Iranian Missiles And Torpedos

"George" wrote in message
news:fhI_f.92418$oL.49269@attbi_s71...

"Aussie Infidel" wrote in message
...

"George" wrote in message
news:Fem_f.675720$084.456492@attbi_s22...

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..
"George" wrote:

But if they can't aim it, it means nothing. They say it can evade
radar. Yeah, who's radar? They're radar is 1970s vintage. Ours?
Highly unlikely.

Extremely likely, actually - Torpedoes rarely get picked up by radar
:-)

Incorrect, since we use airborne radar to detect torpedos (among other
technologies, such as sonar) and can detect supercavitating missiles.
You did note that Iran bragged about the radar-evading material they've
coated this thing with, didn't you?

I suspect you are confusing your weapons. I've seen claims of radar
invisibility in relation to the ground-effect craft, but not the
supercavitating missile. The GE craft did have that slab-sided "stealth"
look about it. If the water craft are invisible to radar as claimed,
they would still have to get within a few km of a ship to be effective.
There might be a chance that, combined, the two weapons could get a hit
in, before a ship could get out of the way or deploy countermeasures.

In sh'allah, we will never know.

Aussie Infidel

But do you truly believe that our Navy is going to let Iran get close
enough to actually use this weapon? Then there are the porblems with
steering this thing, which I'm sure is a huge issue.

George


I'm sure the navy would do their best to ensure they didn't, but it only
takes one and we know from bitter experience that even a rubber boat can do
that in the right circumstances. Conventional torpedos have managed to sink
a lot of shipping....without steering, by measuring speed and direction and
plotting an intercept course ..... and with a longer time period between
launch and the target. It is difficult to turn a navy ship quickly, but
what if the target were a nice fat oil tanker? They don't have to take out
a navy ship to cause harm to a western country. Just hit one tanker and
watch the world oil price spike? That would cause more harm than sinking
any navy ship.

A.I.

"Aussie Infidel" wrote in message
...

"George" wrote in message
news:fhI_f.92418$oL.49269@attbi_s71...

"Aussie Infidel" wrote in message
...

"George" wrote in message
news:Fem_f.675720$084.456492@attbi_s22...

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..
"George" wrote:

But if they can't aim it, it means nothing. They say it can evade
radar. Yeah, who's radar? They're radar is 1970s vintage. Ours?
Highly unlikely.

Extremely likely, actually - Torpedoes rarely get picked up by radar
:-)

Incorrect, since we use airborne radar to detect torpedos (among other
technologies, such as sonar) and can detect supercavitating missiles.
You did note that Iran bragged about the radar-evading material
they've coated this thing with, didn't you?

I suspect you are confusing your weapons. I've seen claims of radar
invisibility in relation to the ground-effect craft, but not the
supercavitating missile. The GE craft did have that slab-sided
"stealth" look about it. If the water craft are invisible to radar as
claimed, they would still have to get within a few km of a ship to be
effective. There might be a chance that, combined, the two weapons
could get a hit in, before a ship could get out of the way or deploy
countermeasures.

In sh'allah, we will never know.

Aussie Infidel

But do you truly believe that our Navy is going to let Iran get close
enough to actually use this weapon? Then there are the porblems with
steering this thing, which I'm sure is a huge issue.

George


I'm sure the navy would do their best to ensure they didn't, but it only
takes one and we know from bitter experience that even a rubber boat can
do that in the right circumstances.

Clue: This weapon has a range of 10 km. There is no way that the Navy,
during full operations, would allow anything not pre-authorized to get that
close.

Conventional torpedos have managed to sink a lot of shipping....without
steering, by measuring speed and direction and plotting an intercept
course ..... and with a longer time period between launch and the target.
It is difficult to turn a navy ship quickly, but what if the target were
a nice fat oil tanker? They don't have to take out a navy ship to cause
harm to a western country. Just hit one tanker and watch the world oil
price spike? That would cause more harm than sinking any navy ship.

If the target was a nice fat oil tanker, even just one, Iran would find
itself completely alone and isolated. I'd lay money that even China and
Russia would drop any support for them like the proverbial brick. It would
be the best thing they could do for our side, and possibly the worst thing
they could do for themselves. They've stated in the world press that they
would not use oil as a weapon in any exchange. I for one intend that they
keep their word. Otherwise, they are screwed.

George