What’s Wrong With Iran’s Fake Aircraft Carrier

[kris]

The test was one of accuracy, especially on a (potentially) moving platform. The focus should be on the accuracy of missiles and not on the target.

Is the simulated target moving? Otherwise how is it going to teach new experience?

Real life and Hollywood are not synonymous. This notion that these combat groups have this nigh impenetrable defence is baseless and foolish. Difficult to penetrate in certain situations? Yes, but wars are not one dimensional.

You are missing the whole picture.. you expect an American carrier will be entering Persian gulf and waiting to be destroyed... Come on
They will be staying far away from it. That's why the ballistic missile test

As on date Iran doesn't have eyes in sky, and even drone can't go so far without being challenged...

How will they track a moving target? Some one has to do it for them

American CBG have strong defences, almost impregnable for current Iran forces at long ranges. Even their subs, I doubt are that capable away from Persian gulf

This is a moot point, there is no need to sink a carrier, but rather to take it out of service. Now, try to imagine what will happen to an aircraft carrier when hit by a Mach-4 anti-ship ballistic missile (Khalije Fars missile) with 600kg of HE.

Agreed

This has been attested to by American Admirals themselves, they are fully aware of Iranian access denial capability in the Persian Gulf. If people have the time, they can watch the below panel, one of the guests is a retired US admiral who commanded the 5th fleet:

Agreed...

Iran's focus is now to increase the size of that access denial area.

I say that's a improper investment... Iran air defence or sea denial will no doubt be a headache for usa, that's why they won't come near your borders untill they are suppressed. Iran should focus more on targetting far away from home like china. Long range precise missiles will definitely do the job. May be another base at horn of Africa?

 

[Mithridates]

You do realize it’s not a ship right?

It’s a wooden hollow barge that has to be towed out to see. Designed to not sink no matter the damage.

It’s a practice prop. Not real.

it's not wooden but yeah you are right the structure might not withstand that kind of load.
I'm not an expert specially in naval part. but dude the structure survived c-802 missile...I don't know.

 

[Hack-Hook]

it's not wooden but yeah you are right the structure might not withstand that kind of load.
I'm not an expert specially in naval part. but dude the structure survived c-802 missile...I don't know.

because thee was nothing to get destroyed . there was no ammunition to make second explosion , there was no fuel to get fired . a barge is far more resiliant than what people may think

 

[Philosopher]

Is the simulated target moving? Otherwise how is it going to teach new experience?

Yes, it will be. It's not hard to make something like that move, many ways to do it.

You are missing the whole picture.. you expect an American carrier will be entering Persian gulf and waiting to be destroyed... Come on
They will be staying far away from it. That's why the ballistic missile test

As on date Iran doesn't have eyes in sky, and even drone can't go so far without being challenged...

How will they track a moving target? Some one has to do it for them

There are various ways for Iran to detect targets within its larger access denial area. Yes drones are one, but they will be vulnerable (still can be done). Other ways include OTH radars, spy covert ships etc. Furthermore, do not forget the further Americans get from Iran's shore, the vastly more challenging it will be for them to wage any meaningful campaign.

American CBG have strong defences, almost impregnable for current Iran forces at long ranges. Even their subs, I doubt are that capable away from Persian gulf

I think your judgement is being greatly clouded by your perception of American capability on paper. When was the last time their ships were actually attacked in order for you to claim their defences are almost impenetrable? Even if their defences had a 100% success rate (which mirror fantasy more than reality), their defences will simply be saturated. In reality, I doubt they will be able to stop a single Sejill series missiles with cluster warhead. These clusters warhead contain around 1500 bomblets which are spread out over several kilometres. I think going forward you will see even more capability to push the Americans further aways.

I say that's a improper investment... Iran air defence or sea denial will no doubt be a headache for usa, that's why they won't come near your borders untill they are suppressed. Iran should focus more on targetting far away from home like china. Long range precise missiles will definitely do the job. May be another base at horn of Africa?

Yes, this is what I meant by Iran increasing its access denial area, i.e targeting them from far away.

 

[zartosht]

what is the American medias obsession with Irans "fake carrier"?

its a target practice barge shaped in the silouhette of an American carrier. whats wrong with that? I don't why its become a controversial thing for people to laugh at?

did Iran ever claim this was a carrier ? or even promoted it?

Americans have a cultural fetish with aircraft carriers, a ww2 legacy system that's more of a liability then asset if it gets too close to countries with advanced Area denials in place. it can only project power against defenseless countries.

I doubt any American commander would risk a carrier in a hot zone in the middle of a war (Persian gulf) unless they were 100% certain the enemy had no defensive capabilities (like Iraq)

modern hypersonic missiles will make carriers go the way of battleships in my opinion

 

[Philosopher]

what is the American medias obsession with Irans "fake carrier"?

Western propaganda machines when not busy creating fake news, are instead involved in trying to downgrade the image of all other nations that do not follow their narrative. This while their own countries are burning in riots. This desperation has become too obvious and has lost any potency (if it ever had any).

 

[TheImmortal]

it's not wooden but yeah you are right the structure might not withstand that kind of load.
I'm not an expert specially in naval part. but dude the structure survived c-802 missile...I don't know.

Because it was designed not to sink. It’s simple physics, for an object to sink certain requirements must be met.

That’s why when US sinks old warships to create artificial reefs for marine life it takes significant effort because apart from controlled demolition in the right spots, the demolition crew has to alter the structure of the ship to be able to sink.

 

[Mithridates]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Hōshō

 

[Oldman1]

The test was one of accuracy, especially on a (potentially) moving platform. The focus should be on the accuracy of missiles and not on the target.



Real life and Hollywood are not synonymous. This notion that these combat groups have this nigh impenetrable defence is baseless and foolish. Difficult to penetrate in certain situations? Yes, but wars are not one dimensional.



Iran's focus is now to increase the size of that access denial area.

Really? Its too hollywood?

So when you see the carrier being attacked in the movie, you think its fake?

You do realize it’s not a ship right?

It’s a wooden hollow barge that has to be towed out to see. Designed to not sink no matter the damage.

It’s a practice prop. Not real.

Thats impressive. The U.S. Navy tested sinking USS America, a supercarrier. Took weeks to sink it after constantly attacking it.

what is the American medias obsession with Irans "fake carrier"?

its a target practice barge shaped in the silouhette of an American carrier. whats wrong with that? I don't why its become a controversial thing for people to laugh at?

did Iran ever claim this was a carrier ? or even promoted it?

Americans have a cultural fetish with aircraft carriers, a ww2 legacy system that's more of a liability then asset if it gets too close to countries with advanced Area denials in place. it can only project power against defenseless countries.

I doubt any American commander would risk a carrier in a hot zone in the middle of a war (Persian gulf) unless they were 100% certain the enemy had no defensive capabilities (like Iraq)

modern hypersonic missiles will make carriers go the way of battleships in my opinion

Seems to be that China is also having a fetish for carriers. Why build them when you have the technology to sink them easily now as you said? Even small countries like Iran could do it? Why not Vietnam or Taiwan in SCS?

 

[Mithridates]

does anyone know how much it's structure weights??

 

[kris]

Yes, it will be. It's not hard to make something like that move, many ways to do it.

Like? How can you make such a big thing to move at high speed without falling?

There are various ways for Iran to detect targets within its larger access denial area. Yes drones are one, but they will be vulnerable (still can be done). Other ways include OTH radars, spy covert ships etc. Furthermore, do not forget the further Americans get from Iran's shore, the vastly more challenging it will be for them to wage any meaningful campaign.

What oth radars are you talking about. Second during war times all ships will be tracked and spy ships also aren't safe.

I think your judgement is being greatly clouded by your perception of American capability on paper. When was the last time their ships were actually attacked in order for you to claim their defences are almost impenetrable? Even if their defences had a 100% success rate (which mirror fantasy more than reality), their defences will simply be saturated. In reality, I doubt they will be able to stop a single Sejill series missiles with cluster warhead. These clusters warhead contain around 1500 bomblets which are spread out over several kilometres. I think going forward you will see even more capability to push the Americans further aways.




Yes, this is what I meant by Iran increasing its access denial area, i.e targeting them from far away.

I agree that my perceptions of USN are based on their paper abilities. But many times they have shown air defence or anti ballistic defence abilities during tests
100% is impossible, but at what costs can attack become successful...


Iran as on date lacks long arms to attack far away

Cluster bombs are designed for infantry not navy

 

[Philosopher]

Like? How can you make such a big thing to move at high speed without falling?

Despite its large size, this ship is relatively light. As for it falling, why would that happen? the same principles of buoyancy apply to this ships as other ships. Furthermore, it's not like it needs to travel at supersonic speed, just speeds comparable to other ships.

What oth radars are you talking about.

An example is the Seperh OTH radar with 3000km range. OTC radars have the ability to detect and track surface fleets.

Second during war times all ships will be tracked and spy ships also aren't safe.

If we had to follow this line of logic then basically all systems in war are vulnerable in theory.

I agree that my perceptions of USN are based on their paper abilities. But many times they have shown air defence or anti ballistic defence abilities during tests

There is a huge difference between a controlled test environment and an actual conflict where enemy is trying to saturate your defences with many different types of attacks.

but at what costs can attack become successful...

Compared to the cost of the carriers etc? vastly cheaper. Iran manufacturers its missile at a relatively cheap rate.

Iran as on date lacks long arms to attack far away

Iran possess 2000km anti ship missiles. This is its most potent weapon displayed so far. Granted this area needs to be supplemented greatly.

Cluster bombs are designed for infantry not navy

Not true, cluster systems are used for targets that are not extensively hardened. For example, a cluster warhead can wipe out the surface of a naval vessel taking it out of service, this is what we want. We do not need to sink the ship. If sinking the ship is what you desire, then after you take it out of service then naturally it is vulnerable to further attacks.

 

[kris]

Despite its large size, this ship is relatively light. As for it falling, why would that happen? the same principles of buoyancy apply to this ships as other ships. Furthermore, it's not like it needs to travel at supersonic speed, just speeds comparable to other ships.

Question is, how is it accelerated? Out side tug boats or engines inside

An example is the Seperh OTH radar with 3000km range. OTC radars have the ability to detect and track surface fleets.

Worthy equipment, this will no doubt be the prime list of target

If we had to follow this line of logic then basically all systems in war are vulnerable in theory.

That's why drones and satellites are used to keep humans away from harms way

There is a huge difference between a controlled test environment and an actual conflict where enemy is trying to saturate your defences with many different types of attacks.

Agree

Compared to the cost of the carriers etc? vastly cheaper. Iran manufacturers its missile at a relatively cheap rate.

Agree. Iran has already shown it's ability in this domain

Iran possess 2000km anti ship missiles. This is its most potent weapon displayed so far. Granted this area needs to be supplemented greatly.

Just anti ship missiles has high chance of interception. It should be supersonic to survive now a days war theatre

Not true, cluster systems are used for targets that are not extensively hardened. For example, a cluster warhead can wipe out the surface of a naval vessel taking it out of service, this is what we want. We do not need to sink the ship. If sinking the ship is what you desire, then after you take it out of service then naturally it is vulnerable to further attacks.

Is this a new concept?

 

[QWECXZ]

Iran possess 2000km anti ship missiles. This is its most potent weapon displayed so far. Granted this area needs to be supplemented greatly.

We do? What missile?

 

[Philosopher]

Question is, how is it accelerated? Out side tug boats or engines inside

Most certainly a tugboat like systems. That is far easier to accomplish.

Worthy equipment, this will no doubt be the prime list of target

Yes, unfortunately this is true.

Just anti ship missiles has high chance of interception. It should be supersonic to survive now a days war theatre

The missiles I have mentioned ate a ballistic missiles systems traveling at hypersonic speeds. They have a variety of warhead ranging from cluster, MaRV and Fuel-air explosives.

Is this a new concept?

It is a concept Iran has been working on, but nothing completely unique. Using cluster systems have two main benefit.
1) Your systems does not have to be as accurate (bomblet spread over several Kms)
2) Much more difficult for enemy to defend against these missiles. Nigh impossible to try and destroy these cluster bomblets.

We do? What missile?

Many of Iranian long range ballistic missiles can be used for this role, an example I have used is the missiles with cluster warhead. The issue is not the missiles, but being able to detect and track the surface fleets at range. Being able to accurately (in case of MaRV) target the ships is not an issue for Iran.