Tokyo Outsider (337ppm)Mar 8

Anyone know why #Iran isn't firing more at the U.S. carriers? They probably have really strong defenses, but with the amount of missiles Iran is firing across multiple countries toward Israel and Gulf states, you'd think if they just pointed all of that at a carrier for 10 minutes they'd quickly overwhelm its ability to defend itself.

That's probably a really simplistic view, though. Would be good to hear from someone more informed.

Show threadRichard
@tokyo_0 Carriers are hard to find & target (moving, part of a strike group), hard to hit (can manoeuvre, protected by layered defences, AEW, fighter jets, hundreds of VLS cells with interceptors, EW, CIWS etc.) and even if you hit one you’d get a mission kill at best. The list of targets that Iran can attack more effectively is long. Air bases, C2 etc. stay where they are and are not as well-defended.
Mar 8 at 11:30amWeb
Show threadTokyo Outsider (337ppm)Mar 8
@richrants That's really interesting, and thank you for answering the question. It does make sense to target the other places if they're more vulnerable and worthwhile. But I am curious about one point: You say a hit would get a mission kill at best - wouldn't it take the whole carrier down? Or do you think it'd just hit part of it and even if a few fighters were lost from the deck the rest of it would carry on?
Show threadRichardMar 8
@tokyo_0 Depending on the weapon used (cruise or ballistic anti-ship missile), the warhead (<500kg) + kinetic energy of the missile would cause damage if it hit the carrier. An ASBM could penetrate the deck, a cruise ASM tear a hole into the hull. Fuel & ammunition fires etc.
But a carrier is enormous, compartmented and full of crew trained in damage control, fire fighting etc. – it wouldn’t launch fighters for a while and might have to be towed out of theatre for repairs. But sink? Unlikely.