What's new

A2/AD - How to Kill a Carrier Outside the Persian Gulf

If it's a big warhead (850kg-1ton) it could screw it up big time.

Look at what a misfired ZUNI did to this AC:

USS_Forrestal_explosion_29_July_1967.jpg

f651c01085e3a1c265a0efcaed0475a7.jpg

uss_enterprise_cvn-65_burning_stern_view.jpg


So if this little guy can do that; heavy conventional warheads should be cool
1200px-Zuni_unguided_rocket.jpg




Ahhh right, yeah that makes sense now!

What did you think of Salami's comments?
My post wasn't about the warhead not being able to screw the carrier up, It was about it being able to hit the carrier.
 
Mate, a sunburn screaming in at Mach 3 gives you a fraction of response time compared to a joker like Harpoon or exocet. Much harder to detect let alone intercept or acquire on your engagement radars for the CIWS.

It's just common sense. You don't even need a warhead on something as large as a sunburn as naval experts imply in many columns. Just the sheer kinetic impact will cut a small warship in half!

Hard to believe what you are writing here. The Sunburn is a game changer!

Okay lets talk on facts RADAR uses micro waves that travel close to the speed of light and missile which is super sonic will travel at mach 3. To make it more simple for you it you give CIWS few seconds it will take out a missile and an air craft carrier has many types of CIWS. Only hypersonic system can disrupt the timing of CIWS and take out a carrier from a group supersonic stands a 40% chance of achieving a kill. What is difficult in making a super sonic missile? Place a good seeker in front of a solid rocket motor and you are good to go but then why Countries take the effort of making cruise missiles ? Please be practical. If CIWS cannot detect you it cannot kill you.
 
@Tokhme khar The ballistic missile that target ships have more chance that super sonic cruise missile to take out carriers.
 
Guidance technology is very advanced nowadays...
Ballistic missile has more success of killing a carrier than a super sonic cruise missile but the end statement is a torpedo is the best weapon to kill a carrier because it is 100% successful.
 
you want those effing yanks to encircle us from another side?
Have you forgotten what happened when Iraq "took over" Kuwait?


But you know actually occupying UAE/ Iran port you control the passage of all oil from Gulf

:cheers:

UAE is like little innocent girl , have no man power just have some big buildings and some Indians running around in Honda civic

If I was a dictator , UAE would be history

persian-gulf-or-arabian-gulf2.jpg
 
Guidance technology is very advanced nowadays...

fateh110eo_31.jpg
Well our guidance system options are inertial guidance and an electro-optical homing seeker for terminal attack, which have low reliability against a moving object and if we add the fact that you want to use the BM against a carrier outside the Persian Gulf, It's safe to say the warhead has a low probability to actually hit the carrier.
 
Well our guidance system options are inertial guidance and an electro-optical homing seeker for terminal attack, which have low reliability against a moving object and if we add the fact that you want to use the BM against a carrier outside the Persian Gulf, It's safe to say the warhead has a low probability to actually hit the carrier.

We also have Active Radar Homing, and Anti-Radiation (probably only the former would be used). Once the missile is in the general vicinity of the ship, these terminal guidance features take over and range doesn't matter, except perhaps the missile is going faster so it needs stronger actuators and perhaps gas thrusters.

I don't know how an electro-optical seeker is unreliable, they're targeting a pair of nuclear reactors in the middle of the cold ocean.
 
In the final stages of its flight, an anti-ship missile dives down to a very low level until it is "sea skimming". The Sunburn actually flies at just 20 metres. This is so low that you don't even need stealth - the missile just hugs the horizon and is out of line of sight, therefore cannot be detected by radars. It is only until it approaches to very close range that it passes the horizon and is visible. But at this stage, the ship's defences only have 25 seconds to react because the missile is flying at Mach 2.2. The Sunburn can also pull 10 g in this stage.

Speed is absolutely necessary to attack ships, hypersonics are a whole different ball game and only Russia is working on a hypersonic ASCM (note: cruise missile).
The E2C/D Hawkeye can see.

http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

The main problem with low altitude flight is that sensors, no matter which type, are line-of-sight (LOS) limited. So if the target has X seconds to react, it also means the attacker has the same X seconds to acquire it. AWACS changed the equation in favor of the defender by extending the detection horizon one-way.

Let us take the machine gun, for example.

Say that the machine gun is a new technology that only a few wealthy armies has it. The machine gun changed the equation of warfare in terms of battlefield tactics in favor of the army that has it. One gunner replaces 100 riflemen. Does that mean this army will hire 100 less soldiers? No, it mean this army will have 100 soldiers who can do other things on the battlefield, aka 'force multiplier'. Some will remain single-shot riflemen, some will field additional artillery batteries, some will become additional transport, and so on. If your army do not have the machine gun, you cannot assume that this other army also do not have the machine gun. You have to assume the worst -- that he does have at least one machine gun. He can change his battlefield tactics. Either you cannot or your options are limited.

You can point out on paper all the limitations of an AWACS but in reality, the moment that aircraft is airborne, the wise commander would assume the worst -- the AWACS sees all -- and prepare compensating tactics, if there are any.

You also cannot assume that the US carrier fleet is overly dependent upon the AWACS, as if the aircraft is down for unexpected mechanical problems, the carrier will halt offensive operations and is completely defenseless. The US Navy do have alternate tactics for just about every probable (not possible) events that can limit its fleet ability to wage war. If the Hawkeye is not available for a while, better believe it that a few Hornets can take over. Maybe not as good, but will be good enough.

The point is that when speculating fighting the US military, you have to assume the worst, that whatever branch of the US military you are (on paper) fighting, it will bring with it ALL the available methods of combat it can get its hands on. If the US military has the ability to teleport men and machines, you better believe it that we will use that method with all the new tactics that comes with it.
 
For Iran it would be ideal to take over UAE I would not mind if Iran occupys UAE
UAE has been annoying me greatly

There are plenty of F16 in UAE it would help beef up Iranian forces

article-2607731-1D2CF28400000578-261_964x643.jpg

Bomb the power plant near Dubai and UAE is pretty much over. The country is far to small to absorb any attacks. Naturally they aren't a large country like Iran or Pakistan. One attack on a Pakistani asset would only scratch Pakistan.

Underestimating UAE... is a grave mistake...
UAE is not KSA... It's not Qatar...It's not Oman etc...
UAE is actually the only TRUE capable Armed force in the Arab Region & Near beyond...

You have better chance to win against KSA+Qatar+Kuwait+Oman+Bahrain combined than UAE alone...

UAE only has its airforce as the only credible threat to Iran, but KSA's airforce is also large and well equiped, if you can say Iran can handle KSA, than they sure as hell can handle a tiny and extremely vulnerable country (infrastructure) like UAE. It only takes 2 min for Iranian missiles to reach UAE.

The DF-21D has a terminal speed of Mach 10 with an estimated 600 kg warhead. The United States Naval Institute theorised it could destroy a carrier in a single hit.

The Sejjil has a terminal speed of Mach 13 and a warhead weighing an estimated 650 kg.

Can you imagine the incredible damage a 600-700 kg object can do, when it is impacting the deck of a ship at Mach 13? That's 4.5 km a second. Now take that object, and fill it with explosives...

Even if it doesn't sink it, that carrier isn't going to work for a very long time. I expect it would be quite the uproar for the ultimate symbol of American power to be towed back to port with a giant gaping hole in the middle, not to mention all the casualties...

Are you sure about Mach 13. The air resistance allow on re-entry would pull it down a couple of notches. Hypersonic at best but Mach 13 is farr to fast to be true.

We also have Active Radar Homing, and Anti-Radiation (probably only the former would be used).

I think I know the missiles you are referring to but, these missiles do not have the range capable for A2/AD outside of gulf of Oman at the very best.
 
If I was a dictator , UAE would be history

persian-gulf-or-arabian-gulf2.jpg
If you were a dictator you would have been a history by now.

you want those effing yanks to encircle us from another side?
Have you forgotten what happened when Iraq "took over" Kuwait?
He is a dumb moron sitting in usa bullshytting on a forum derailing threads.
 
Here is the Image of Hoot

View attachment 456517

The problem with Hoot is that it has no guidance system because the speed at which these torpedo travel they cannot sense the target but if fired in straight line they are fast enough to take out target before the target can maneuver.
these type of the torpedo can change their path but for that they must move in jumping pace , something russian did with newer generation of shkval and the problem is not speed the problem is the supracavitation at the tip of the torpedo , it disrupt sonar

Few things I'd like your opinion/answer on:

1.) Does Iran have a platform to launch the Hoot from, or is it still in development? (i.e: Fateh Sub.)

2.) Brig. Gen. Hossein Salami said in an interview that Iran has equipped telemetric targeting systems on its BM's; i.e: allowing them to hit Carrier's vertically upon re-entry. Would this be better than an ASBM Sejjil?
We launch hoot from ships , boats and submarine ,you must knew when we designed hoot we had our boats and midget sub in mind
 
This what will happen :
The war will begin , our politicians say some great things , USA attack , some of Iranian will fight to death and in mean time our politicians will leave Iran with our remaining money to live their happy life in UK , Canada and etc ...
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom