Can the Iranian sink a US Carrier Group?

[AndroAsc]

I think a good proportion of Americans would probably agree that war with Iran is inevitable. To clarify my position on America unilaterally attacking the oil rich countries is: - I don't have a problem with it UNLESS we are spending too much more money (costs outweighs the benefits) or if we end up losing big time.

This post addresses the 2nd point. Recently I stumbled across these 2 articles:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... et-missile
http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunbu ... wesome.htm

The basic premise is that in a doomsday and possibly realistic scenario, the Iranians may be able to wipe out an entire US carrier group. Yes, the unsinkable US aircraft carrier, the pride of US naval superiority may be wiped out in a single skirmish. Oh, yes this sounds like heresy. So I would like to hear the input from those who may be more familiar with modern military technology and hardware. The premise of the scenario is:
1) Russia/China have sold/supplied Iranian with a presumably large number of anti-ship cruise missiles (aka Sunburn missiles).
2) The Persian Gulf is enclosed by land on almost all sides, and the Iranian can move their cruise missile assets into crossfire positions.
3) Once the crossfire is setup, the US carrier group will be spammed with cruise missiles until they sink. Each Sunburn missile carries a 750lb warhead with a speed of Mach 2. One missile can knockout a destroyer. Probably a few will take down a carrier. US anti-missile defenses may not be adequate to deal with such a situation.
4) The US navy has not been tested against this hypothetical cruise missile spam. In the closest analogous battle in modern history during the Falklands war where the Argentinians had 5 Exocets anti-ship cruise missiles, they managed to sink 2 British naval vessels. The Argentians Exocets missiles were sub-sonic and the Sunburn missiles that the Iranian have are super-sonic.

I was personally rather disturbed when I came across these 2 articles. My cynical nature and my opinion that the US military can be overconfident at times, leads me to conclude that it is possible that a US Carrier group may be taken down in the early phase of a war with Iran especially if Iran spams an Alpha Strike of cruise missiles. However, I am not up to date with modern military developments, so maybe the more knowledgeable forumers would offer their 2 cents?

[Aasharu]

To clarify my position on America unilaterally attacking the oil rich countries is: - I don't have a problem with it UNLESS we are spending too much more money (costs outweighs the benefits) or if we end up losing big time.

Really? You see no problems with the idea of America casually violating the sovereignty of another nation for no better reason then to get our hands on more oil?

[Rogue 9]

To clarify my position on America unilaterally attacking the oil rich countries is: - I don't have a problem with it UNLESS we are spending too much more money (costs outweighs the benefits) or if we end up losing big time.

The instant you typed this, you guaranteed that this thread will not be about what you want it to be about.

[Questor]

Wasn't this the plot of a bad technothriller?

[Flagg]

To clarify my position on America unilaterally attacking the oil rich countries is: - I don't have a problem with it UNLESS we are spending too much more money (costs outweighs the benefits) or if we end up losing big time.

The instant you typed this, you guaranteed that this thread will not be about what you want it to be about.

Seriously. Can we just HoS this now in a preemptive strike against the coming shitpocalypse?

[AndroAsc]

To clarify my position on America unilaterally attacking the oil rich countries is: - I don't have a problem with it UNLESS we are spending too much more money (costs outweighs the benefits) or if we end up losing big time.

Really? You see no problems with the idea of America casually violating the sovereignty of another nation for no better reason then to get our hands on more oil?

A government has to do what I needs to do to preserve and protect their people. So the American govt has the duty to preserve and protect Americans. If that means invading countries for oil to pre-empt a peak oil scenario, by all means that's fine. That is what nations do. Remember your history lesson?

My concern is when we are spending too much money fighting "unprofitable" wars, or fighting a war that we cannot win easily.

[AndroAsc]

Can we focus on the technological/military assessment as to whether or not a bunch of Iranians armed with hundreds of anti-ship cruise missiles can take out a carrier group?

[Thanas]

To clarify my position on America unilaterally attacking the oil rich countries is: - I don't have a problem with it UNLESS we are spending too much more money (costs outweighs the benefits) or if we end up losing big time.

Really? You see no problems with the idea of America casually violating the sovereignty of another nation for no better reason then to get our hands on more oil?

A government has to do what I needs to do to preserve and protect their people. So the American govt has the duty to preserve and protect Americans. If that means invading countries for oil to pre-empt a peak oil scenario, by all means that's fine. That is what nations do. Remember your history lesson?

My concern is when we are spending too much money fighting "unprofitable" wars, or fighting a war that we cannot win easily.

Can we focus on the technological/military assessment as to whether or not a bunch of Iranians armed with hundreds of anti-ship cruise missiles can take out a carrier group?

No, I think we can rather focus on what a sociopathic short-dicked little shit you are.

[weemadando]

Can we focus on the technological/military assessment as to whether or not a bunch of Iranians armed with hundreds of anti-ship cruise missiles can take out a carrier group?

No, we can't. We'll focus on the fact that you so casually wave your nationalist dick about and think stupid shit like "War with Iran is inevitable".

But I suppose that war is inevitable if the US decides to keep on being the aggressor.

[bobalot]

This guy has already created another thread where he makes grandiose claims and refuses to back up his claims.

BTW, why is war with Iran "inevitable"?

[AndroAsc]

Can we focus on the technological/military assessment as to whether or not a bunch of Iranians armed with hundreds of anti-ship cruise missiles can take out a carrier group?

No, we can't. We'll focus on the fact that you so casually wave your nationalist dick about and think stupid shit like "War with Iran is inevitable".

But I suppose that war is inevitable if the US decides to keep on being the aggressor.

Have you read your history books? Wars for resources are the NORM not the exception throughout human history. Peak oil is an eventuality that America has to prepare for, and the US being more dependent on fossil fuels that other developed nations (e.g. Eurozone) and so is more susceptible to this eventuality. If I were in charge, I would rather spend that trillion dollars rebuilding our nuclear power industry, investing in off-shore oil extraction and finding a means to get America off it's oil dependency. But it hasn't played out this way. Over a decade ago, Bush and his friends probably thought it would be more cost-effective to invade and control oil-rich countries to ensure the future of this nation. In retrospect that solution was a bad one and has backfired entirely, but it does not negate the fact the job of the govt is to serve its people's interest.

[Sarevok]

Would not AEW and over the horizon shots from SM-6 negate the advantage Sunburns posses ? They can now afterall be destroyed while cruising relatively slow nearly hundred kilometers away. No need to wait untill they cross the horizon and make that high speed terminal dash.

[AndroAsc]

BTW, why is war with Iran "inevitable"?

This fucking post is about the technical claim that Iranian cruise missile assets can wipe out a US carrier group. I am not here to fuck with you guys on the morality of war or whether or not we will invade Iran. If your brain is as small as your dick, think about this discussion as a hypothetical scenario.

[Thanas]

Can we focus on the technological/military assessment as to whether or not a bunch of Iranians armed with hundreds of anti-ship cruise missiles can take out a carrier group?

No, we can't. We'll focus on the fact that you so casually wave your nationalist dick about and think stupid shit like "War with Iran is inevitable".

But I suppose that war is inevitable if the US decides to keep on being the aggressor.

Have you read your history books?

Yes, I have. Rather more thoroughly than you have, too.

Back up your claims or face punishment.

BTW, why is war with Iran "inevitable"?

This fucking post is about the technical claim that Iranian cruise missile assets can wipe out a US carrier group. I am not here to fuck with you guys on the morality of war or whether or not we will invade Iran. If your brain is as small as your dick, think about this discussion as a hypothetical scenario.

No, no. Don't backpedal now.

[Rogue 9]

Okay, I'll take a shot at it.

First of all, the comparison with the Falkland Islands War is not apt in the least. The task force the British sent to the Falklands was not equipped to deal with anti-ship missile attacks; there wasn't an Aegis system among them. It is conceivable that Iran might be able to sink a U.S. carrier, but it isn't likely. Furthermore, they're not out-and-out psychotically insane, so they're not about to try. It would mean the end of the Iranian regime if they did.

That's about all you're likely to get. Enjoy the flamefest.

[AndroAsc]

Would not AEW and over the horizon shots from SM-6 negate the advantage Sunburns posses ? They can now afterall be destroyed while cruising relatively slow nearly hundred kilometers away. No need to wait untill they cross the horizon and make that high speed terminal dash.

I'm not a military expert, but the points raised in there article were the following:
1) The newer cruise missiles that Iranian have are supersonic and would reach their target very quickly. On google maps by a simple visual inspection it seems that the Persian Gulf and the associated seas are at most 200km+ wide. Assuming the US fleet is in the middle of the Gulf (100km offshore), it would take the Sunburn missiles 2.5 min from launch to hit their target.
2) The cruise missiles also fly at a low altitude like 10ft above the ocean. Can American sensors detect them?
3) Finally, there is an issue of quantity. Point defenses might be able to take out a cruise missile, but what happens if Iranian launches a volley of 100 missiles simultaneously?

On a related note, although this is pure speculation. We know for a fact that the Chinese have been developing anti-ship cruise missiles, presumably to use against the US one day. I would also be concerned if the Chinese would give their latest designs to the Iranians for the sake field testing it a proxy war with the US.

[Sarevok]

Given how often Iranian Sunburns come up elsewhere I would love to see some knowledgeable input on them from Skimmer or Shep. While the Op has questionable intent he has piqued my curiosity.

Mods, if it is not too difficult would it be possible to make a split regarding this ? Or should I post a seperate thread for technical discussions on this matter ?

[AndroAsc]

Given how often Iranian Sunburns come up elsewhere I would love to see some knowledgeable input on them from Skimmer or Shep. While the Op has questionable intent he has piqued my curiosity.

Mods, if it is not too difficult would it be possible to make a split regarding this ? Or should I post a seperate thread for technical discussions on this matter ?

That might be a better idea. It seems that I have attracted the wrong attention.

[Serafina]

I really don't know whether Iran could sink a carrier group, but your attitude really makes me wish they could.


By your reasoning, it'd perfectly fine to invade the US, take all their resources and enslave their population - as long as it's in the interest of whatever nation capable of doing so.

[Sarevok]

@AndroAsc

You have to understand cruise missiles are much slower flying a lo-lo flight profile. A Sunburn will not be doing mach 2.0 at 10 feets above sea level. Even if it could do it it will still be detected from above by AEW aircraft. The Americans are working this combo of SM-6 missiles guided by aircraft doing the spotting from what I understand. Could be very effective against low level supersonic threats.

[bobalot]

Have you read your history books? Wars for resources are the NORM not the exception throughout human history.

This is your evidence that war with Iran is imminent? Grandiose historical claims? We don't live in a mercantile economic world any more. Companies can simply buy the resources they need on the free market.

Peak oil is an eventuality that America has to prepare for, and the US being more dependent on fossil fuels that other developed nations (e.g. Eurozone) and so is more susceptible to this eventuality.

So? How does this prove your claim that war with Iran is inevitable?

If I were in charge, I would rather spend that trillion dollars rebuilding our nuclear power industry, investing in off-shore oil extraction and finding a means to get America off it's oil dependency.

Irrelevant to this topic.

But it hasn't played out this way. Over a decade ago, Bush and his friends probably thought it would be more cost-effective to invade and control oil-rich countries to ensure the future of this nation.

He invaded one country. The cost of that war far outweighed the cost of simply buying the oil. This was known from the beginning of the war by most people. In fact, oil production was crippled for years making your claim that "IT WAS ABOUT THE OILZ LOLZ!!! PEAK OILZ!" even more ridiculous.

EDIT

BTW, why is war with Iran "inevitable"?

This fucking post is about the technical claim that Iranian cruise missile assets can wipe out a US carrier group. I am not here to fuck with you guys on the morality of war or whether or not we will invade Iran. If your brain is as small as your dick, think about this discussion as a hypothetical scenario.

It is an assumption you listed in your post. I'm simply questioning it, douchenozzle. You don't get to respond to my question (above) and then scream at me to not post about it the thread.

[Thanas]

Can we focus on the technological/military assessment as to whether or not a bunch of Iranians armed with hundreds of anti-ship cruise missiles can take out a carrier group?

No, we can't. We'll focus on the fact that you so casually wave your nationalist dick about and think stupid shit like "War with Iran is inevitable".

But I suppose that war is inevitable if the US decides to keep on being the aggressor.

Have you read your history books? Wars for resources are the NORM not the exception throughout human history. Peak oil is an eventuality that America has to prepare for, and the US being more dependent on fossil fuels that other developed nations (e.g. Eurozone) and so is more susceptible to this eventuality. If I were in charge, I would rather spend that trillion dollars rebuilding our nuclear power industry, investing in off-shore oil extraction and finding a means to get America off it's oil dependency. But it hasn't played out this way. Over a decade ago, Bush and his friends probably thought it would be more cost-effective to invade and control oil-rich countries to ensure the future of this nation. In retrospect that solution was a bad one and has backfired entirely, but it does not negate the fact the job of the govt is to serve its people's interest.

Pro-tip. If a government was actually interested in serving it's people's interests, then a war with Iran would be about the worst thing to do. I mean, it's not like it's got a shitload of volatile borders. And it's not like there's a shortage of people there to form an even more dedicated insurgency than the Iraq and Afghanistan ones (not to mention creating a situation where you're occupying three adjacent countries and the issues that will cause). Not to mention the spending on that war and occupation and the flow on human costs at home and abroad would be far and away more than the costs of, I don't know, just FUCKING BUYING OIL FROM THEM.

But hey, the US doesn't do business with people. THEY CONQUER PEOPLE..

[Thanas]

No more dogpiling in this thread.

[Kryten]

Is there any proof that the Iranians even have 'Sunburn' missiles in this kind of quantity?

[AndroAsc]

This is your evidence that war with Iran is imminent? Grandiose historical claims? We don't live in a mercantile economic world any more. Companies can simply buy the resources they need on the free market.

No you dick. The historical evidence was to point out the fact that invading countries for resources is the norm, and there is no need to sprout your gospel of "OMG it is immoral to invade other countries", cause shit like this happens all the time. See my other post of why I think we should analyze a country's action from an amoral perspective.

Peak oil is an eventuality that America has to prepare for, and the US being more dependent on fossil fuels that other developed nations (e.g. Eurozone) and so is more susceptible to this eventuality.

So? How does this prove your claim that war with Iran is inevitable?

Because it might motivate the US to find means to ensure a reliable oil supply for the future? You know, like invading a country in the hopes that you can install a govt sympathetic to your cause?

But it hasn't played out this way. Over a decade ago, Bush and his friends probably thought it would be more cost-effective to invade and control oil-rich countries to ensure the future of this nation.

He invaded one country. The cost of that war far outweighed the cost of simply buying the oil. This was known from the beginning of the war by most people. In fact, oil production was crippled for years making your claim that "IT WAS ABOUT THE OILZ LOLZ!!! PEAK OILZ!" even more ridiculous.

So in other words, invading Iraq for oil was a bad tactical move and a serious fuckup. Yes, I agree with you. So what was your point? If we didn't invade Iraq for oil, what was it for? The War on Terror? Get real dude...