Aircraft Carriers Are Sitting Ducks

[gab13by13]

There will be 2 within range of Iran. Iran has been in negotiations with China to buy missiles that can kill aircraft carriers. They are very sophisticated and zig zag their final approach to avoid a carrier's air defenses.

Krasnov better hurry up and invade before Iran gets a hold of these missiles. A disabled carrier would be a US disaster.

Remind me again why we are maybe invading Iran?

[Walleye]

1. I don't get it. We used to not attack countries if they didn't attack us.

As far as I know, we have been attacked since 2001. Except by our own people in ICE

[Greg_In_SF]

2. We have been in

plenty of conflicts with countries that didn't attack us. Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, Korea, Panama, Libya, etc.

[Walleye]

4. I know, but it still goes against our principles

[GCG]

10. Not really.

The US government has a bad habit of adjusting its "principles" when it fits a certain agenda.

[Walleye]

13. OK, then, it goes against my principles and I get a vote, supposedly

[Layzeebeaver]

3. That hasn't been a rule ever.

We do however on occasion attack the wrong country when attacked. And we also make up scary untrue reasons to attack a country that hasn’t attacked us. Oh… and we just do scary stuff to countries we only wish had different leaders. And then…

Sorry but WW2 - exception rather the the rule

[Walleye]

5. Well, we need to change that.

[Layzeebeaver]

7. Absolutely!

[ananda]

45. We used to not attack countries without congressional approval...

usually after being attacked first.

[EYESORE 9001]

6. He'd consider an aircraft carrier an acceptable loss

He’d use it as a bludgeon to gin-up support for his folly. It’s a sacrifice he’s willing to make to justify use of tactical nukes. I don’t think I’m being cynical.

[leftstreet]

8. +1 Then he'd get to build a new one!

USS Trump

Eleventy billion dollars, and Melania could decorate it

[gab13by13]

9. I apologize,

I shouldn't have laughed at that.

[GCG]

11. Yep

And it would have steam operated catapults, too!

[Layzeebeaver]

12. Well, true if...

…There were no aircraft, no destroyers or other escorts brimming with defensive systems.

A carrier group is designed to project aviation strike capability and also to defend itself.

However, Any military force can be overwhelmed, but it takes hundreds of missiles to approach overwhelming a carrier group.

They are not sitting ducks - Unless commanded to be just that… wouldn’t put it past him.

[gab13by13]

16. The Cm-302 Chinese missile can fly 5 to 10 meters from the water, it skims over the water.

Technical Architecture of the CM-302: Supersonic Speed, Sea-Skimming Profile, and Defensive Compression
The CM-302, marketed by China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation as one of the world’s premier anti-ship weapons, is the export derivative of the YJ-12 system and is designed explicitly to neutralize large surface combatants, including destroyers and aircraft carriers, through high-velocity terminal engagement.

With a reported operational range of approximately 280–290 kilometers, the missile enables standoff launches from coastal batteries, surface vessels, or aircraft, reducing platform exposure while extending Iran’s effective maritime denial perimeter beyond previously subsonic engagement envelopes.

Its propulsion architecture combines a solid rocket booster for initial acceleration with a liquid ramjet engine for sustained supersonic cruise, generating speeds estimated between Mach 2.5 and Mach 4, thereby compressing defensive reaction windows for targeted vessels to mere minutes.

The missile’s sea-skimming flight profile, reportedly descending to altitudes as low as 5–10 meters above the wave surface, exploits radar horizon limitations and sea clutter interference, complicating early detection and reducing engagement time for shipborne interception systems.

Mid-course data-link updates and terminal active radar guidance, supported by BeiDou satellite navigation, enhance targeting precision and resistance to electronic countermeasures, increasing the probability of successful penetration against layered naval defense architectures.

The CM-302’s warhead, reportedly weighing between 250 and 500 kilograms, carries sufficient destructive yield to inflict catastrophic damage on vessels displacing up to 5,000 tons, raising credible survivability concerns for modern destroyers operating within contested proximity.

CASIC promotes the system as capable of neutralizing high-value naval assets, including aircraft carriers, a marketing assertion that directly intersects with US carrier strike group doctrine, where layered defense and distributed lethality depend on early detection and extended engagement depth.

In Iranian service, integration of a supersonic missile with these characteristics would address a historical gap in Tehran’s anti-ship arsenal, which has largely relied on subsonic systems such as the Ghadir and Noor, thereby shifting from saturation-based harassment toward high-velocity precision disruption.

[Layzeebeaver]

33. Fair enough. But it is also important to consider the effective "defense in depth" design of a carrier group.

They would need dozens and dozens of these missiles and associated crews trained to operate them in post in a week. Also, their engagement doctrine with this type of weapon has not been established or tested (That we know of) as it would need to be carefully fitted into a wave assault.

A carrier group is specifically designed to provide defense in depth.

Technical feasible? Yes.

Organisationally feasible? I highly doubt it.

Am I saying it can't happen that a lone Iranian supersonic missile could make it through an effective carrier group defense? No.

What are the odds? Low.

Wikipedia and foreign sources of propaganda are not always reliable.

And finally I would like to add, that only an idiot would put a carrier group in direct strike range of a weapon system that could take out the carrier

And finally finally WE HAVE SUCH AN IDIOT AS CIC.

[RoseTrellis]

46. Damn

Sounds like we need to retire our navy! [/sarcasm]

[Jacson6]

14. There are radar guided 30 mm guns that can shoot down such missiles.

It is no longer a Navy cook with a 30mm machine gun on a ship deck like what happened during Pearl Harbor.

Just sayin...

[gab13by13]

20. They better aim low,

the missile skims over the water.

[haele]

32. US Navy has some pretty good defenses against wave skimmers.

Both on, under, and above the water.
There's also the laws of physics, especially ballistic physics, that even super-sonic missiles have to follow.
Now, an ICBM aimed at a carrier task force is more problematic to a carrier task force, as many military folks on unclassified YouTube have indicated, most countries are changing up their MIRVs to contain both decoys and active warheads to overwhelm defensive forces on the cheap.
However, there are methods to take out the ICBM before it hits apogee, and before it can deploy a supersonic payload.
And I'm also pretty sure there's all sorts of keyholes watching Iran.
So, not so worried about carriers from the size missiles that could seriously damage or sink a carrier. Maybe a smaller air-launched weapons like Silkworms (which Iran already has), but those won't sink a carrier.

[Jacson6]

49. They do aim low. n/t

[bluestarone]

15. Well maybe just maybe if TSF knows he gonna lose everything,THIS

May be his way to end America. I'm not kidding either.

[Boo1]

17. Vastly underestimating

The defensive capabilities of carrier groups.

And vastly overestimating the sophistication of Chinese missiles.

And even if the Chinese thought their missile could hit a US carrier, it's not going to risk letting Iran show everyone that it can't.

[sarisataka]

18. The carriers are so vulnerable

It has only been three days and eighty-one years since the USS Bismarck Sea was sunk. No carrier has been lost in combat since then nor any damaged by enemy attack since WW2.
Perhaps they have some means of protection?

[gab13by13]

21. Has there ever been a supersonic missile

that flies 5 to 10 meters above the water attacking carriers? The answer is no.

This Chinese missile has not been proven in combat so it may not work but this missile could also be a game changer for Iran, do we want to find out?

As I said, Krasnov better hurry up and invade before these missiles arrive in Iran.

[Happy Hoosier]

23. The USN is aware of the threat.

While Kegsbreath and Trump are morons, the USN commnd structure know their business and they will resist any tactic that places carriers at unacceptable risk.

Historically, the capabilities of both Russian and Chinese military hardware have not met expectations when used in actual combat. But we don't get Universal Healthcare, so our military hardware DOES usually work.

[sarisataka]

27. Sea skimming missiles are not new to warfare

Nor is designing defenses against them. A CVBGs ability to protect itself is impressive and it is all focused on protecting the carrier. Granted no defense is impenetrable but to claim they are sitting ducks against an untested missile is hyperbole.

According to the description,

The CM-302’s warhead, reportedly weighing between 250 and 500 kilograms, carries sufficient destructive yield to inflict catastrophic damage on vessels displacing up to 5,000 tons

Modern carriers displacement is over 100,000 tons. It would take multiple hits to be assured of causing significant damage.

Tactically trying to hit a carrier is simply wasting missiles. It is very unlikely they would reach their target and any damage inflicted would probably be minor. Yet Iran could try as any damage they could cause to a carrier would be a strategic victory.

[VGNonly]

42. The USS Bismarck Sea was a Casablanca Class Escort Carrier.

Sunk by kamikazes in Feb 45 during the Battle of Iwo Jima. The Class were known for being lightly armored especially deck armor. About 50 were produced between 1942--44.

[sarisataka]

43. That is correct

later that year in May, The Essex -class USS Bunker Hill was also struck by two Kamikazes, not only surviving but sailing under its own power for eventual repairs.

Carries are not the fragile targets many assume they are.

[VGNonly]

47. The other Essex Class carrier

that survived was the USS Franklin, taking several dive bomber strikes. Excellent fire-control and the sturdy construction of these vessels kept them afloat.

Of the 17 Essex Class vessels, none were sunk, 3 were never in combat. At the onset of WW2, the US had 7 fleet carriers and 1 escort. By the end of the war, the US had 101 carriers still afloat. 11 were lost during the war; 4 fleet carriers, 1 light carrier and 6 escorts. The Japanese Navy never had stood a chance after Midway.

[GreatGazoo]

19. No carrier has been sunk since WW2

so it remains to be seen what the current capabilities of both sides are. It was widely reported that China sent 16 cargo planes of ___(?)___ to Iran back on January 20th.

There has been no mobilization of troops so no invasion is possible.

The goal seems to be regime change (no surprise) to install Pahlavi.

[Happy Hoosier]

22. I don't think so.

First off, you have to be able to taget the carriers. You need real time data to do that. At best, the Iranians are getting some Chinese and Russian satellite data, probably delayed, and probably not continuous.

Secondly, the launchers have to survive to launch. They will be a high priority in an initial strike... some combination of on-the-ground sabotage/strikes and air strikes.

Lastly... Carriers Are surrounded by the most sophisticated and effective air defense system in the world.

Are there risks? Sure, The enemy always gets a vote. But they CERTAINLY not sitting ducks.

[gab13by13]

24. Sitting ducks was the wrong term to use,

to make the point that are somewhat slow in maneuverability.

[Dreamer Tatum]

25. You should look into what a carrier group entails.

The weapon that could credibly sink a carrier without any intervention from every element of the carrier group does not exist.

[Prairie Gates]

26. Missiles are easy to get rid of

Imagine 5000 explosive drones swarming the ships.

I don't doubt that the various military leaders put this kind of stuff on the table for Trump, and that's why he's suddenly like, "Oh, maybe, er um."

[haele]

34. Ya, Drones do concern most folks in the military.

Much as I have had overall little use for shipboard laser weaponry - other than for guidance - due to high power requirements to turn them into a weapon as effective as to typical kinetic style weapons, I will admit that laser weapons using available shipboard power resources can possibly be effective against drone swarms.

Especially if you fire off your laser system accompanied with a Pink Floyd or Daft Punk soundtrack over the ship's 1MC cranked to 11...

[Prairie Gates]

35. Ha!

Especially if you fire off your laser system accompanied with a Pink Floyd or Daft Punk soundtrack over the ship's 1MC cranked to 11...

[Goonch]

28. China JOINS US Iran War: China ARMS Iran With Ship-Killer CM-302 Missiles Iran to SINK US Warships?

[Layzeebeaver]

37. They dont have them yet. NT

[Greg_In_SF]

29. No one is

going to take out a US carrier

[Prairie Gates]

36. Bookmarking

[Greg_In_SF]

41. Take it

to the bank

[Prairie Gates]

44. 4 of 5...

[C_U_L8R]

30. A live image of a burning aircraft carrier

will be the end of Trump.

[Kid Berwyn]

31. PNAC

The "Real men go to Tehran" thing.

[GoodRaisin]

38. If our carrier is attacked by Iran Krasnov will declare war and take claim of his

emergency war powers, essentially giving him all the power he wants for himself. Is it possible he is placing our sailors in harms way to achieve his own dictatorial goals?

[yellow dahlia]

51. Hmmm. Is it possible?

I'll ask around.

[Kaleva]

39. There's a reason few nations buy Chinese military equipment

It often doesn’t work as advertised.

[EX500rider]

48. yeah the Chinese radars guarding Caracas in Venz. didn't do so well nt

[Kaleva]

52. That turned out to be be a big waste of money

[Layzeebeaver]

40. It's taken me awhile to pull this together in a manner that folks can consume...

Also, I've pasted stuff from multiple sources, apologies for formatting issues.

U.S Carrier group defending against (CM02-type for example) supersonic anti-ship missiles...

Step 1) Find it early (so you can shoot it earlier)
- Use E-2D Advanced Hawkeye: airborne early warning / battle management; helps cue the group’s air and missile defence picture.
- Aegis Combat System on cruisers/destroyers: integrates sensors and weapons for fleet air defence.

(In wargame terms: “if you don’t detect/track early, every later layer gets harder.” I'm an old wargamer, so apologies if I get way to technical here)

Step 2) Outer “hard-kill” layer (the long arm for the Carrier group defense, so to speak) This is typically executed by Aegis escorts rather than the carrier itself:
- SM-6 (Standard Missile-6): multi-mission interceptor used for air defence, including against anti-ship missiles.
- SM-2: the US Navy’s primary surface-to-air fleet air-defence missile; also positioned as part of layered defence vs aircraft and missiles.

(Exactly who-shoots-what-when is obviously scenario dependent; but the point here is: area defence lives on the Aegis ships.)

Step 3) Middle “hard-kill” layer (point/ship self-defence missiles)
- ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile): explicitly designed to counter supersonic manoeuvring anti-ship missiles as a ship self-defence weapon.

Step 4) Inner “hard-kill” layer (last-ditch physical kill)
- RAM / SeaRAM: point-defence missile system originally intended primarily against anti-ship missiles.
- Phalanx CIWS: gun-based close-in system described as the last line of defence against anti-ship missiles.

Step 5) “Soft-kill” layer (decoys + electronic warfare) Keep in mind that this step is not actually "step 5", it's in play from the very beginning!
These sit alongside every hard-kill layer because making a missile miss is as valuable as shooting it down:
- Nulka: an offboard active decoy designed to “seduce” modern anti-ship missiles away from the ship - MK 53 Decoy Launching System (DLS)
- AN/SLQ-32 EW suite (and SEWIP upgrades): provides EW functions, including interfacing with decoy launchers and supporting ship self-defence.
- Mk 36 SRBOC chaff/IR decoys (often controlled via EW suite) are commonly discussed as part of the same defensive ecosystem.

So... if Iran had a CM-302-class missile, the challenge isn’t the warhead — it’s getting a high-speed missile through a carrier group’s defence-in-depth: E-2D + Aegis for early warning and long-range shots (SM-6/SM-2), then ESSM in the mid-layer, then RAM/SeaRAM and Phalanx up close — all while EW and decoys like Nulka try to break the missile’s terminal guidance.

Hope this helps everyone gain a bit more understanding...

EDIT: Sorry, one other thing to add. When folks say the missile can "weave" to avoid being hit, please keep in mind that this speaking of the "terminal Phase" when the missile is undergoing its final phase of flight - this weaving is typically not occurring during the transit phase of the flight.

[VGNonly]

50. During the Falklands War 1982

Argentina used an aircraft-based anti-ship sea-skimming Exocet missile to severely damage the destroyer HMS Sheffield. The ship then later foundered. The missile was flying just under mach 1, striking the ship about 8 feet over waterline. The strike apparently did not explode, damage came was from impact and subsequent fires from burning propellant.

[AllaN01Bear]

53. because it is the sport of repug prezes since ron ray gun.( we have to punish iran)