally Posted By armoredsaint:
well Iran did find a cure for AIDS, so they can sunk a carrier


Allah will sink your carrier AND cure your AIDS.

Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:12:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By cobra-ak:
Maybe not a carrier cause of the screen but look at an Exocet type attack like the Argentines did to the Sheffield picket ship during the Falklands.


So let me get this straight you're going to compare an 1100ft long 98,000ton Carrier vs a 413 ft 4500 ton destroyer? Did you see what happened to the USS Cole? No exocet would have sunk the Cole with one hit either.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:12:42 PM EST
Almost certainly the US would not respond with a nuclear attack if a US carrier were sunk. But there would be very harsh words exchanged, and the US public would likely demand the end of the Iranian regime.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:13:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By NUcadet07:
What would happen to the reactor if a CVN was sunk? Would we try to recover it from the ocean, what type of damage could it do environmentally if any?

Steve


The Scorpion and the Thresher both sank some 40 odd years ago. Last I heard, there was still no leakage, but I am sure that is just a coverup.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:15:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By NUcadet07:
What would happen to the reactor if a CVN was sunk? Would we try to recover it from the ocean, what type of damage could it do environmentally if any?

Steve


The US and USSR both lost nuclear powered subs during the cold war. While its certantly not a good thing iw wasn't the end of the world either.

Perhaps that was the cause of global warming.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:15:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By cobra-ak:
Maybe not a carrier cause of the screen but look at an Exocet type attack like the Argentines did to the Sheffield picket ship during the Falklands.


Those ships had aluminum superstructures. The US Navy saw that and went back to steel.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:16:47 PM EST
massed volley of Sunburns flying at wave tip height might do it.

I hope our government has the scrotum not to use a carrier as bait but then again, I wouldn't bet on it

Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:17:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:
Actually, the carriers are very vulnerable as they transit the straits of Hormuz. It's narrow with little searoom to manouvere. An Iranian Kilo inside it's own territorial waters could get in a salvo at an inbound carrier with ease, you are inside Iranian littoral waters in places. There are missile batteries all along the coast too, hundreds of them.

www.willisms.com/archives/straitofhormuz.jpg

ANdy



There is truth to that statement. The further the ship is from land the safer it is and the more space around it is has to protect it self.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:17:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2007 2:26:12 PM EST by Armed_Scientist]
The Iranian copies, and the Russian production Shkval "super-cavitating" torpedos sound quite a bit scarier then they actually are, because they don't have any control surfaces outside of the pressurized gas envelope they really don't have any sort of guidance packages for they are vulnerable to being avoid by good old fashioned evasive manuvers.

The bigger threat to US CVNs in my not in the Navy zoomie opinion is the Sunburn cruise missiles, and even those should be engaged by the latest software upgrades to the CIWS and prehaps SM missiles will be able to engage those.

Even if a Sunburns does get through the Carriers Aegis escorts it would take multiple hits to get a 'kill' against a carrier, you might get lucky and get a capability kill, but a straight on sink I don't think is in the cards.

If it was, that would be the end of Iran and the first time the US took the gloves off in a war since World War II.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:18:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By Carhlr:
IMHO If Iran Afghanistan was to take one of our carriers bomb the Pentagon and take the twin towers out They would suffer such a massive nuclear attack the likes the world has never seen.

If we haven't used nukes yet, I can't forsee us EVER using them. Not even against a direct terrorist nuclear attack here at home.

We'll take one nuclear attack (even multiple ones at the same time) and still not launch a nuclear retaliation. I just don't see ANYONE in the Federal Gov't willing to give that order to launch in response to a single attack.

Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:19:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By AmericanPatriot:
Iran demonstrated a high speed torpedo in the last 'war game' exercise. They also have
other means to launch surface to surface missiles. Will the West wait until we lose a ship
before we attack?



It is doubtful we could sink one of our own, let alone someone else.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:19:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:
If Iran sank a US Carrier it would be 'Game Over' for Iran… period!

ANdy



Fo' sho' !!!!!!!
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:20:22 PM EST
umm... dont carriers travel with a huge battle group consisting of attack subs, cruisers, destroyers, and frigates. I have the feeling that any subs that got close would be shooed (sp?) away from the battlegroup with a few pings as a proverbial "shot across the bow". As far as missles, unless it was a HUGE barrage i think that the CIWS of the outer ring would be able to deal with some and the carriers own aircover/CIWS can engage the others. (IIRC AMRAAMS and AIM9Xs can engage cruise missles, not sure about harpoon type birds)
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:20:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
Almost certainly the US would not respond with a nuclear attack if a US carrier were sunk. But there would be very harsh words exchanged, and the US public would likely demand the end of the Iranian regime.

But we wouldn't have the stomach to do what it takes to actually end the Iranian regime.

Just like we apparently don't have the stomach to end the terrorist problem in Iraq.

Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:21:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By cobra-ak:
Maybe not a carrier cause of the screen but look at an Exocet type attack like the Argentines did to the Sheffield picket ship during the Falklands.


Those ships had aluminum superstructures. The US Navy saw that and went back to steel.



HMS Sheffield was all steel, the intial damage from the missile was not fatal, the destruction of the main firemain prevented firefighting ops allowing the fire to spread. She sank 8 days later during a storm while under tow to South Georgia from water coming in through the damaged hull plating.

ANdy
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:21:56 PM EST
They're not that stupid.

The resulting blockade of Iranian oil exports would be enough to topple the Iranian government.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:22:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By LTCetme:
While the carrier is at sea it is perhaps the most defencive position on earth. You can't even get remotely close to one with out us knowing. We have aircraft in the sky nearly 24/7 when we are in a threat area. There are also between 8 and 12 other various warships deticated to defending it dozens of miles in every direction. I sincerly doubt Iran could get a launch platform close enough to launch agains a carrier.

Now in port is another story. Thats scary.

Oh and BTW they are probably more difficult to sink than you might think.

(former AT2 USN USS Enterprise (CVN-65) and USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71))


And hunter subs on station. I used to know the makeup of a typical carrier battle group, but I have long since forgotten.

People hear that a carrier is deploying, but they don't always understand that "carrier" is slang for an entire group of surface, air, and below surface ships and aircraft.

I'm not saying it would be impossible to sink one of ours, but it would be damn hard, highly unlikely, very stupid, and would require a HELL of a lot more than 1 or 2 torpedos or surface to surface missles. I doubt Iran is even that stupid. That would constitute all out war, and liberal whiners will be hard pressed when GW retains office to take Iran into an occupied American territory.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:22:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
Almost certainly the US would not respond with a nuclear attack if a US carrier were sunk. But there would be very harsh words exchanged, and the US public would likely demand the end of the Iranian regime.

But we wouldn't have the stomach to do what it takes to actually end the Iranian regime.

Just like we apparently don't have the stomach to end the terrorist problem in Iraq.



I don't blame the leadership as much as I blame the electorate. Look at the last elections.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:24:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By VTwin60:

Originally Posted By cobra-ak:
Maybe not a carrier cause of the screen but look at an Exocet type attack like the Argentines did to the Sheffield picket ship during the Falklands.


So let me get this straight you're going to compare an 1100ft long 98,000ton Carrier vs a 413 ft 4500 ton destroyer? Did you see what happened to the USS Cole? No exocet would have sunk the Cole with one hit either.
Read the post VT60 it will probably be a destroyer or a frigate on the fringes that will get hit someone radiating on the fringes maybe picking up a sea skimming type radar homing missile. Read the post VT60
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:28:27 PM EST

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


While the carrier is at sea it is perhaps the most defencive position on earth. You can't even get remotely close to one with out us knowing. We have aircraft in the sky nearly 24/7 when we are in a threat area. There are also between 8 and 12 other various warships deticated to defending it dozens of miles in every direction. I sincerly doubt Iran could get a launch platform close enough to launch agains a carrier.


Wasn't their a case a few months ago of a Chinese sub shadowing one of our carrier battle groups?
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:28:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By cobra-ak:
Maybe not a carrier cause of the screen but look at an Exocet type attack like the Argentines did to the Sheffield picket ship during the Falklands.


Those ships had aluminum superstructures. The US Navy saw that and went back to steel.



HMS Sheffield was all steel, the intial damage from the missile was not fatal, the destruction of the main firemain prevented firefighting ops allowing the fire to spread. She sank 8 days later during a storm while under tow to South Georgia from water coming in through the damaged hull plating.

ANdy
Regardless of the damage inflicted Sheffield was on the fringes and that sea skimmer shot from 25+ miles away homed in on the radar, they never saw it coming, an advantage we have is aircraft with lookdown radar
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:30:39 PM EST
I might be incorrect, but I thought the Exocet as it was built at that time was made to home in on the electronic signature of the ship so as to destroy the eyes, ears, and response capabilities of said warship. In that way it would turn the multi-million dollar ship into a worthless, unsuable hulk.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:35:14 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:36:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By bmick325:
They're not that stupid.

The resulting blockade of Iranian oil exports would be enough to topple the Iranian government.


they have a lot of stupid over there .
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:40:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2007 2:41:22 PM EST by Loaded_For_Bear]

Hitting one of our carriers would be the best thing in the world for our War on Terror.

It would help bring the nations of the world together against Iran. It would sway some of the fence-sitting nations in our favor.




No, it would embolden our enemies.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:42:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By cobra-ak:
Maybe not a carrier cause of the screen but look at an Exocet type attack like the Argentines did to the Sheffield picket ship during the Falklands.


Those ships had aluminum superstructures. The US Navy saw that and went back to steel.



HMS Sheffield was all steel, the intial damage from the missile was not fatal, the destruction of the main firemain prevented firefighting ops allowing the fire to spread. She sank 8 days later during a storm while under tow to South Georgia from water coming in through the damaged hull plating.

ANdy


I could have sworn I read about the aluminum superstructures. I do know that some of our tin cans used a lot of aluminum in the superstructures during that timeframe.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:43:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By cobra-ak:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By cobra-ak:
Maybe not a carrier cause of the screen but look at an Exocet type attack like the Argentines did to the Sheffield picket ship during the Falklands.


Those ships had aluminum superstructures. The US Navy saw that and went back to steel.



HMS Sheffield was all steel, the intial damage from the missile was not fatal, the destruction of the main firemain prevented firefighting ops allowing the fire to spread. She sank 8 days later during a storm while under tow to South Georgia from water coming in through the damaged hull plating.

ANdy
Regardless of the damage inflicted Sheffield was on the fringes and that sea skimmer shot from 25+ miles away homed in on the radar, they never saw it coming, an advantage we have is aircraft with lookdown radar


Wow, all this talk about the Sheffield. Doesn't anyone remember the USS Stark? She took two Exocets to the forward hull. Over 30 sailors killed. Aluminum superstructure. Fantastic damage control efforts. Was repaired and returned to service.
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:46:29 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2007 2:47:26 PM EST by glenn_r]

Originally Posted By Bhart89:
Wasn't their a case a few months ago of a Chinese sub shadowing one of our carrier battle groups?


Yup, it surfaced within torpedo range. Carrier was flat-footed. With limited maneuver room, and a predictable course, I don't see why Iran couldn't have a boat do something similar? Put a diesel-electric on the bottom and let it just sit there. Wait until the carrier goes by. Boom. Why not?

As far as American response, I think it would be mixed. No way we'd nuke anyone.

"The carrier wouldn't have been there acting aggressivly towards Iran if we weren't in an unjustifiable war to begin with. With Bush's war-mongering Iran was acting defensively. We should get out of the middle east."
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:49:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2007 2:52:14 PM EST by AmericanPatriot]

Originally Posted By glenn_r:

Originally Posted By Bhart89:
Wasn't their a case a few months ago of a Chinese sub shadowing one of our carrier battle groups?


Yup, it surfaced within torpedo range. Carrier was flat-footed. With limited maneuver room, and a predictable course, I don't see why Iran couldn't have a boat do something similar? Put a diesel-electric on the bottom and let it just sit there. Wait until the carrier goes by. Boom. Why not?

As far as American response, I think it would be mixed. No way we'd nuke anyone.

"The carrier wouldn't have been there acting aggressivly towards Iran if we weren't in an unjustifiable war to begin with. With Bush's war-mongering Iran was acting defensively. We should get out of the middle east."


* Headline : Carrier attacked at sea....it's all Bush's fault *

I hope your being cynical
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top