Iran says tests missiles able to sink "big warships"

Dave H

New Member
Iranian propaganda is laughable and rather childlike. Here is this isolated islamic republic using words such as "sinking BIG warships", they must have a thesaurus and a highligter pen to mark words such as DEADLY, TERRIFYING, INVINCIBLE. [ Admin: Text deleted. Lets leave out the religious associations where possibn If conflict does erupt between Iran and the US (and allies) the iranians will go back to sending waves of ill trained and ill equipped martyrs be made without resorting to blanket statements]. These missiles must be sending shudders down the spines of irans enemies...or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rich

Member
They say a picture says a thousand words.

Iran http://www.mediamax.com/rich46yo/Hosted/Bandar Abbas-2-1.jpg http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/

America http://www.mediamax.com/rich46yo/Hosted/Norfolk.jpg http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/

I remember back after 9/11 I was screaming for the removal by force of the Govt. of every terrorist supporting nation that threatened us. Everyone thought I was nuts but I predicted anything less then would result in a stalemate and the continuation of International terrorism.

If I were President I would bomb Iran back into the 7'th century before I allowed them to develop nukes. But that's me. Now its 2007 and we have lost the initiative and the future were going to give our children looks hazy and uncertain to say the least, and possibly nightmarish.
 

cheetah

New Member
Al Gore's agreement with Moscow in 1995 allowed Russia to continue arms sales to Iran. However, recently declassified documents forced from the Clinton administration now show that the historic Russian-U.S. agreement did far more than keep the former Soviet war machine alive. The newly declassified documents show that America actually helped Russia improve its weapons.
In 1995, McDonnell Douglas, now Boeing, successfully lobbied the U.S. Navy to buy a Russian weapon, the Zvezda Ma-31 "Krypton" missile. McDonnell Douglas intended to modify the small, 1,500-pound Krypton missile to act as a supersonic target for U.S. Navy Aegis warships. Ironically, the Russian Krypton was intended to simulate the real threat to U.S. warships, a much larger Russian weapon called the "Sunburn."

The Krypton is also designed to attack Navy warships using sophisticated electronics to home in on Aegis radars. Yet the Krypton missiles supplied to the American Navy contained none of the weapon's critical radar seeking electronic systems. According to one Russian defense source, the Krypton supplied to the U.S. Navy is a little more than a "hollow target shell."

In 1995, the U.S. Navy also determined that the Russian Krypton missiles did not include the all-important radar "seeker" and guidance electronics from the weapon version. "Removal of the seeker will preclude use of the MA-31 for testing the effectiveness of soft-kill EW [electronic warfare] systems and decoys," states a 1995 Navy report.

In addition, the U.S. Navy also quickly found that the Russian Krypton missiles would not fly. According to the 1995 report, "all simulations to date have resulted in failure." In response, U.S. Navy and McDonnell Douglas engineers began a series of "P3I" or "pre-planned product improvements" to make the Russian weapon work.

In 1995, U.S. Navy and U.S. defense contractors directly assisted Russian missile engineers by testing and improving the Krypton missile. One U.S. Navy "improvement" given to the Russians increased the range of the Krypton from an ineffective "15 miles" to more than 40 miles.

According to a 1995 McDonnell Douglas review report, the "extended range option adds an auxiliary fuel tank, a reduced drag nose cone, changes the fuel to JP-10 (which has a higher specific energy content than the Russian fuel), and modifies the ramjet nozzle. The extended range modification is intended to increase range to approximately 42 nm (nautical miles) at 10m (meter) altitude."

Another crucial design improvement given to Russia involved emergency "Jettison Testing" of the weapon. According to the 1995 program review document, the Russian missile contained a fatal flaw that could destroy the firing plane and kill the pilot. In response, U.S. weapons engineers determined the exact fix required to correct the fatal flaw and turned the problem "over to the Russians for resolution."

Moreover, the troubled Krypton project has been dogged by allegations of improper financial activity. In 1999, Janes Defense reported that each MA-31 missile purchase also includes a 28 percent "fee" given directly to Russian generals. According to the Navy documentation, each Krypton costs $910,000, almost twice the price of U.S. target missiles. The 28 percent fee paid directly to the Russian generals amounts to more than a quarter million dollars charge per weapon.

Despite the public allegations of kickbacks for the Russian generals, according to the U.S. Navy, "the prime contractor with McDonnell Douglas, now a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company, does not include, and is not required to include any clauses specifically addressing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act."

"We send the money to the Russians," stated G. Hotze, the program manager for the U.S. Navy Krypton project. "What they do with it is their business."

The American engineering and financial assistance has also paid off for Moscow. Once the U.S. engineers successfully modified and tested the Krypton, Russia began an aggressive marketing effort to sell the anti-radar missile to Vietnam, India and China. The Russians, according to defense analyst Richard Fisher, have sold the improved Krypton to China.

"China recently signed a deal with Russia to co-produce the extended-range version of the Krypton," said Richard Fisher, a fellow at the Washington-based Jamestown Foundation.

"The Chinese intend to produce the KR-1 their own version of the Kh-31p improved Krypton. In addition, the recent sale of Russian Sukhoi SU-30MK supersonic strike bombers to the Chinese Air Force also includes Krypton missiles. We can expect to see the Krypton to proliferate to Iran and other hostile customers."

At the same time American engineers and Russian engineers improved the Krypton, the Clinton/Gore administration turned down a Russian offer to buy all of its SS-N-22 Sunburn supersonic cruise missiles. The SS-N-22 Sunburn is considered "the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world" and the No. 1 threat to U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. The improved Krypton was intended to simulate the SS-N-22 Sunburn.

The U.S. effort, code-named project "Ballerina," used American business contacts inside Moscow to buy Sunburn missiles directly from the Russian Navy. A 1995 status report prepared for the Navy, states that U.S. defense contractor Vector Microwave had "reached a basic agreement with the Russian manufacturer of the SS-N-22 (Arsenjev Aviation Company 'Progress') on the concept of acquiring the SS-N-22 missiles as targets."

According to a signed letter of intent, the 1995 Sunburn purchase offer included 100 conventional missiles drawn directly from the Russian Navy inventory with an option to buy the entire remaining Russian inventory. Unlike the Krypton deal, the Russians offered complete Sunburn missiles to the U.S. Navy, including "active" warheads and the critical electronics such as the "radar seeker" and "radio altimeter."

The July 1995 status report written by Vector Microwave noted that the Russians had agreed to the Sunburn sale and that a "letter of 'bona fides' from the U.S. government would be necessary" in order to enter into formal negotiations. The 1995 report also warned "the Russians felt that strict confidentiality of such an acquisition program should be maintained."

In September 1995, U.S. Navy Principal Deputy Vice Admiral W.C. Bowes provided the letter of "bona fides" to Admiral Felix Gromov, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy. Bowes advised the Russian Navy that America intended to purchase the Sunburn supersonic cruise missiles.

"I appreciate the opportunity to convey to you the United States Navy's interest in acquiring all variants of the SS-N-22 'Sunburn' Anti-Ship Supersonic Ship-to-ship missile for test and evaluation," wrote U.S. Admiral Bowes to Gromov in a September 1995 letter.

Amazingly, the U.S turned down the Russian Sunburn offer. Defense Department run by then Secretary William Perry. According to one Pentagon source, the administration balked at the Sunburn price of nearly "a million dollars" a missile.

Without the 1995 U.S. Navy sale, the hard-pressed Russian contractor instead cut a deal with Beijing 12 months later, agreeing to supply the inventory of Sunburn missiles to China. In 1996, China purchased the Russian Sovremenny destroyer Yekaterinburg and second warship, the Alexandr Nevskiy. Each Chinese warship is armed with eight nuclear-tipped Sunburn missiles. China took possession of the Yekaterinburg in November 1999. The Alexandr Nevskiy is under way with a joint Russian-Chinese crew and will join the Yekaterinburg in the Taiwan Straits this month . Official Navy documentation notes that the Sunburn missiles are armed with a "nuclear" warhead equal to more than 200,000 tons of TNT. The Sunburn is more than four times larger than the Krypton, weighing nearly 8,000 pounds and carries a nuclear punch 10 times as powerful as the atomic bomb used on Hiroshima. The Sunburn also flies to its target at more than 1,500 miles an hour, as fast as a rifle bullet, skimming the water at only a few feet over the surface.

In July 1999, defense analyst Richard D. Fisher wrote an evaluation of the Sunburn. Fisher reported that the Sunburn is capable of a dive speed of nearly 3000 miles an hour, helping it evade U.S. naval defenses.

"The Sunburn anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world," wrote Fisher in a review of the Chinese navy.

"The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.5 speed with a very low-level flight pattern that uses violent end maneuvers to throw off defenses. After detecting the Sunburn, the U.S. Navy Phalanx point defense system may have only 2.5 seconds to calculate a fire solution - not enough time before the devastating impact of a 750 lb. warhead." The Clinton-Gore administration could have bought the entire active inventory of deadly Sunburn missiles in 1995, ending forever a deadly threat to our allies and U.S. Navy warships. Today, the Navy is still interested in buying Sunburn missiles from Russia. In August 2000, the U.S. Navy quietly issued a defense contract proposal on its Internet site to "evaluate the feasibility of obtaining" Sunburn missiles from Russia. According to the new proposal, the Navy is now willing to pay $2 million a Sunburn, more than twice the price of the 1995 Russian offer.

The Krypton and Sunburn are part of an overall failure of the U.S.-Russia military purchase program. The intention was to simulate the threat with the real thing from Russia. Instead, the policy forced the Navy to shut down U.S. missile factories in favor of Moscow. The Navy has exhausted its supply of aging U.S.-made target missiles and the factory has closed forever. A new "all-American" target made by Orbital Sciences Corp. will not be available for at least three years.

The Clinton-Gore administration elected to rely on the good graces of Moscow to test our billion-dollar Aegis warships. U.S. defense contractor Boeing has a contract with Russia to supply up to 300 "improved" Krypton missiles over the next three years, 28 percent fee included.

The Navy has a missile gap. After a decade of effort and hundreds of millions of dollars the U.S. Navy still has no new target missiles and no old ones left. Over 10 years the threat has grown. Sunburns and improved Kryptons are deployed within striking distance of the U.S. Seventh fleet, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Instead of turning their swords into plowshares, the Russians continue to make the best weapons in the world - with our help.

And this is also in iranian inventory

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/22/190620.shtml
thanku Grand Danois will remmber that from now on
 
Last edited:

Grand Danois

Entertainer
cheetah,

When posting articles you should also post the link to it.

Cheers

On another note. Iran did not get its hands on any Sunburns nor any sophisticated variants of S-300.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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.
Actually a tanker is harder to sink when loaded as the cargo has a lower density than water, in other words the cargo floats and provides additional buoyancy to the vessel. Where a tanker is in ballast the loss of structural integrity will result in more rapid loss of bouyancy than if the vessel was ladoed with oil.

Slightly off topic but bulk carriers are the complete opposite as the cargo can be very dense and the vessel relies on the buoyancy provided by the structure to stay afloat. As an example a cape size bulk carrier (about 200000 DWT) loaded with iron ore can sink wihtin 30 seconds after a mjor structuranl failure inthe midships section.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
They say a picture says a thousand words.

Iran http://www.mediamax.com/rich46yo/Hosted/Bandar Abbas-2-1.jpg http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/

America http://www.mediamax.com/rich46yo/Hosted/Norfolk.jpg http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/

I remember back after 9/11 I was screaming for the removal by force of the Govt. of every terrorist supporting nation that threatened us. Everyone thought I was nuts but I predicted anything less then would result in a stalemate and the continuation of International terrorism.

If I were President I would bomb Iran back into the 7'th century before I allowed them to develop nukes. But that's me. Now its 2007 and we have lost the initiative and the future were going to give our children looks hazy and uncertain to say the least, and possibly nightmarish.

looks like they've blanked out some sensitive bits on the cvn's! Wonder what's underneath those white spots? Couldn't be aircraft. interesting.

If we went for regime change in iran we would be in a bigger, bader, deeper, more bloody iraq. And if iran why not syria and NK too. Then we would in a massive hole and you would see 30 000 dead US citizens, not 3 000. These things can be acheived without maximum force, and even diplomatically. The US used to be an expert in the use of soft power, under this administration i'm not so sure they even know what it is.
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I think the C-802 Iran uses is a smart weapon for striking at sea in the Persian Gulf, but it isn't what I would consider an anti-navy weapon. While I believe it is probably one of the smartest weapons Iran develops domestically, I think known information explains its capability.

First, the weapon is relatively inexpensive, has virtually no stealth characteristics, and appears to have a modern terminal guidance system with the capability to deliver decent firepower. This makes it a very smart choice for Iran, because it could cause serious problems for the large number of commercial targets in the Persian Gulf. Its low cost also comes with another equally important asset, it is very versatile in its deployment capability, either from large truck, ship, or potentially aircraft. The mobility of being able to deploy from large truck makes it a weapon to be dealt with due to its range, because it allows for the use of vectored attacks based on mobile assets from the mtn ranges of western Iran or from the island areas in the Gulf sitting in range of the deep water shipping lanes.

On the downside, I am not sure it is best used against modern air defense naval vessels. The weapon lacks sophisticated countermeasures and is easier detected than most other 'modern' ASuMs built by the Russians, French, or Americans. That drawback would give a defender opportunity to counter the weapon.

I think the INS Hanit attack is the best example of the weapons strengths and weaknesses. The C-802 that hit the Hanit actually hit the only part of the ship that isn't stealthy, the boat crane which was deployed in the rear of the ship. I think that speaks well regarding the weapons homing capability.

The Cambodian freighter on the other hand detected the C-802 that hit it with an obsolete low powered commercial radar somewhere around 44kms away, which also speaks about the missiles lack of stealth.

Over all I see the C-802 as a very effective weapon because of its relatively low cost, simplicity, mobility, versatility, and ability to independently target ships. I don't see it as a major anti-navy weapon though because I believe it lacks the sophistication more common in Russian, French, and American anti-ship missiles designed to overcome defenses of modern air defenses on warships.
 

cheetah

New Member
cheetah,

When posting articles you should also post the link to it.

Cheers

On another note. Iran did not get its hands on any Sunburns nor any sophisticated variants of S-300.
U.S. defense experts are concerned that America is falling behind Russia and China in a new missile arms race.
While U.S. weapons development stalled almost completely during the 1990s - both Russia and China have continued to field a new generation of missiles for which the west has no equal nor defense.

The Western press in recent years has already reported on the development of Russia's new intercontinental ballistic missile, the TOPOL-M.

Already two regiments of the nuclear weapon bearing missiles have been deployed. The TOPOL-M is more sophisticated than any similar missile in the U.S. arsenal, and enables the missile to enter earth's orbit before striking its target.

Russia is now threatening to spark a global arms race with the development and transfer of a new series of missiles.

Top among the new threats is the recent movement of the Russian made S-300PMU missiles by the Chinese Army, NATO code named SA-10C "Grumble".

U.S. intelligence sources confirmed for NewsMax.com that the Chinese Army has deployed dozens of the deadly new air defense missiles directly opposite Taiwan within the past few days.

"The S-300PMU is simply a highly effective fast SAM (surface-to-air missile) that is very hard to jam and stop," stated Richard Fisher, a senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation.

"The PLA is now placing their S-300s in bases along the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan has little defense against this effective SAM and even lacks stand-off weapons like the HARM anti-radar missile to counter the S-300. In 2001 Taiwan has little choice but to sacrifice many aircraft to take out these SAM sites in order to avoid having to cede half the Strait in the event of an air battle."

Transfer to Iran

To make matters worse, Pentagon officials quietly confirmed that Russia has also sold S-300 missiles to Iran.
According to defense intelligence officials, joint Russian/Iranian crews currently man two S-300 units just outside of Tehran and Iranian Army soldiers are now undergoing operational training on the advanced missile system in Moscow.

The Russian missile sale to Iran may alter the defense equation as viewed by the Pentagon and the oil rich Persian Gulf.

There is no question the S-300 missile is a threat to the air forces of U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Japan, and Taiwan. None are equipped with aircraft that can counter the new Russian missile.

The recent Bush White House declaration that it would not seek to increase the Clinton defense budget may be undermined as the threat Iran's new missile stockpile becomes clearer.

The Almaz S-300PMU is considered the best Russian air defense missile available, equal to the U.S. Army Patriot, and can destroy any current western fighter aircraft.

Pentagon officials quietly assert that that America currently does not have the air power to counter the deadly S-300 missile.

Jamestown defense analyst Richard Fisher noted that in 1999 U.S. defense officials feared that Serbia had obtained S-300 missiles from Russia and might use them to ambush NATO fighter jets in "SAM" traps.

"If the Serbs had the S-300 it would have been a very different air war," stated Fisher flatly.

"Over the Persian Gulf, the S-300 will significantly raise the cost of combat to opposing Arab air forces, and make future U.S. air operations far more difficult."

America Response Needed

"The proliferation of these advanced air-defense weapons is an argument for the F-22, a stealthy, fast air superiority fighter," asserted Jack Spencer, a defense specialist and fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

"This is why we need more B-2s, and long-range air launched cruise missiles that will allow our aging B-52 and B-1 fleets to engage heavily defended targets without getting blown away," warned Spencer.

The new S-300 air defense missile represents just one example of a new generation of weapons being sold on the open market by Russia.

Another popular new weapon is the Vympel R-77 missile, NATO code named AA-12 Adder. The R-77 is a long-range air-to-air missile carried by Russian built fighters.

The R-77 is designed to destroy other aircraft beyond visual range (BVR) and reported to be equal to or better than the U.S. made AIM-120 AMRAAM missile.

R-77 missiles have also recently appeared in the arsenal of the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF).

"(Russia) selling the R-77 to China is a big concern," noted Jamestown defense analyst Richard Fisher.

"The U.S. AMRAAM was supposed to provide a margin of air superiority on which to base deterrence. This is now gone with the sale of the R-77; we now have to invest in a much better missile to sustain deterrence, and sell it to select friends. Even more troubling are reports that China and Russia are co-developing a longer-range ramjet version of the R-77 on which the Russians have already a great deal of work."

"It was silly for the Clinton Administration to approve the AIM-120 (for sale) to Taiwan but then to insist that they be stored in the U.S.," stated Fisher. "We need to store AIM-120s in Taiwan for use by U.S. forces that may come to Taiwan's rescue."

Yet, U.S. forces coming to aid Taiwan will face more than new S-300 and R-77 air defense missiles in Chinese Army hands.

China Acquires Most Lethal Cruise Missile

China has also acquired the most lethal cruise missile in the world - the Russian 3M-82 Moskit, NATO code named the SS-N-22 Sunburn.

The 9,000-pound Sunburn flies at speeds of over 1,500 miles an hour and is armed with a nuclear warhead ten times the power of the Hiroshima bomb.

China currently operates two Sunburn armed warships - both based directly opposite Taiwan, raising the specter of an instant nuclear war.

"The proliferation of these weapons is very dangerous," warned the Heritage Foundation's Jack Spencer.

"They were built by the Soviet Union for one reason only - to target U.S. surface ships armed with Aegis fleet defense systems. Oddly enough, now the Chinese want them - and have them. Why? I would argue to target U.S. surface ships," said Spencer.

"Whether or not we can defend against this is a good question," noted Spencer. "Probably under perfect conditions we would defend against 1 or 2. But under war conditions, to defend against many would be difficult."

"Taiwan has little effective defense against this supersonic anti-ship missile other than the pre-emptive and destabilizing option of sinking the ship in a first strike that could spark a much larger conflict," asserted defense analyst Richard Fisher.

"The Phalanx Gatling gun on many Taiwan ships cannot stop the Sunburn. The AEGIS radar-missile system could stop the Sunburn but that is an expensive option that which the Clinton Administration was too afraid to take. Absent the protection of AEGIS, the U.S. too has no good option but to take out the Sunburn's ship, which could spark a larger conflict."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/11/183950.shtml
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Sorry, but this is not proof of anything. Internet rumours and speculation with an agenda...

And still no sophisticated S-300 or Sunburn for Iran.
 
Last edited:

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
The USAF has nothing to counter an S300?? How about a JASSM or SLAM-ER? And i was under the impression that the R77, while has longer range, has vastly inferior sensors to the AIM-120. Equal or better??? Show me how.

I dont see how US R&D has "stalled". Just look at the quality and quantity of systems coming out of the states at the moment. AIM 120, THAAD, Patriot PAC 3, F22, F35, F18E/F, JASSM just to name a few, and all exellent systems that with only a few exeptions unparalelled in capability.
 

cheetah

New Member
Sorry, but this is not proof of anything. Internet rumours and speculation with an agenda...

And still no sophisticated S-300 or Sunburn for Iran.
iam not 2 sure.what kind of proof do u require.but as u keep on denying it care to explain how.
 
Last edited:

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
First, anyone who quotes newsmax.com as a source for military equipment effectiveness and a national intelligence assessment needs their creditials revoked. I liken newsmax and technical information to quoting the Dixie Chicks for a weather report for the state of Texas.

Cheetah you have litterally copied and pasted two editorial pieces from one of the least objective and lest factual sources of military information online and used them as the basis for technical capability in this thread.

And you conclude by asking Grand Danois to explain himself? Pot meet kettle.

Thank you for bringing amature hour to the thread.
 

cheetah

New Member
First, anyone who quotes newsmax.com as a source for military equipment effectiveness and a national intelligence assessment needs their creditials revoked. I liken newsmax and technical information to quoting the Dixie Chicks for a weather report for the state of Texas.

Cheetah you have litterally copied and pasted two editorial pieces from one of the least objective and lest factual sources of military information online and used them as the basis for technical capability in this thread.

And you conclude by asking Grand Danois to explain himself? Pot meet kettle.

Thank you for bringing amature hour to the thread.
Thank you very much for pointing out that iam an idiot.i guess u must have figured it out that i cut and paste after clicking on the link that I provided.
but you forget to add any thing to the topic.
The topic isn't who's is bigger its about the missiles.
 

Rich

Member
Yea, going around bombing nations is the solution to all our problems. Some people just dont learn.
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.

Gee, anyone see a problem here?

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.

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.

But Like I said, a "mathematical equation".
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
...as Ive pointed out before their cultural roots point east and not mideast and they are a subtle and intelligent people.
Wonderfull little hint about your thinking of some cultural areas you get never tired to display. :rolleyes:

I think such comments do not help to reduce problems like pointed out in the thread "Houston: I think we have a problem"! :mad:
 

Rich

Member
Wonderfull little hint about your thinking of some cultural areas you get never tired to display. :rolleyes:

I think such comments do not help to reduce problems like pointed out in the thread "Houston: I think we have a problem"! :mad:
Waylander once again you baffle me with your lousy English and punctuation. Do I need to remind you once again you arent a moderator?
 
Top