Iran says tests missiles able to sink "big warships"

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Ok if my english is too lousy I might just begin to talk to you in german. This might be better...
But you are right, as a native speaker you can be proud about speaking better english than me. :rolleyes:

And I don't need to be a mod just for saying what I think you are doing all the time.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
iam not 2 sure.what kind of proof do u require.but as u keep on denying it care to explain how.
Hey cheetah, sorry if my short answers left you with the impression that I was being dismissive. I was giving a short reply to the article you posted which I for a number of reasons, some of which Galrahn pointed out, did not find to be a good source. Actually the very opposite of a good source, disinformation. I replied without giving myself the proper time to do so.

It is basically a six year old article reiteration rumours and speculation, catering to some odd views and agendas on top of this.

Iran has been looking for S-300's and perhaps also Sunburns for close to two decades now, without acquiring any. However, these probes, and the appearance of surveillance radars usually associated with the S-300 has led to some wild speculation, threat hyping in some quarters, and wishful thinking in others.

Some of the indicators of if Iran had obtained such systems could be:

  • Significant Russo-U.S. diplomatic row over a potential Russian export to Iran. Much more marked than that over the recent Tor-M1 export.

  • Russian declaration of intent to export.

  • System has appeared on an Iranian military parade.

  • Pictures are circulating (on the net) of such systems in Iranian possesion.

  • Leaks have occured from U.S. intelligence services that Iran should be in possesion of such systems. They have plenty of sources: SIGINT/ELINT/IMINT/HUMINT.

  • Other.
That none of this has happened (and no, the 'Pentagon source' from the Newsmax article does not qualify) would indicate Iran has *not* acquired any of those systems.

Actually I would think Globalsecurity, despite its occasional inaccuracies and errors, is reasonably accurate in this case.

"By the mid-1990s Iran reportedly had small numbers of Chinese SA-2s, along with SA-5 and SA-6 SAMs. Total holdings seem to include 30 Improved Hawk fire units (12 battalions/150+ launchers), 45-60 SA-2 and HQ-2J/23 (CSA-1 Chinese equivalents of the SA-2) launchers. Some sources claim that Iran might have 25 SA-6 launchers, but other sources are doubtful. There are reports of the transfer of eight SA-6 launchers to Iran from Russia in 1995/1996. In January 1996 US Navy Vice Admiral Scott Redd said had recently added Russian-built SA/6 missile defense systems.

In 1997 the Iranian Air Defense forces declared the Almaz S-200 Angara (SA-5 'Gammon') low-to high-altitude surface-to-air missile (SAM) operational. The missile has a comparatively modest acceleration rate, and relies on its small wings for maneuverability. Furthermore, the mechanically steered radars used by the SA-5 are vulnerable to saturation by decoys. Sources disagree on the number deployed, with some claiming four batteries, while others claim ten. Another source reports that the Air Force had three Soviet-made long-range SA-5 units, with a total of 10-15 launchers -- enough for six sites.

There were reports that Iran was considering purchases of the highly capable SA-10 [S-300] missile system. The SA-10 is a highly capable long-range all-altitude SAM. As early as 1994 it was reported that Iran had six SA-10 batteries [96 missiles] on order from Russia [but as of early 2006 no deliveries had taken place]. In February 1997 a $90 million sale of 36 missiles to Iran and three older SA-10 SAM systems, made up of components from Russia, Croatia, and Kazakhstan, fell through. On 30 December 2000 an announcement was made in Russia that Iran had informed Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev about Iran's desire to purchase the S-300 anti-missile system. In March 2001 there were reports tha the Russians are close to cutting a deal with Iran on advanced missiles. Itar-Tass reported that Iran would soon close the deal on the Russian Tor-M1, Tor-M1T, and the S-300 surface-to-air missiles. After this report, there were no subsequent reports of Iranian interest in the SA-10.

In December 2005 Iran entered into a contract to purchase 29 TOR M1 [SA-15 GAUNTLET] mobile surface-to-air missile defence systems from Russia worth more than USD 700 million (EUR 600 million). The TOR-M1 is a mobile system designed for operation at medium- and low-altitude levels against aircraft and guided missiles. Each unit consists of a vehicle armed with eight missiles and a radar that can track 48 targets and engage two simultaneously. The TOR-M1 systems have medium-range capabilities for intercepting planes and missiles and are not designed for ground operations."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm

Cheers
 

cheetah

New Member
Actually history is rife with examples of force being used successfully to remove a threat. Even maintaining a vast military machine is a type of force. But I dont want to digress. I look at military threats and conflicts as I would a mathematical problem and I see the #1 nation in terms of supporting terror thats going to be a nuclear capable state in a few years.
osama attacked USA (even though he was trained by USA)without a cause and killed up to 3000 Innocent people.he is a terrorist in my book and should be shoot and killed on site.
Bush and his friends attacked Iraq.without a cause and killed 650'000 (so far)and counting.guess who is the bigger terrorist.
Israel used American supplied cluster bombs against civilians.who is the terrorist .Iranians have yet to shoot a bullet and they are the terrorist.

Gee, anyone see a problem here?
Gee i wonder if any body see the reality there.

And If I were Iranian I would invest heavily in advanced AshMs. Thats a heck of a trump card, being able to shutdown the Gulf and strangle the west by choking their oil. Does anyone else see the beauty of that strategy? AshMs are cheap, can be fired from Land, sea, and air, and in the confined waters of the region would be LETHAL. They dont have to be as good or as big as the USN. They only have to get us to play on their field.
A refinery fire in USA takes up oil prices by buck or 2 per/brl.Iran pumps 4 million /brls a day take that out and it will cost about $100.00/Lr or about 3 to 400 dollars per gallon in USA.i wonder what would u say then


I can look at some of the systems, programs, and strategies the Iranians have and admire them even if I consider them an enemy. I was, after all, within spitting distance when they took those embassy personal in 1979. And I bet they would play good chess, as Ive pointed out before their cultural roots point east and not mideast and they are a subtle and intelligent people.
i don't no how many those hostages you keep talking about died.but during Iran Iraq war.Americans shoot down a Iranian civilian air liner with a missile more then 200 people died.what do u say about that.and I'm not even talking about the orange agent and other chemical agents supplied to Iraq.

But Like I said, a "mathematical equation".
But you are right Iranians are the trouble makers they are the ones sitting at a sovereign states borders thinking of attacking it.they should be called terrorist.can u solve that simple problem.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
All right.

I think the mutual sh!tfile compilation and publication stops right here, or this thread runs a high risk of termination.

This is not the place.
 
Last edited:

cheetah

New Member

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm


The Sunburn Missile

I was shocked when I learned the facts about these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons –– probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Hussein’s Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.

Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called “the most lethal missile in the world today.”

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the old military establishment fell upon hard times. But in the late1990s Moscow awakened to the under-utilized potential of its missile technology to generate desperately needed foreign exchange. A decision was made to resuscitate selected programs, and, very soon, Russian missile technology became a hot export commodity. Today, Russian missiles are a growth industry generating much-needed cash for Russia, with many billions in combined sales to India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and also Iran. In the near future this dissemination of advanced technology is likely to present serious challenges to the US. Some have even warned that the US Navy’s largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death traps, and should for this reason be mothballed.

The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also “saw” the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution –– not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.”

The Sunburn’s combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat.
 

tphuang

Super Moderator

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm


The Sunburn Missile

I was shocked when I learned the facts about these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons –– probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Hussein’s Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.

Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called “the most lethal missile in the world today.”

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the old military establishment fell upon hard times. But in the late1990s Moscow awakened to the under-utilized potential of its missile technology to generate desperately needed foreign exchange. A decision was made to resuscitate selected programs, and, very soon, Russian missile technology became a hot export commodity. Today, Russian missiles are a growth industry generating much-needed cash for Russia, with many billions in combined sales to India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and also Iran. In the near future this dissemination of advanced technology is likely to present serious challenges to the US. Some have even warned that the US Navy’s largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death traps, and should for this reason be mothballed.

The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also “saw” the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution –– not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.”

The Sunburn’s combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat.
why do you bother keep on posting stuff like this? It can't even get the size of the warhead correct. Simply put, Sunburn and R-77 are two of the most overrated missiles out there. S-300 is a different story, but the other two are pretty much just trumped up by the China threat group.

Not only is sunburn not the most lethal missile in the world, it's not even among the top 5 in the world and imo not even among the top 3 in PLAN.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm


Some have even warned that the US Navy’s largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death traps, and should for this reason be mothballed.
I recall similar statements being made about the carrier force after WW2, in the 50s, 60s and so on. But still these ships are one of the first assets that the US uses for power projection in a crisis. Certainly the USN seems confident in the future of the carriers and of their continuing importance in the US order of battle.

Cheers
 

cheetah

New Member
why do you bother keep on posting stuff like this? It can't even get the size of the warhead correct. Simply put, Sunburn and R-77 are two of the most overrated missiles out there. S-300 is a different story, but the other two are pretty much just trumped up by the China threat group.

Not only is sunburn not the most lethal missile in the world, it's not even among the top 5 in the world and imo not even among the top 3 in PLAN.
finally some one pointing me in the right direction thank you.what i mean is i been on this forum for few days and i have learned a lot lots of very intelligent people here.would it be possible for you if there is any way i can study up on top 5 please.
i keep bringing up s-300 as that was the conversation about plus thats what i have been reading about.
 

Manfred

New Member
Combine these missles with the huge stock of naval mines, and Iran starts looking like a credible threat, at least in the short term, to shipping in the Gulf.
WHat sort of response to an Iranian blockade would the US have to make? I say US because I am assuming that we would have to work alone, and quickly.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Bombing the hell out of the Iranian army, industry and infrastructure with tactical fighters from bases on the arabian peninsula, A-stan, Georgia and Turkey, strategic bombers from CONUS, europe and Diego Garcia and navy fighters which do not have to protect the MCMs clearing the street.

This would be a reasonable way of making clear to Iran that closing te street was as dumb as one can get and hopefully europeans don't just stand by and look how the US do what needs to be done in such a case.
 

contedicavour

New Member
Bombing the hell out of the Iranian army, industry and infrastructure with tactical fighters from bases on the arabian peninsula, A-stan, Georgia and Turkey, strategic bombers from CONUS, europe and Diego Garcia and navy fighters which do not have to protect the MCMs clearing the street.

This would be a reasonable way of making clear to Iran that closing te street was as dumb as one can get and hopefully europeans don't just stand by and look how the US do what needs to be done in such a case.
Well well diplomacy applied by all sides did work out in calming down N Korea, but that implied never seen before Chinese persuasion over its small northeastern neighbor.
If only Russia and China did the same to Iran, I'm pretty sure the Iranian regime would find a way of getting rid of their current president and of installing someone more moderate and businesslike...
There's no point in bombing anymore unless we're ready to put up with a huge expeditionary force stuck in the Gulf for a decade or so. At the end we might be obliged to do it (by the way "we" means to me a combination of NATO or coalition forces around the US) but I really hope not.

cheers
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...WHat sort of response to an Iranian blockade would the US have to make? I say US because I am assuming that we would have to work alone, and quickly.
If Iran closed the straits, China, Japan, S. Korea & India would be desperate for them to be opened ASAP, with Europe just behind (but only because we get less of our oil from there - though still enough to hurt a lot). Everyone who counts except the Russians, who'd be happily cashing in on the bonanza of high oil prices, would be yelling at Iran to back down NOW.

You could muster UN backing for force in no time. The Russians wouldn't veto it, because that would be too blatantly irresponsible & greedy even for them. No need to go alone.

Because of that, I don't think Iran would do it. Even Ahmedinejad probably isn't that great a fool, & if he is, I expect he'd rapidly discover just how expendable he is when his actions threaten Irans safety.

For Iran, the ability to block the straits is a weapon to be held in reserve, with the threat of using it in response to an attack. A deterrent. Think of that when imagining a US attack on Iran: all the USAs friends, & some of its enemies, furiously blaming the US when Iran blocks their oil supplies, & instead of trying to get Iran to back down, trying to get the USA to back down.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
My post was intended to show the possible (And my favorite) reaction to a closed street.

This was not intended to be a "plan" for a preemptive strike. :)
 
WHat sort of response to an Iranian blockade would the US have to make? I say US because I am assuming that we would have to work alone, and quickly.
Recently two British minesweapers were moved to the Persian Gulf to join US minesweapers already persent there. How effective will these minesweapers be in response to an Iranian blockage of the Strait of Hormuz remains to be seen.
 
Last edited:

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Recently two British minesweapers were moved to the Persian Gulf to join US minesweapers already persent there. How effective will these minesweapers be in response to an Iranian blockage of the Strait of Hormuz remains to be seen.
The US is shifting minesweepers there as well, with the USS Gladiator arriving in January. Another will arrive later this year to replace the 2 coastal minesweepers in Bahrain being retired and sold to Egypt.

One of the things I have been watching is the deployment of warships like the USS Nitze, which deployed to the region with the Bataan ESG. The USS Nitze has a detachment of 4 MIW UUVs. The USS Chung-Hoon which will be leaving with the Bonhomme Richard ESG also has 4 MIW UUVs.

As I understand it, American minesweepers only have 1 UUV, so the destroyers fitted with the UUVs in the region add the search capability of 4 minesweepers, although I am not sure they add much to mine removal.
 

cheetah

New Member
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without specific approval from Congress, a fresh challenge to the commander in chief on the eve of a symbolic vote critical of his troop buildup in Iraq.

Pelosi, D-Calif., noted that Bush consistently said he supports a diplomatic resolution to differences with Iran "and I take him at his word."

At the same time, she said, "I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."

Pelosi spoke in an interview in the Capitol as the House moved through a third marathon day of debate on a nonbinding measure that disapproves of the military buildup in Iraq while expressing support for the troops.


Passage of the measure was expected Friday. Pelosi and other Democrats have said approval would mark the first step in an effort by the new Democratic-controlled Congress to force Bush to change course in a war that has killed more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

Bush administration officials and their allies are resigned to House passage of the resolution and have worked in recent days to hold down defections by GOP lawmakers.

But Bush took a swipe at his critics during the day.

"This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle," the president said.

The Senate unanimously confirmed Lt. Gen David Petraeus last week to take over as the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Bush said at a news conference Wednesday there is no doubt the Iranian government is providing armor-piercing weapons to kill American troops in Iraq. But he backed away from claims the top echelon of Iran's government was responsible.

Administration critics have accused the president of looking for a pretense to attack the Islamic republic, which is also at loggerheads with the United Nations about what Tehran says is a nuclear program aimed at developing energy for peaceful purposes.

Defending U.S. intelligence that has pinpointed Iran as a hostile arms supplier in Iraq, Bush said, "Does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops."

Bush has asked Congress to approve $100 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congressional Democrats are hoping to insert provisions that would make it harder for the administration to follow through on its plan to deploy an additional 21,500 combat troops to Iraq.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who is leading the effort, has said the measure may be changed to require that any troops deployed must meet formal Army readiness standards.

Murtha also said the measure may be changed to prohibit any military action against Iran without specific congressional approval.

Asked about Murtha's remarks, Pelosi said, "I fully support that." She added that she would propose it as stand-alone legislation if it is not included in the bill that provides more money for the Iraq war.

Bush has said he intends to go ahead with the troop buildup regardless of nonbinding expressions of disapproval in Congress.

But, Pelosi said, "I don't think that the president can completely ignore it."

She spoke down the hall from the House chamber, where Republicans and Democrats alternated turns at the microphone in a debate on the war.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070215/D8NAD2T80.html
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
What does that have to do with Irans new AShM's? Sounds like a US internal political debate. Which i'd be glad to have somewhare else, but not here.
 

onslaught

New Member
why do you bother keep on posting stuff like this? It can't even get the size of the warhead correct. Simply put, Sunburn and R-77 are two of the most overrated missiles out there. S-300 is a different story, but the other two are pretty much just trumped up by the China threat group.

Not only is sunburn not the most lethal missile in the world, it's not even among the top 5 in the world and imo not even among the top 3 in PLAN.
What would make the Sumburn or R-77 overrated? Also, if you speak so critically of the Sunburn as not being in the top five AShM's in the world, what are the top five in your opinion (taking into account reliability, hit probabilities, overall effectiveness)?
 
Last edited:
Top