Yeah in any operation like this precise timing is critical to success. All the various assets must coordinate their their attacks from various directions so that the impact hits the enemy all at the same time to overwhelm the opposing side.
It's funny that some clueless people who don't know much about Iran think that video is actually a realistic indication of Iran's capabilities. Like I said Iran probably could sink an aircraft carrier realistically but you have to consider the risk-reward factor.
Sinking a 12 billion dollar ship with 5000 personnel and 50-100 fighter jets. Can you even imagine the chaos ? Other ships trying to rescue their crews would then also be vulnerable to further subsequent strikes by Iran.
However after that the US is going to want blood and they might even launch a tactical nuclear strike on a prominent Iranian military base. Or they could bring 4 aircraft carrier strike groups to the region, coordinate with allies and then attack Iranian sites with a salvo of 200-300 cruise missiles followed by 200+ fighter jets
Of course then Iran will retaliate with more ballistic missiles strikes from various underground bases and mobile platforms. The one thing is that there are so many US bases close to Iran, so many targets and Iran has so many assets that Americans would suffer some serious losses as well.
I'm guessing that the US wouldn't really be too excited about a ground invasion so in the end after some retaliation both sides might agree to a truce depending on a variety of factors ? In the long run though an open conflict would be much more devastating to Iran rather than the USA.
If such a hot were were to break out the US might even try to blockade Iranian shipping, essentially not allowing Iran to sell its oil to market while sporadically hitting various Iranian military targets ? This would essentially be a long term regime change strategy that the US would be committed to, similar to what they did to Iraq prior to the invasion.
However this is when Iran would want to go nuclear and maybe unveil a longer range missile capable of reaching the US east coast ? When you think about such scenarios playing out, this is why diplomacy and deterrence options are so vital and why a hot war against a powerful rival should always be a last resort.
If Iran takes the long term, strategic approach, sooner or later the Americans will have to leave. They can't stay in Afghanistan, Syria, etc indefinitely. Iran will always be there, but the Americans have to spend billions to send their forces to the region.
Essentially if Iran just keeps a steady hand and focuses on building up its own internal capabilities, fixing internal issues, sooner or later outside opportunities will present themselves. Then it's a matter of taking a calculated risk based on rational thinking rather than emotions and usually things will play out in your favor.
In that video it was not the number of missiles that defeated the aircraft carrier defence in second round.
If you look again at video you see in the first try they fired missile in several salvo and in short quantity. In the second try the missile fired consequently and without delay . in short in first try the defence was not saturated . in the second attempt it was saturated . i f they fired all 60 missiles at once in first try they probably would have succeeded.