The entire idea is unrealistic. Think about it.
If you guys criticize the US Millennium Challenge 2002 as bad, scripted, unfair, and so on, then why do you guys continually touted it as evident that a fleet of small boats can take on a carrier group?
But if you want to use it as evident that the Iranian Navy can conduct a naval assault on the US carrier group, then what make you think that we have not taken steps to correct the flaws the war game revealed, therefore,
PROBABLY rendering any plan you have as ineffective and useful only as propaganda?
WW II was the first time that naval fleets fought each other without seeing each other, and probably the last time fleets fought within visual range of each other. That means the fleet without air power will be at a serious tactical disadvantage. We have in a single carrier fleet airpower that Iran cannot match in terms of technology, combat experience, range, and best (or worse for Iran) flexibility. Not only that, Iran will be facing long range bombers that can launch from CONUS that can deliver precision munitions on any coastal installation that can harbor the Iranian Navy.
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2015/June 2015/Airpower-Against-Ships.aspx
Here is what you guys on this forum do not understand and it is because you guys are more interested in nationalistic cheering for the public instead of quietly do research and think about what you find, especially when the US military is a lot more open about our equipment and tactics than other countries are.
Look at the highlighted above.
A 'mission kill' is a disabling hit, or a 'soft kill'. Ever thought and wonder why does the US focuses on that tactic for ships?
I maybe an Air Force guy, but precisely because I know humans do not belong in the air that I can definitely understand why ships warrant special tactics.
On land, individual soldiers can disperse and regroup at a different location and can resume the prosecution of the battle. We cannot do that in the air or at sea.
For example...And we return to the Vietnam War, specifically the air war...
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Vi...ng-migs-air-to-air-combat-over-north-vietnam/
In other words, the North Vietnamese MIGs did a 'mission kill' or 'soft kill' on the fighter-bombers. As soon as one fighter-bomber was hit, all jets jettisoned their bombs and maneuvered to survive. Without the bombs, the sortie was useless, therefore, whatever target planned survived another day.
It is not that much different at sea. A man in the air will drop and die. A man at sea will drown and die. The parachute and the float vest will save the man but do not allow continuation of the mission. If a ship is hit, sailors do not disperse like land army soldiers do. If a tank in a platoon is hit, the crew will be tended by others, but the other tanks can continue on. This cannot happen with a ship. So the idea is to judiciously use precision weapons to produce enough damages to the ship that it stop being a contributor the battle.
The larger the ship, the more difficult it is to produce that 'soft kill', let alone destroy or (hilariously) board an aircraft carrier. The corollary is that the smaller the vessel, like a speedboat, the easier it is to produce a 'hard kill' with the same weapon.
How much damage do you think an AC-130 can do to a speedboat to simply disable it? You think we cannot hit a moving boat?
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/griffin-missile-system/
As soon as one boat is hit, the others will execute evasive maneuvers, using up critical mission items like fuel and time. Maybe a 'soft kill' on the entire fast boat flotilla where each boat ran to its 'bingo fuel' status and must return to port. Or the smoking ruins of the port.
When you guys have not even considered something basic like sea state that
WILL affect mission time, how can you expect learned people to take you seriously? If anything, I doubt that until now, you guys have ever heard of the Douglas Sea Scale.
This is not a video game. Iran is facing a technologically superior opponent whose battle tested weapons are enough to overwhelm most militaries.