U.S. Carriers Vulnerable? How Dangerous Is Iran's Missile Arsenal & Ground Army?

by Kris Osborn, Warrior

 As Iranian missile attack U.S. & Israeli locations throughout the Middle East, many are likely to wonder about the seriousness of the Iranian threat to U.S. and Israeli forces. How threatening is Iran? Can they sink U.S. Carriers? Could their ground Army attack Israel or U.S. interests in the region? 

An interesting and quite significant research paper from Iran Watch shows that indeed Iran does possess a massive arsenal of ballistic missiles, at least five of which can reportedly travel distances of 1,300km or more. The famous Shahab-3, for instance, is listed by Iran Watch as capable of traveling 1,300km with a 1,000kg warhead. The liquid fuel, single stage Shahab-3 rocket is now deployed and exists in large numbers. The longest range ballistic missile listed by Iran Watch is the Khorramshahr 1,2, and 4 .. weapons cited as able to travel as far as 2,000 to 3,000km. This means the missile could hit anywhere in Israel from Tehran or most places throughout Central and Western Iran. Other Iranian Medium Range Ballistic Missiles capable of traveling 1,600km or more are the now-deployed Ghadr, Emad and Paveh missiles, according to Iran Watch. The Iranian Sejjil MRBM can travel 2,000km as well. 

Iran does, however, have much more artillery and Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS) when compared to Israel, yet both traditional artillery and 70-to-80km-reaching MLRS would not be in position to strike Israel unless they were moved close to its borders through forward deployment. At the same time, Iran is reported to operate a large number of Short, Medium and Long-Range Ballistic missiles in position to hit Israel. An examination of Iran’s large ballistic missile arsenal with a mind to guidance and range raises a serious threat possibility to Israel, as Iran appears to now operate at least five different long-range ballistic missiles capable of hitting Israel from Iran. Maps of the Middle East show Iranian missiles are easily able to hit Jerusalem and other parts of Israel from locations throughout Iran, as Jerusalem is less than 2,000km from Tehran. This means some ballistic missiles launched from Iran’s capital can hit Israel and an even higher number of long-range weapons can easily hit Israel from other locations within Western Iran. 

U.S. Carriers at Risk? 

In order to be able to project power from the ocean over large portions of the Middle East, US Navy Carriers would ideally not want to be further than a few hundred miles off the coast so aircraft can conduct sorties within their operational range, have some dwell time over target and be able to return without refueling. 

"The origin of the Soumar appears to be from the nuclear capable Russian Kh-55. In 2005, Russia acknowledged that 12 Kh-55’s (without nuclear warheads) were illegally sold to Iran in 2001 through a black market counterfeit operation," a Center for Strategic and International Studies "Missile Threat" essay explains. 

There are still several key unknowns here, such as the extent to which Iran has its production and technological capacity to produce, maintain and upgrade these missile.  Are there large numbers of Soumars and what kind of arsenal does the Iranian military have?  Perhaps most of all, what kind of guidance systems might the Soumar missile have? Can it track moving targets? Is there a level of precision?  Does the Hoveizeh truly operate with a kind of INS precision out to ranges of 839 miles? It true, the weapon would appear to place US carriers at risk from a number of Middle Eastern coastal locations of possible use by Iranian proxy forces. 

Can US Navy F-35Cs Reach Iran and Enemy Land Targets in Middle East?

An F-35C, for example, is the longest range F-35 variant and can operate at ranges of 2,200km. Roughly speaking, it would need to take off from a carrier less than 1000km (500 miles) off shore in order to attack and return without needing to refuel.  Therefore, if Iran has long-range anti-ship missiles able to travel as far as 2,000 to 3,000km, then carriers launching F-35Cs might need to operate within their strike range in  order to launch air-attack missions, unless there were sufficient available refueling tankers.  Using tankers, however, is not uncomplicated because, as large 'non-stealthy" aircraft, refuelers would be quite vulnerable to enemy fire and possibly put fighter jets at risk as well.

There are always a number of variables able to impact the equation regarding range and vulnerability, depending upon where fighter jets are planning to attack on land and how much time they need over targets. If large manned tankers too vulnerable, there could be the possibility of a carrier-launched unmanned MQ-25 Stingray refueler drone, a more survivable and now operational drone tanker.  

Carrier Strike Group Layered Defenses -- "Jam" Iranian Cruise Missiles

There is a lesser known part of this equation which might account for why the US Navy remains clear that it can operate carriers wherever it needs to regardless of new or emerging threats.  The reason is clear .... improved ship defenses. 

The Chinese DF-26, for example, can hit ranges out to 2,000 nautical miles and, in effect, seek to make it impossible for US Navy carriers to project air-attack power within operationally realistic ranges. However, the Navy has always been pretty confident about its ability to operate carriers in a modern threat environment, and while adjustments to the threat and smaller, faster carrier-like warships are being explored by the Navy, big deck carriers are not disappearing anytime soon. One reason may be the effectiveness of lesser known, yet increasingly high-tech layered ship defenses sufficient to address an anti-ship missile threat. Electronic Warfare systems are increasingly able to "jam" guidance systems of incoming missiles, ship-launched interceptor missiles are getting more precise, longer-range and capable of targeting attacking cruise missiles at safer stand-off ranges and new defenses such as lasers are showing a growing ability to track and incinerate incomjng anti-ship cruise missiles.  

Destroyers protecting Carriers in Carrier Strike Groups now operate with a new generation of ship-protection technologies, the specifics of which are often not available for security reasons.  US Navy DDG 51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers are now armed with lasers, improved range high-fidelity radar, upgraded interceptors and a new generation of more precise electronic warfare technology called SEWIP Block III. Closer in interceptors such as SeaRAM, Rolling AirFrame Missile and Close-in-Weapons System have also been upgraded as well. 

There is also a lesser known, yet already deployed ship-defense system operational on Navy destroyers since 2015. It's called Naval Integrated Fire Control - Counter Air. It is an integrated system which connects ship-based radar targeting technology with an aerial "node" or "gateway" suchas a Hawkeye surveillance plane or F-35 as a "relay" able to track and see incoming anti-ship missiles from stand-off ranges beyond the horizon. This NIFC-CA system removes latency and massively truncates the time window with which a ship commander has to respond to a threat or decide upon an optimal countermeasure. Simply put, threats can be seen much more quickly and at "beyond-the-radar-horizon" distances.  In addition to just detecting an approaching threat, the NIFC-CA system also integrates an SM-6 interceptor missile which can be cued by ship-based command and control with target detail and then launched to intercept and destroy an enemy anti-ship missile from beyond-the-horizon ranges

IDF  & U.S. Air Superiority

An initial question is simply one of geography, meaning the prospect of each country having success attacking the other. While Iran is known to fly some older fast and highly capable F-14 Tomcats, it is not clear how well maintained they are and Iran is quite likely extremely vulnerable to Israeli fighter jets in the air. Tomcats are fast, but likely to lose quickly in any air confrontation with 5th-generation aircraft simply due to sensor and weapons ranges. Israel, for instance, operates a fleet of at least 35 5th-generation stealth aircraft to include its F-35i Adir variant, likely capable of achieving air superiority and eluding Iranian air defenses. Iran is known to operate some Russian-built air defenses, yet it is by no means clear they would be able to detect and destroy Israeli F-35is. Many of Iran's Air defenses have likely been destroyed already due to recent Israeli strikes. 

However, the most critical question regarding IDF-Iranian air power likely pertains to an issue of technological superiority, given that a single 5th-generation F-35 has shown in multiple wargames that it is capable of using long-range, high-fidelity targeting sensors and advanced weapons to destroy a much larger number of 4th-generation aircraft. Any quick analysis of available assets and technologies would suggest that Israel is likely to operate with a distinct advantage over Iran in the air, something which would make it very difficult for Iran to make any lasting progress with a ground invasion.

Iranian Land Attack on Israel

The question of Israeli air superiority also weighs heavily upon the feasibility of Iran being capable of launching any kind of ground invasion into Israel. In order to access Israel, Iranian ground forces would need to travel through Turkey or Iraq or somehow transit the Persian Gulf, all scenarios wherein approaching Iranian forces would easily be seen and be vulnerable to Israeli air attack. Therefore, apart from the concerning prospect of Iran at some point having nuclear weapons, there do not appear to be a wide sphere of ways Iran might actually be able to attack Israel with any measure of success.

Unless, of course, Iran were to employ terrorist tactics, something by no means beyond the realm of possibility. In fact, small, covert hit and run types of terror attacks may be the kind of thing Hossein was referring to by hinting that several targeted strikes could bring down Israel. Added to this equation is the well known fact that Iran has been, and likely continues to be, a state sponsor of terrorist organizations. However, just as is likely the case with air defenses, Israel is certainly experienced and likely adept at counterterrorism tactics for obvious reasons.

Iranian Ground Army

While Iran does, at least on paper, appear to have a larger ground force, particularly when it comes to tanks and armored vehicles, that does not in any way mean that its land force would in any way be equivalent to Israel or the U.S.. Globalfirepower’s 2023 military assessments for instance, list Iran as having 4,071 tanks compared to Israel’s 2,200 tanks. However, having 2,000 more tanks than Israeli does not by any stretch ensure military overmatch, as sheer numbers of tanks may prove to be much less of an advantage should a smaller tank force be equipped with vastly superior sensors, weapons, computing and targeting. This may well appear to be the case with e ven a cursory look at how Israel’s well known and highly regarded Merkava tanks would compare against Iranian upgraded Soviet-era T-72s.

An interesting report in “21st Century Asian Arms Race,” states Iran has German-built Leopard tanks as well as Russian T-90s and even some Abrams. Iran’s first widely reported indigenous tank called the Farrar has emerged in recent years, a platform said to be based upon an upgraded Iranian T-72S chassis. The Iranian tank, reported to operate with an electro-optical fire control system, laser rangefinder and ballistic computer, would at least on the surface appear to most likely be vastly inferior to the Israeli Merkava. The Israeli Merkava is among the most advanced armored vehicles in the world. It can carry infantry or injured soldiers, leverage a rear exit hatch for dismounted operations or safety escape and, perhaps of greatest significance, its main gun tube can itself fire anti-tank missiles, according to a report in The National Interest.

The Merkava also has top-attack missiles potentially useful for attacking helicopters and other targets potentially out of range for a standard tank shell. What much of this amounts to is simply that even if it operates as many as 2,000 fewer main battle tanks compared to Iran, Israel may indeed operate a vastly superior land force. During the Gulf War’s famous tank battles, for example, U.S. Abrams advanced thermal sights were able to detect, find and then help destroy Iraqi T-72 before they were in range to even be detected or seen by Iraqi tanks. Therefore, large numbers of Iraqi tanks were disproportionately destroyed by far fewer Abrams armed with long-range, high-fidelity targeting sensors.

Iran operates nearly 400,000 more military personnel than Israel, as Iran’s total force of 1,015,000 is significantly larger than Israel’s reported force of 646,000. This difference, however, is not likely to be much of a factor if Iran cannot get in position to launch a ground invasion and operates a largely inferior ground Army in terms of weapons and technology.

Iranian Arsenal

Iran is reported to operate about 1,000 more armored vehicles than Israel. Iran is listed in the Globalfirepower 2021 assessment as having 8,500 armored vehicles, compared with Israel’s 7,000. Again, any size deficit is likely to be less consequential, unless the technological capacity were in any way comparable. While a lot of details regarding any kind of particular technical comparison may not be available, the advanced technologies built into the Israeli Merkava might make it seem unlikely that Iran has vastly superior infantry carriers and armored vehicles. Furthermore, without superior tanks able to break through the proactive barriers or defensive configurations of an Israeli force, any Iranian advance might be less likely to succeed.

Kris Osborn is the President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a highly qualified expert in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University