Various Imperial Reflexes (Iran and Venezuela Thread)

[Montmorency]

So war is chaos and anything could happen. Maybe I channeling my inner Jellicoe but I just don't see how anyone could sink a carrier without a similar blue water CG in the area. Sinking the carrier would at the very least entail sinking the destroyers and the scoring enough direct hits to actually make the thing go under. There is no Arizona style Magazine explosion that can happen.

I don't know enough to argue whether Iran's missile complement has a plausible attack vector from the shore. This article contends:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Experts and outside observers believe that Iran has given considerable thought to vanquishing an American aircraft carrier. In January 2015, Adm. Ali Fadavi of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy claimed his force was capable of sinking American aircraft carriers in the event of war.
[...]
There are many reasons to be skeptical about Admiral Fadavi’s claim. The first is that Iranian forces have a range problem. U.S. forces, particularly those on aircraft carriers, have a much greater operational range than Iranian forces. The longest-range Iranian coastal defense missile, the Ghader antiship cruise missile, has a range of 186 miles—less than half that of a F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The same goes for Iranian air power, where Iranian warplanes and their weapons are outranged by American defenses. Major U.S. warships such as aircraft carriers can stay well out of range of Iranian forces and operate with impunity. The second Iranian problem is a firepower problem. Although Iran has scores of ships armed with antiship missiles, few if any have a warhead powerful enough to seriously damage an American carrier. The Chinese C-802 antiship cruise missile, from which Iranian antiship missiles are derived, has a warhead weighing just under four hundred pounds. During the Cold War, the Soviet Navy and Air Forces designed for the anticarrier role typically had a warhead size of 1,600 to 2,200 pounds. Most Soviet missiles designed for the anticarrier role, such as the AS-4 Kitchen, were optionally armed with nuclear warheads, which speaks volumes about how difficult the Soviets thought it would be to reliably sink a carrier. Fortunately, Iran does not have nuclear weapons. The third problem is an opportunity problem. Even if Iran were to somehow acquire the resources to sink a carrier, the United States could simply avoid it and choose another means of attack. The United States will never place an aircraft carrier with 5,500 American servicemen and servicewomen within range of an enemy force at risk unless there was little to no alternative—and the Pentagon has plenty of alternatives to a carrier’s firepower, including cruise missiles launched from warships and long-range strategic bombers. The fourth problem is the overwhelming superiority of U.S. forces in the defense. U.S. aircraft carriers are typically escorted by one Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser and one or two Arleigh Burke–class guided missile destroyers, all of which have the Aegis combat system. These ships were specifically designed for protecting aircraft carriers against mass air and missile attacks. Combat air patrols flown by F/A-18E/F Super Hornets will be able to take out aircraft and warships at long ranges. Finally, Phalanx close-in Gatling guns, five-inch, twenty-five-millimeter and .50 caliber guns scattered throughout a carrier strike group can make short work of any drones, helicopters, or fast attack boats that somehow make it through the carrier’s wall of air power. A fifth and final problem? The overwhelming superiority of U.S. forces in the offense. Any campaign against Iran would almost certainly see the United States striking first, and striking hard against any and all Iranian ships and aircraft that are a threat to American forces. Naval bases, air bases, air defenses, IRIN and IRGCN ships at sea, port facilities, antiship missile batteries and bases would all come under attack from land- and carrier-based aircraft, long-distance bombers operating from bases such as Diego Garcia, and ships and submarines firing cruise missiles. Iranian naval forces would suffer heavy attrition from the strikes, which would be unrelenting until intelligence indicated they were no longer a threat.

All of that having been said, there are bright spots in the Iranian arsenal. Taking a cue from China and its DF-21D antiship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), Iran recently claimed to have tested ASBMs of its own. The radar-guided Hormuz 1 and 2 antiship ballistic missiles have allegedly hit targets at ranges of up to 155 miles. While that’s not far enough to outrange an aircraft carrier, the Iranians are on the right track. Another substantial threat are the three Kilo-class diesel-electric attack submarines purchased from Russia in the early 1990s. Built for shallow water and coastal operations, the Kilo class are theoretically highly capable submarines. The Iranian boats, according to the authoritative Combat Fleets of the World, suffered from battery problems, poor training and inadequate maintenance. Still, properly crewed and equipped, the submarines and their torpedoes could inflict great damage on an aircraft carrier.

Iran is currently incapable of sinking a U.S. Navy carrier, but that is not an advantage the Pentagon can count on enjoying forever.

It sounds like if the aircraft carriers stay far away from the shore, they should be safe. On the other hand, there are many points in the Gulf once you move past the peninsular coast, as well as the Hormuz Strait chokepoint, that might see carriers within a vulnerable range. Then, here's a recent article on Iran's recent developments in advanced ballistic missiles that easily have the range to strike American fleets. Altogether hard for me to judge as a non-expert.

Even if it did happen. The drunk Cowboy has 8 more and a sunk carrier would give them reason to use them.

Christ, that's just an intensification of disaster. Can you imagine? 'For the first time since World War II America has lost an aircraft carrier in action. We will redouble our efforts. We will not rest until the enemy is crushed. We have reserves, SEND IN EVERYTHING!!!' To borrow a moment of flippancy, that is the trope, the exact progression toward downfall the Evil Empire typically follows in film and literature isn't it?


Anyway, here's a report on Trump telling his admin he doesn't want war with Iran. As usual, it's not clear what he wants, or if he knows what he wants, other than "looking tough". Yes, Trump will go to great lengths to act in a way that he perceives as "looking tough". Such as apparently recognizing his China trade war is damaging the economy and especially hurting his supporters in farm country, but none of that matters as long as the base thinks he is tough against China. Then you get remarkable quotes from people like Steve Bannon and Senator Tom Cotton, who appear to be going to Stalinist extremes of dogma:

The days of being soft on China are over ... Politics now drives the economics.

There will be some sacrifice on the part of Americans, I grant you that. But also that sacrifice is pretty minimal compared to the sacrifices that our soldiers make overseas that are fallen heroes or laid to rest.

[Ed. This sounds exactly like a politruk's propaganda spiel.]

It's stupefying that 'we must make sacrifices for the greater good' is not a message any leftist is permitted to say vis-a-vis, for example, climate change, but it's common sense for nationalists who just want to fuck with other countries.

I leave you with Senator Cotton singing us a rousing tune.