Is Iran capable of sinking American aircraft carriers?

23

The main adversary of the United States in the Middle East is Iran. In the event of aggression from the Americans and their allied Israelis, Tehran promises to block the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the supply of a fifth of the world's oil transit, and at the same time sinking as many US Navy aircraft carriers as needed. Since many Russians like to flaunt the same, I would like to dwell on the last point in more detail.

The collapse of American statehood?


A lot of myths have already formed about American aircraft carriers: they say, these are "useless pelvis" that are easy to sink with either hypersonic or even conventional anti-ship missiles. In general, this is rare rubbish, which is not worth taking, even if they pay extra. Yes, on top of everything else, the idea is stubbornly imposed that the loss by the United States of one, or even two aircraft carriers at once will be a real shock for the American nation, will lead to a severe internal political crisis and the exit of the "hegemon" from the war. It turns out that this is a trifling matter, it is enough to send a couple of these "defenseless vessels" to the bottom, having first trained on models somewhere in the desert, or even in your imagination.



First, I would like to comment on the thesis that the loss of 1-2 "Nimitz" will become a geopolitical catastrophe for the United States, which they allegedly cannot survive. Recall that the Japanese thought about the same when they planned the attack on Pearl Harbor. Yes, the Americans got their June 22 in the Pacific, which they don't really like to remember. However, after that, the citizens of the United States were inflamed with righteous anger, and there was no overcrowding in the queues for enrollment in the "military registration and enlistment offices". The war ended with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

By the way, in World War II, the United States lost 5 aircraft carriers, 6 escort aircraft carriers, 3 floating bases for seaplanes, 2 battleships, 10 cruisers and many, many more ships. And nothing, somehow they survived it and only became stronger. Therefore, we will reserve the right to doubt the validity of the statement that the sinking of 1 or 2 "Nimitz" will be the collapse of American statehood, as they try to portray it. Rather, it will be the beginning of the end for anyone who encroaches on the symbol of "export democracy".

Long arm of Iran


Now with regard to the possible means of destruction of the US Navy AUG. In Russia they rely on hypersonic Zircons, and in Iran - on Zulfiqar Basir anti-ship missiles with a flight range of 700 kilometers. The commander of the military base of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps "Hazrat Zeynab" Brigadier General Rahim Noei-Aghdam commented on the emergence of a "long arm" in Iran as follows:

If once the presence of the United States in international waters near Iran was considered a threat to the country, today, thanks to our deterrent force, coastal missile systems and attack air platforms, we have the ability to destroy American ships.

It is known about this missile that it is an analogue of the Chinese anti-ship missile DF-21D (Dongfeng-21). This is the first and only of its kind medium-range anti-ship ballistic missile. Initially, it was created as a nuclear one, but later it received a version with a conventional warhead. In China, the DF-21D is positioned as a "killer of aircraft carriers", but, unlike the Islamic Republic, the PRC has every reason for that.

At first, Dongfeng-21 has a much greater flight range than the Zulfiqar Basir - 1800 kilometers versus 700 kilometers.

SecondlyBeijing was able to solve the target designation problem for its super-rocket by launching an entire network of satellites into orbit: Yaogan-7, Yaogan-8 and a series of three Yaogan-9 marine electronic reconnaissance satellites.

As you can see, the capabilities of the Iranian missile are seriously inferior to the Chinese, and Tehran is in general trouble with target designation. Yes, the Islamic Republic has made great strides in the development of its missile program; the accuracy of strikes against the American military base in Iraq was impressive. But it is one thing to hit a stationary object, it is quite another thing to hit a target moving at a speed of 30 knots, like an American aircraft carrier in a battle order. In this case, destroyers and escort cruisers are equipped with a powerful air defense / missile defense system. Iran does not have its own aircraft or AWACS helicopters to issue operational target designation data on objects located at a distance of up to 700 kilometers. There are rockets, but there is nothing to direct them to such a target.

By the way, the same problem is very topical for Russia as well. There are "Onyxes" and "Calibers" in the Russian Navy, and "Zircons" are on their way. However, the fleet of specialized reconnaissance aircraft in our country is very limited, in the fleet there is no AWACS at all as a class. It remains to count on the few Ka-31 AWACS helicopters, which have a significantly shorter range, as well as data from the Liana satellite constellation, which has yet to be finalized. It is known that Tehran is extremely interested in acquiring a formally civilian satellite "Kanopus-V" from Russia, which can be used, among other things, for reconnaissance in the Middle East, and also, possibly, for target designation. True, the capabilities of just one satellite will be very limited. It should be borne in mind that satellites may well be shot down by anti-satellite missiles, which are in service with the United States.

The foregoing gives grounds to conclude that statements about Iran's ability to freely sink US Navy aircraft carriers do not correspond to reality. The AUG itself will sink whomever it deems necessary, and the loss of the aircraft carrier will only make the Americans more angry.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    30 December 2021 14: 49
    The AUG itself will sink whomever it deems necessary, and the loss of the aircraft carrier will only make the Americans more angry.

    Are you offering to surrender or deploy an oncoming aircraft carrier against the United States?
    1. -4
      30 December 2021 15: 19
      I propose to exhibit your aircraft carrier (at least 4 pieces, 2 for each ocean fleet) with a carrier-based AWACS aircraft, plus recreate a powerful Naval missile-carrying aircraft.
      Otherwise, it's better to give up.
      1. -1
        31 December 2021 21: 40
        So the Japanese had aircraft carriers, what went wrong? It didn't help them, will it help your fantastic fleet?
        I think no.
        1. -1
          1 January 2022 13: 22
          You are confusing warm for soft. Japan was inferior to the United States in terms of economic indicators, it inevitably faced defeat in the war by conventional methods at a long distance, which happened.
          Now is the 21st century. This is a very real nuclear war. Without cover for aircraft carriers, our NSNF will not be able to fulfill their combat missions. This is chewed repeatedly, it doesn't make sense to repeat it.
          You just do not understand what you are undertaking to reason about.
          1. +1
            2 January 2022 12: 40
            So the Russian Federation is inferior in all respects to the United States, not even counting NATO.
            You yourself are comparing incomparable.
            In addition to aircraft carriers, many other components in the fleet are lacking. Real naval experts have many articles on this topic.
            There is a possibility that in the event of war, those same NSNF will not even be able to leave the bases. We do not have sufficient quantity and quality of PLO forces.
            What can we say about aircraft carriers ...
            Yes, even the land-based aviation forces of the fleet are not in normal quality and quantity.
            I’m not against aircraft carriers as part of the Russian Navy of the future, but today it’s not real and not necessary. There are more important tasks.
            1. +1
              8 January 2022 04: 42
              you should not try to explain to Marzhetskiy the obvious things and obvious failures in his logic. He is on his own wave and has his own "tactics of how to swing a saber".
      2. The comment was deleted.
  2. +1
    30 December 2021 14: 57
    The loss of the aircraft carrier will seriously weaken the US's ability to conduct hostilities against the coast. It's another matter whether the Iranians will be able to sink (or damage) this very aircraft carrier?

    And one more question - what are the capabilities of the AUG (even two) in the war against Iran?
  3. -12
    30 December 2021 15: 11
    That Dongfeng-21, that its primitive Iranian clone, agitation. Designed for the most gullible. The Iranian military is not even fully taught to use them on a massive scale. With the development of all the elements of rocket fire. Nobody reckons for the maximum range. They take for calculations 75% of the maximum range of the ammunition. Neither the PLA Navy, nor the Iranian Navy, do not have airborne reconnaissance means before the strike , and to assess the impact. At such distances. Taking into account the air defense of the AMS.

    Tests DBK Zulfiqar Basirto whether passed, or not, but aircraft carriers can already destroy tongue
    And using a combat DBK, simultaneously mastering its device, is a sour thing. Taking into account the weight of the warhead of such ammunition, you will need at least 15-20 direct hits on an aircraft carrier. If you can identify it among many other targets, including false ones. Armament is the fourth anti-ship missile. The first was the Khalij Fars (Persian Gulf) anti-ship missile. Then the anti-radar Hormuz-1 and the Hormuz-2 ARLGSN missile appeared. And now here is “Zolfagar Basir” (“Zulfikar Basir”).
    It is useless to attack with one type of ammunition, AMS or AGU.

    At a distance of more than 1000 miles from its coast, the AMS can effectively attack the AUG only by naval strike aircraft and the versatile forces of the fleet. Iran has neither one nor the other, and will not.
    1. +1
      31 December 2021 21: 43
      And yet it is better than nothing. There are still chances of causing serious damage, and this alone keeps the mono charge from unreasonable actions.
      1. -7
        1 January 2022 23: 02
        Such chimeras such as BRK Zulfiqar Basirto draw on already meager funds. Not really increasing the impact potential.
  4. 0
    30 December 2021 20: 35
    These Avivnos were given.
    They wrote here about 2 years ago that mainly aircraft carriers are idle near the coast .. It is expensive to sail.
    So if something happens, the Iranians will pick up 15 tankers, 5 Boeings and 1 aircraft carrier - the Americans will simply send a couple more ...
    1. -1
      1 January 2022 13: 31
      These Avivnos were given.
      They wrote here about 2 years ago that mainly aircraft carriers are idle near the coast .. It is expensive to sail.

      I don’t remember such a publication here. Aircraft carriers are standing near the coast not so much because of the high cost of navigation, but because of the need to carry out scheduled repairs and modernization. The United States can afford to rotate without losing the combat capability of the Navy.
      1. 0
        1 January 2022 13: 37
        There were, were. We were glad that both the amers and the Angles cost more.

        Aircraft carriers are located near the coast not so much because of the high cost of navigation, but because of the need to carry out scheduled repairs and modernization. The United States can afford to rotate without losing the combat capability of the Navy.

        - I wrote about it. If you don’t need it, it’s still much cheaper to stand and train near the shore.
        Like any large expensive equipment, such as long-range strategic aviation. (VO provided information that there are very few flights per plane / year)

        But you need to - weaned and forward.
  5. 0
    31 December 2021 03: 44
    The funniest thing about these arguments is that the Iranian Armed Forces are the most practically closed topic in the whole world. Real military experts shrug their shoulders and are lost in conjecture on many issues on Iran, and Jews mercilessly bomb in Syria any attempts of the Persians to get closer to Israel. They sense the campaign that the Iranians can do something. However, Monsieur Marzhetsky very confidently declares the obvious exaggeration of Iranian capabilities.
    1. -1
      1 January 2022 13: 25
      They sense the campaign that the Iranians can do something. However, Monsieur Marzhetsky very confidently declares the obvious exaggeration of Iranian capabilities.

      I’m not your monsieur, this is in the first place.
      Secondly, your statement directly contradicts what I wrote in the article, lad.
      1. 0
        8 January 2022 04: 55
        Sorry, sorry! First of all, you're right - you, alas, are clearly not a gentleman, but you are not a friend to me for sure. So. Just Marzhetsky. Secondly, I understand everything: the post-holiday bo-bo heads. And therefore it is strong I will not scold you. You re-read yourself and do not write contradictory things. Quote Marzhetsky:

        The foregoing gives grounds to conclude that statements about Iran's ability to freely sink US Navy aircraft carriers do not correspond to reality.

        What confuses you? Well, yes, I frankly declare to you that you are EXTREMELY little, like so many other people even "in the subject", including me, know about the REAL and FULL capabilities of Iran to combat AUG. But I am SURE that at least at a distance of 700 km Iran has Zircon-type missiles, which is definitely very strong, at least, will limit the use of AUG against it and is a guaranteed means of destruction, which at the moment the air defense of ANY air force is not in. able to effectively destroy; it simply does not have time to react to it.
        And finally, I would consider it a compliment if I were really a lad. And so, it seems to me that you still walked under the table when I was a lad.
  6. 0
    31 December 2021 18: 02
    Is Iran capable of sinking American aircraft carriers?

    Probably capable, if he throws all his available resources into it. This is not really a question. Other questions arise:
    1. How much of the available resources will Iran have to spend for this? That is, won't this "victory" become Pyrrhic?
    2. What answer will Iran fly for this? Will the throne under the ayatollahs break as a result?
  7. 0
    1 January 2022 00: 31
    The maintenance of the AUG (an aircraft carrier with 80 units of aircraft + 5 escort ships + 1 nuclear submarine) costs the American taxpayers $ 6,5 million a day. Military expert, retired U.S. Navy officer Henry Hendrix, 2013
    1. -1
      1 January 2022 13: 27
      It simply takes into account the salaries and benefits of all members of their many teams and other expenses. Hence such figures. The Russian Navy cannot boast of such salaries.
      1. 0
        3 January 2022 21: 35
        Well, yes, they probably have a salary on an aircraft carrier 80% of the total content?

        Yes, AUG is really only suitable against the Papuans. In the Storm in the Desert in '91, 4 AUGs were able to issue an intensity of flights of no more than 15%. All other raids came from ground bases. If they had relied on AUG, they would not have built their bases around the globe. But even a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier needs a lot of supplies. And if the convoy drowned with them, then no fuel, bombs, no food, no spare parts. Only unlimited cruising range on reactors.
        And the times with WWII have changed. There are no longer those brave Yankes who are ready to crawl under the bullets. Right now, for them, the loss of 1 aircraft carrier will be a shock to the public. And if the whole set of AUG is "accidentally" drowned, then there will be a lot of noise. and government-controlled media will have to work very hard to rock the current population of the states so that they are ready for a big war. Even in 2001 they had to arrange those terrorist attacks with the towers and the Pentagon. Shake a test tube of Colin Powell's cocaine. at the UN. And then get stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan for many years.
  8. 0
    1 January 2022 12: 21
    If it comes to a war between the United States and Russia or China and the question of destroying the AUG arises, then no one there will target the aircraft carrier itself. Special ammunition will be used.
    And the United States has been talking about the war with Iran for about 10 years, but still something does not start.
    Why?
  9. 0
    2 January 2022 10: 59
    And if, for example, someone helps Iran with target designation? It is not a rogue country for everyone. Well, what if?)))
  10. +2
    3 January 2022 12: 09
    Russia may not need aircraft carriers. Russia, for sure, needs protection from aircraft carriers (complex).

    Although, a few (how many? And only at the Pacific Fleet?) May have come in handy.

    As for the Iranians, they, most likely, need to think not about the defeat of the US aircraft carriers, but about the destruction of its aircraft, as much as possible, in the event of its attack.