Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds

ChineseTiger1986 said:
I have clearly stated in my previous post that I don't think that Iran will be able to sink it due of lacking the hyper explosive warheads.

However, to damage the catapults on the flight deck to incapacitate the supercarrier could be achievable if the supercarrier is getting too close to the Iranian coast.
Click to expand...
Okay that I can definitely agree with you on.

But you also have to remember that there's a carrier group surrounding it to help deflect anything going on...

It's not 100% foolproof, but it definitely helps a lot
 
ChineseTiger1986 said:
I have clearly stated in my previous post that I don't think that Iran will be able to sink it due of lacking the hyper explosive warheads.

However, to damage the catapults on the flight deck to incapacitate the supercarrier could be achievable if the supercarrier is getting too close to the Iranian coast.
Click to expand...
There is no need for any US carrier to get within range of Iranian missiles. The aerial refueling capacity currently in theater is more than sufficient to support any carrier-launched strike package all the way into the target(s) and back.

All of the reports to date of Iranian missile hits on US carriers have been figments of some people's very active imaginations. Numerous photos of the carriers have confirmed that.
 
KAL-EL said:
Okay that I can definitely agree with you on.

But you also have to remember that there's a carrier group surrounding it to help deflect anything going on...

It's not 100% foolproof, but it definitely helps a lot
Click to expand...

The salvo launch of ASBM will have few being missed by the interceptors.

It seems the ASBM and hypersonic missiles are still expensive and scarce for Iran, therefore they would squander it like the salvo launch.
 
AZ_HighCountry said:
There is no need for any US carrier to get within range of Iranian missiles. The aerial refueling capacity currently in theater is more than sufficient to support any carrier-launched strike package all the way into the target(s) and back.

All of the reports to date of Iranian missile hits on US carriers have been figments of some people's very active imaginations. Numerous photos of the carriers have confirmed that.
Click to expand...

The refueling aircrafts/drones are still prone to be shot down.

For China, the supercarrier is still useful, but it is better to be boarded with the 6th gen aircrafts.

China's post-Type 003 supercarriers are all going to be over 120,000 tonnes because it wants to host those 45-50 tons 6th gen aircrafts.

With a combat radius of over 2500 km or 1400 nautical miles, it is gong to have much better deep strike capability without air refueling.

Maybe Trump is planning to not just cancel the US EMALS and to revert back to the steam catapult, but also to increase the future carriers' tonnage to be over 120,000 tonnes to host larger 6th gen aircrafts.

Since the 4th gen aircrafts on Iran war have lots of shortcomings.
 
ChineseTiger1986 said:
The refueling aircrafts/drones are still prone to be shot down.

For China, the supercarrier is still useful, but it is better to be boarded with the 6th gen aircrafts.

China's post-Type 003 supercarriers are all going to be over 120,000 tonnes because it wants to host those 45-50 tons 6th gen aircrafts.

With a combat radius of over 2500 km or 1400 nautical miles, it is gong to have much better deep strike capability without air refueling.

Maybe Trump is planning to not just cancel the US EMALS and to revert back to the steam catapult, but also to increase the future carriers' tonnage to be over 120,000 tonnes to host larger 6th gen aircrafts.

Since the 4th gen aircrafts on Iran war have lots of shortcomings.
Click to expand...
Slow-Clap-James-Van-Der-Beek.gif
Congrats on not just making your post about china but about stuff that isn't close to entering service with china.
 
AZ_HighCountry said:
Or no concept of naval aviation aircraft design. No carrier-borne 6th generation aircraft is going to weight 50 tons.
Click to expand...

China even got the craziest idea of making the 60 tons J-36 as the carrier-borne.

However, it is going to stick with the J-50 at 40-45 tons for now.

Against Iran, it proves that the 5th gen aircrafts are bare minimum, it is time to phase out the 4th gen aircrafts.
 
BHAN85 said:
yeah, they could easily if they want it, but they didnt, thanks god.

they dont need nukes, they already could make uninhabitable tel aviv downtown the next 20k years with a dirty bomb.
Click to expand...
in return all the big iranian cities will be nuc erased.
 
ChineseTiger1986 said:
If the US naval ships keep staying from 1000 km away from Iran's coast, they would not be able to strike deep into Iran.

Also, Iran's navy was not really the main focus as their missile troops.

Whereas the USN is the main focus for the US military.

Iran seems to lack the high explosive warhead to sink a supercarrier with few shots, but to damage the catapults on the flight deck could also render a supercarrier useless.

And the supercarriers still represent the US symbol of might, and they are going to lose all their face if it got hit by Iran.
Click to expand...

Then why aircraft carriers avoid Bab el mandeb strait since Iran war started? Circling whole Africa.

If Houthi can sink a aircraft carrier sailing near to them, what can't do Iran? The key is distance to shore. I dont know if 1000 km, 100km or 10km. But USA aircraft carriers didnt dare to sail Bab el Mandeb since Iran war started. So if they think Houthi could be a problem, much more it would be Iran.

Here you has aircraft carrier USS George Bush, months ago, circling Africa, to avoid Bab el mandeb strait.




FT_4_6_26-1-1536x861.jpg


FT_4_13_26-1536x861.jpg


FT_4_20_26-1-1536x861.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 3 more.
    • Total: 110 (members: 12, guests: 98)

    Pakistan Defence Latest

    Country Watch Latest

    Latest Posts

    Share this page

    Back
    Top