Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Layzeebeaver

(2,242 posts)
33. Fair enough. But it is also important to consider the effective "defense in depth" design of a carrier group.
Tue Feb 24, 2026, 03:51 PM
22 hrs ago

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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I don't get it. We used to not attack countries if they didn't attack us. Walleye Yesterday #1
We have been in Greg_In_SF Yesterday #2
I know, but it still goes against our principles Walleye Yesterday #4
Not really. GCG Yesterday #10
OK, then, it goes against my principles and I get a vote, supposedly Walleye Yesterday #13
That hasn't been a rule ever. Layzeebeaver Yesterday #3
Well, we need to change that. Walleye Yesterday #5
Absolutely! Layzeebeaver Yesterday #7
We used to not attack countries without congressional approval... ananda 20 hrs ago #45
He'd consider an aircraft carrier an acceptable loss EYESORE 9001 Yesterday #6
+1 Then he'd get to build a new one! leftstreet Yesterday #8
I apologize, gab13by13 Yesterday #9
Yep GCG Yesterday #11
Well, true if... Layzeebeaver Yesterday #12
The Cm-302 Chinese missile can fly 5 to 10 meters from the water, it skims over the water. gab13by13 Yesterday #16
Fair enough. But it is also important to consider the effective "defense in depth" design of a carrier group. Layzeebeaver 22 hrs ago #33
Damn RoseTrellis 19 hrs ago #46
There are radar guided 30 mm guns that can shoot down such missiles. Jacson6 Yesterday #14
They better aim low, gab13by13 Yesterday #20
US Navy has some pretty good defenses against wave skimmers. haele 22 hrs ago #32
They do aim low. n/t Jacson6 15 hrs ago #49
Well maybe just maybe if TSF knows he gonna lose everything,THIS bluestarone Yesterday #15
Vastly underestimating Boo1 Yesterday #17
The carriers are so vulnerable sarisataka Yesterday #18
Has there ever been a supersonic missile gab13by13 Yesterday #21
The USN is aware of the threat. Happy Hoosier Yesterday #23
Sea skimming missiles are not new to warfare sarisataka 23 hrs ago #27
If we are truly at risk from Iran getting this missile. Melon 5 hrs ago #56
The USS Bismarck Sea was a Casablanca Class Escort Carrier. VGNonly 21 hrs ago #42
That is correct sarisataka 20 hrs ago #43
The other Essex Class carrier VGNonly 19 hrs ago #47
No carrier has been sunk since WW2 GreatGazoo Yesterday #19
I don't think so. Happy Hoosier Yesterday #22
Sitting ducks was the wrong term to use, gab13by13 Yesterday #24
You should look into what a carrier group entails. Dreamer Tatum 23 hrs ago #25
Missiles are easy to get rid of Prairie Gates 23 hrs ago #26
Ya, Drones do concern most folks in the military. haele 22 hrs ago #34
Ha! Prairie Gates 22 hrs ago #35
China JOINS US Iran War: China ARMS Iran With Ship-Killer CM-302 Missiles Iran to SINK US Warships? Goonch 23 hrs ago #28
They dont have them yet. NT Layzeebeaver 22 hrs ago #37
No one is Greg_In_SF 23 hrs ago #29
Bookmarking Prairie Gates 22 hrs ago #36
Take it Greg_In_SF 21 hrs ago #41
4 of 5... Prairie Gates 20 hrs ago #44
I love Greg_In_SF 4 hrs ago #57
A live image of a burning aircraft carrier C_U_L8R 23 hrs ago #30
PNAC Kid Berwyn 23 hrs ago #31
If our carrier is attacked by Iran Krasnov will declare war and take claim of his GoodRaisin 22 hrs ago #38
Hmmm. Is it possible? yellow dahlia 14 hrs ago #51
There's a reason few nations buy Chinese military equipment Kaleva 22 hrs ago #39
yeah the Chinese radars guarding Caracas in Venz. didn't do so well nt EX500rider 18 hrs ago #48
That turned out to be be a big waste of money Kaleva 12 hrs ago #52
It's taken me awhile to pull this together in a manner that folks can consume... Layzeebeaver 22 hrs ago #40
During the Falklands War 1982 VGNonly 14 hrs ago #50
because it is the sport of repug prezes since ron ray gun.( we have to punish iran) AllaN01Bear 12 hrs ago #53
Hmm... What other large nation would benefit from the loss of US aircraft carriers? Orrex 5 hrs ago #54
I'm sure they're being escorted with guided missle cruisers Emile 5 hrs ago #55
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Aircraft Carriers Are Sit...»Reply #33