Archive

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Could Iran really sink an aircraft carrier?


Abraham Lincoln carrier battle group.
Iran recently built a mock-up prop depicting a United States Navy Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. Then, as part of a much flaunted military exercise, used “swarming” tactics consisting of small speedboats, helicopters and anti-ship missile fired from Iran's coast in order to practice interdicting and attacking it. The whole exercise had a clear political dimension to it, Tehran wants to project an image of its asymmetrical abilities which enable it to, if necessary, sink one of America's capital vessels if it were directly threatened or attacked.

Plenty of articles have been written, and will be written, addressing both the military and political implications of this exercise. Can Iran really sink an aircraft carrier? Is the timing of this exercise – which after all comes amid more collapsing nuclear negotiations and as Iran's continued, and ever more conspicuous, involvement in the conflict in Syria grows increasingly more costly – Tehran's way of reminding the U.S. that it will make any attack as costly as possible?

I suspect that is the case. But the much more interesting question is whether or not Iran could do it. We've all heard the rhetoric time and again over the years concerning how the regime has threatened to retaliate if its nuclear program is targeted by either the Americans or the Israelis, or both. But this particular exercise does serve as an apt reminder of how finely tuned the relatively unique, and doubtlessly formidable, the defense mechanisms of Iran are.

A controversial 2002 war games simulation, Millennium Challenge, arrived somewhat controversial conclusions. Iran's asymmetrical abilities, the American simulation estimated, could well take out not just a lone carrier but an entire battle group if it were operating within the gulf or near Iran's coastal waters. The blow was so severe that the simulation was overhauled to ensure a U.S. victory – which sounds like a  ludicrous move since, after all, in the real world one cannot hit the reset button like a video game when it's not going the way one would like it to. 

Unlike in the late 1980's when the U.S. Navy responded to Iran's mining of the Persian Gulf, during the so-called Tanker War phase of the Iran Iraq War, by attacking its British-made naval frigates (and in the process sinking the Sahand and crippling the Sabalan, which it let limp away) Iran's posture today focuses more on a complex network of much smaller crafts using asymmetrical tactics as part of a broader defensive infrastructure. And a networked defensive posture which is relatively decentralized and consists of units which can operate independently if circumstances necessitate it from along Iran's massive coast could indeed make any American attempts to operate in that area a costly nightmare, especially if they are relying on relatively conventional tactics against a largely unconventional adversary. An adversary which, operating from its own territory, would likely be, as was said of the Viet Cong, everywhere and at the same time nowhere.

Any potential U.S. effort to hamper Iran's ability to attack from its own coast would have to be very sizeable and would doubtlessly incur considerable civilian casualties in Iran itself. Such a scenario is highly likely in the case of a protracted war against Iran and the U.S. in the region. Especially if such an escalation is sparked off by a U.S. and/or Israeli strike targeting Iranian nuclear facilities. If ensuing exchanges of fire became prolonged and intensified, to the point of a de-facto war, Iranians would likely rally behind the regime, regardless of whether or not they agree with it or its policies. Another sombre reminder of what could possibly be at stake in the not too distant future.

8 comments:

  1. The answer is in " Millennium Challenge 2002"

    ReplyDelete
  2. It would be poor tactics to bring a carrier group within range of 'swarming' small vessels. In any engagement, Iran's geriatric air force and land-based missile systems would be taken out by stand off first strikes. This 'exercise' proves nothing so much as the delusional nature of the current regime. Magical thinking doesn't win wars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And it would be poor thinking to assume Iran will simply sit idly by while getting hit by waves of LACMs, this is not starved and ruined 2003 Baghdad, and there is a political will to resist in a total war scenario, and as Paul rightfully reminded us, popular support is a factor worthy of attention. Militarily, we 're talking about a flexible, large, more and more well-equipped force of which the Pentagon itself acknowledged time and again nothing can be done to prevent launches of volleys of ballistic missiles on critical US and GCC infrastructure and military centers. And so even assuming the PGMs get a 100% hit ratio against every single Iranian ground asset whuch anyway seems more like ludicrous and laughable hollywoodian delusions to me than what I heard of Mr. Panetta a couple years back regarding Iran's conventionnal abilities in air-defense and progress in C3I integration, let alone accurate ballistic firepower. Proof has been plenty of Iran getting every year closer to a full range of aerial defense including anti-cruise abilities with their Russian and Chinese-derived hardware (google Talash, Herz-9 and Raad to learn more, independent western analysis are plenty around on these pieces, including Jane's) and very early warning equipment such as Nebo-like OTH radars, obvious courtesy of Mr Putin. If your scenario ws at all possible, we would never be witnessing so much intense and persisting diplomatic efforts and restraint from the P5+1. Indeed the US and Israel in particular aren't exactly renowned for opting to diplomacy on matters they can resolve purely militarily, furthermore with such degree of near-excellency and simplicity as you imply.

      Delete
  3. If the regime's decision makers are dumb enough to commit suicide then let them just try! With their recent comedic stunt as regards that harmless barj.They showed that they are capable at hitting a non lethal static target.It kind of reminds me of a cat chasing its own tail.Pointless really,and the answer is a resounding NO!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Iranian speedboats are very small and a height of about 1.5 m to 3 m. Because it has a small size, the speedboat Iran difficult to detect by radar which brought the carrier. Speedboat Iran using tactics of sea skimming. That is why the Iranian speedboats can be free to fire rockets, missiles and torpedoes without radar detected the American warships. In addition to not be detected, Iranian speedboats can not be pursued by a torpedo as speedboat Iran has an average speed of over 65 knots and even up to 72 knots. Speedboat Iran very effective against American warships in the persian gulf narrow.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If an Iraqi Mirage could hit USS Stark by 2 Exocet cruise missile in 1987, and if USS Cole could be hit by a explosive boat in 2000, the possibility of a carrier being hit by a hypersonic precision guided ballistic missile is much more anticipated.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks Uskowi on Iran! I found Paul Iddon's piece very clear and informative. What scares me is how the IRGC has become a state within a state and seemingly supplanted the regular Iranian military in too many area's. Yet even more frightening, is America's apparent dual foreign policies. Seemingly autonomous CIA sub branch's. Black Budgets........ Even with a peace monger like Obama in the white house it can sometimes seem as thou there is an inevitability of yet another war in the Gulf. The biggest one yet! Lets say the Americans and Israeli's were to attack. Lets assume they are not so stupid to have carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf. Lets say instead they swarm the Gulf with Littoral combat ships, drones, submarines.......Aurora bombers if they exist?..... Lets say they still get their ass's kicked real good! Will they put half a million boots on the ground in the land of the profit? Would they even be welcome by their friends and allies? Is it possible America, in the face of such a humiliation, loss of the physical security of the great profit of the house of Saud, would just nuke targets in Iran? Would it even be decided by an American president? Or a rogue state like Israel? Pakistan? Saudia Arabia? Any of them given a wink by some clique within the CIA branch of the Rebublican party or someones god knows who?

    ReplyDelete