I'm talking about 200 speedboats filled with suicide bombers.
I was including that under Iran's navy, even though technically I think they are place in another organization.
The only chance they would have to make an strong impact is if we where not ready for them. In addition to the larger weapons designed for use against ships (some of which work fine against speedboats, but which you don't want to start using them in places like ports), we have machine guns and small manually operated autocannons added to our ships, and when are ships are in port they have their own machine gun armed speedboats circling them.
Also you where talking about sinking a carrier, blow up a few of these boats at the carriers waterline and it isn't going to sink. Its too big and compartmentalized.
----
Countermeasures
As Iran discovered during the Tanker War, convoys and conventional military aircraft have been extremely successful against small boats. The maneuverability and advanced weaponry of tactical air support, especially modern helicopters, effectively neutralizes many of the small boats' advantages. Other countermeasures include attacking staging areas of small boats, which would thwart a threat before it even developed.
The vast size of a VLCC, which creates a massive bow wave and wake when the ship is underway, also serves as a type of countermeasure. Small boats face an arduous task just to maneuver through the massive waves. In the event the small boat does get close to the tanker, the size mismatch between the boat and tanker also makes it difficult for the boat to impose significant damage on the tanker.
hormuz.robertstrausscenter.org
------
That statement about tankers size would also apply to carriers (if the boats ever got close which is very unlikely). The more important statement is about their vulnerability to aircraft.
I'm talking about 1000 missiles headed for each of our surface ships EVERY hour.
Then your talking about a fantasy. The US (or China, or Russia, or anyone else) could not throw out that kind of missile firepower.
They do however have enough missiles to be a threat. Not so much to the carriers (which are further away, and well protected, and will move still further if need be because of such a threat, they can strike out of the range of Iran's anti-ship missiles), but to any smaller ships that are closer in. If we are initiating the attack, the threat is reduced, since we will quickly take out some of their ability before they are fully ready, and obviously we will be ready at the time, and have our forces positioned in ways to reduce their vulnerability. But if they start the conflict, and attack with any level of surprise then things are a bit harder for us (not nearly as hard as they are for the Iranians, but if a US ships sinks and we lose 100 sailors its not going to play well in the news).
We'd lose LOT's of our ships and LOT's of our people in any engagement with Iran.
We've had engagements with Iran. We lost one helicopter (and I don't think it was from enemy fire, but then a mechanical failure loss is still a loss).
In a larger engagement we could lose more, but we have a good chance not to lose any ships. Worst case we lose very few. (Of course losing even one, we'll be portrayed by the media as a catastrophic loss, and a sign that we're losing the war...)
If we get sloppy and they get lucky, they can cause a lot of damage. Wars are more complex than simple calculation of technical capabilities. But the disparity in force here is rather large and positive to the US.
----
For more see
The Strait Dope
Why Iran can't cut off your oil.
foreignpolicy.com
hormuz.robertstrausscenter.org
Operation Earnest Will
warboats.org
globalsecurity.org
Operation Preying Mantis
en.wikipedia.org
Operation Nimble Archer
en.wikipedia.org |
