Iran says tests missiles able to sink "big warships"

[Ths]

Referring to news item.

Are these missiles capable of sinking submarines??

Once these missiles have been launched, they have given their position away.
In that case I would strongly consider moving my residence quickly, as there might be a cruise missile or two heading my way - i.e. sublaunched.

Sinking big warships: Sure! If they are dead in water and out of defensive missiles.

 

[Tasman]

The statement claims that the missile can travel 350km and that the warhead is capable of hitting and sinking big ships. Whether it can successfully penetrate the defences of a carrier strike group is another matter.

"These missiles, with a maximum range of 350 km, can hit different kinds of big warships in all of the Persian Gulf, all of the Sea of Oman and the north of the Indian Ocean," senior Revolutionary Guards naval commander Ali Fadavi said.

Fadavi was also quoted by the state broadcaster's Web site as saying that the warhead of this missile had the capacity to sink "all kinds of big warships".

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/

The quote from the article describes the capacity of the missile but there is no evidence that I can see to back up what has been claimed.

Cheers

 

[hudi82]

The statement claims that the missile can travel 350km and that the warhead is capable of hitting and sinking big ships. Whether it can successfully penetrate the defences of a carrier strike group is another matter.
Cheers

They probably have to launch a dozen of these to get a hit. and probably would be a mix of flight path, and other dummie rockets. due to the curvature of the earth I doubt that the exact location of the launch can be detected by the target itself. but americans have extensive satellites and other observation channels.

 

[Zzims]

Seeing the Americans never did have a full encounter of Any ASM attack,( I mean Full-scale war Situation) we should at least see it having a better chance of these missles hitting their target.

 

[Todjaeger]

Seeing the Americans never did have a full encounter of Any ASM attack,( I mean Full-scale war Situation) we should at least see it having a better chance of these missles hitting their target.

This I'm not so sure of. Granted, the USN AAW hasn't been truely tested against a live, hostile and shooting opponent, the same systems that would be used against USN vessels haven't ever been on the receiving end of USN AAW either.

As for the missles being able to sink "big warships" I have my doubts there as well. Of all the AShM launches that struck warships (aside from Sinkex exercises), how many vessels actually sank? And was the sinking caused immediately by the missle strike, or was it a result of secondary damage? (fire out of control reaching fuel/magazine, etc)

From what I recall, a striking AShM can take a ship out of action or render it no longer combat effective, but I don't think that a ship will usually become unseaworthy. There tends not to be enough damage done at/below the waterline.

-Cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

Well, big easy prone targets? That would be oil tankers.

IIRC some of the Chinese ASMs and some of the AShM are designed to either hit the water line or in the case of the AShM to dive into the water before hitting their target.

But hey - I am going by memory and clips I have seen on youtube.

 

[Waylander]

Our naval fighters say:
"For mission kills you use missiles, for sinking ships you need bombs!"

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The warheads couldnt be big enough to sink a "large warship" unless it was a oil/natural gas tanker. What like 500kg? thats not going to go close to "sinking" a large warship unless it hits a vital area like a magazine. Torpedo could do it though.

 

[goldenpanda]

IIRC some of the Chinese ASMs and some of the AShM are designed to either hit the water line or in the case of the AShM to dive into the water before hitting their target.

But hey - I am going by memory and clips I have seen on youtube.

That will require an extremely strong warhead and very accurate targeting to not have to go through more than a thin wall of water. a 100km/hr water fall could kill you. A 1000+km/hr missile I doubt it could ever be possible!

(especially since I need my water column anti HEAT idea!)

 

[Ths]

When I was in the ferry line and there was damage on a ship, the questions were in this order:

1. Anyone hurt - and how badly?
2. Is it above or below the waterline.

Most of the expensive equipment is under the waterline.

If I'm not wrong it is difficult to sink a tanker with a missile, especially if she is sailing in ballast. I think the trick is to let a torpedo explode UNDEr the ship to break the keel, which in a tanker isn't to difficult.

 

[cheetah]

Referring to news item.

Are these missiles capable of sinking submarines??

Once these missiles have been launched, they have given their position away.
In that case I would strongly consider moving my residence quickly, as there might be a cruise missile or two heading my way - i.e. sublaunched.

Sinking big warships: Sure! If they are dead in water and out of defensive missiles.

just a high pathetical question.is sub considered a ship in USA.nfloorl:
i guess Iranians will launch these missile with there fingers in there nose and wait for the Americans to react.and not move there mobile launchers.iam just asking these questions iam by no way claiming i have any knowledge about this but i though i ask.and by launching these cruise missiles wouldn't the Americans also give away there exact locations for a retaliatory launch.

And i do believe most big ships (if not mistaken unless on the move are pretty much)dead in the water. defensive missile u mean shooting a bullet with bullet last i checked no where near 100%.
during war with hizbullah didn't Israelis war ship pretty much toast with a missile.(again i mean no disrespect.i ask these questions to increase my knowledge):unknown

 

[Thumper]

Large ships, especially ones that are very compartmentalized like a modern warship are extremely difficult to sink with cruise missiles. No matter how large the warhead the destruction would be contained and flooded compartments would be sealed. That is not to say that they cannot achieve a mission kill but unless they hit a magazine (which in itself is armored and buried deep within a ship) it is unlikely that a cruise missile could ever sink a large warship.

History is full of examples of aircraft carriers that would not sink not matter how hard they where hit by aerial bombs or shell fire.

Torpedoes are another story. They are the bane of any large warship. Not only do they blow large holes in the hull deep underwater, but some also work in a manner which is best suited for sink a ship. The blow up underneath the keel of the ship and split the ship in two.

No doubt Iran, China, and Russia posse’s potent cruise missiles but this threat has been dealt with and countered for years. This is just another threat to be dealt with.

I suspect the biggest challenge for a CBG would not be the missile itself but the circumstances that it would probably be used. I think if they fired the missiles from land while attempting to transit the straight of Hormuz, the limited reaction time coupled with the carriers limitation of maneuver in such a narrow body of water could present problems.

 

[AegisFC]

wouldn't the Americans also give away there exact locations for a retaliatory launch.

It isn't hard to find out where a Carrier group is, they are radiating so much energy any decent EW type can figure out at least the bearing.

[And i do believe most big ships (if not mistaken unless on the move are pretty much)dead in the water. defensive missile u mean shooting a bullet with bullet last i checked no where near 100%.

Not exactly, the SM-2's don't need a skin to skin hit to destroy the missile, and that isn't the only defense the ship has, EW, chaff/flares, Nulka (if it has it) and CIWS all will play a role in fending off any attack.

during war with hizbullah didn't Israelis war ship pretty much toast with a missile.(again i mean no disrespect.i ask these questions to increase my knowledge):unknown

I don't think the Isreali ship had any anti-missile defense, and the ship was not in a readiness condition any ways.

 

[Transient]

during war with hizbullah didn't Israelis war ship pretty much toast with a missile.(again i mean no disrespect.i ask these questions to increase my knowledge)

The ship had lots of missile defenses, but the world's best defense isn't worth much if it isn't turned on.

 

[Tasman]

just a high pathetical question.is sub considered a ship in USA.nfloorl:

My understanding is that in the USN and also the RN a submarine is referred to as a boat rather than a ship, even in the case of the very large SSBNs.

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

just a high pathetical question.is sub considered a ship in USA.nfloorl:

A sub is always referred to in naval circles as a boat. ships are skimmers

(again i mean no disrespect.i ask these questions to increase my knowledge):unknown

you might want to reconsider the use of some of your smilies then - the nfloorl:icon could be misinterpreted as being sarcasm...

 

[Zzims]

Considering for example an USN Carrier which has alot of possible targets.. Does Anti-ship missles programmed to target a specific area or just slam into any part of a ship? What about the missles that dive before exploding? arent those likely to sink a ship..?

 

[cheetah]

you might want to reconsider the use of some of your smilies then - the nfloorl:icon could be misinterpreted as being sarcasm...

i do apologize for my smilies but they are funny thats why i use them not to insult any one .iam here to learn from most not insult any one if some one took offense to my smilies. my sincere apologies.

 

[gf0012-aust]

i do apologize for my smilies but they are funny thats why i use them not to insult any one .iam here to learn from most not insult any one if some one took offense to my smilies. my sincere apologies.

not a problem.

its just one of those small minor things that could be a cultural disconnect.

no harm done.

 

[Khairul Alam]

Isnt the SARK missile that Iran tested an obsolete one? I have read that the technology is from the 1960s. If thats the case, the missile would be no match for the AEGIS