Iranian Missiles And Torpedos

"George" wrote in message
news:sj1_f.915211$xm3.493467@attbi_s21...

"miket6065" wrote in message
. com...
At Strategy page there was an article on this. It seems this underwater
missile is very short range, 5-7 km, and extremely limited steerage.
Notice that no one else has developed such a missile, only the Russians
make them. Per the article the missile is a last ditch defense system.

Think again. We have an underwater supercavitating projectile that breaks
the sound barrier. We also have supercavitating bullets:

http://www.supercavitation.com/html/projectiles.html

Which was probably copied from the Russians Prior to the announcement of
the Russian underwater rocket (in 1995) no U.S. supercavitation torpedo was
in development AFAIK.


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

"Lord Vain" wrote in message
om...

"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 :-)

They make it sound like something special, but the fact is that the
U.S. has supercavitating weapons already.

The Iranians weren't saying "We got something you don't have", only
"Look at what we have".

They have nothing new here,

No doubt about that. GUIDED supercavitating torpedoes would be
something new, but I doubt that Iran was able to copy the "Barracuda"
:-)

nothing that can't be taken out during the first days of any air
campaign.

That's a totally different story... Unlike Iraq, Iran still has a
working air defense system and has had lots of opportunities to learn
from the demise of its former enemy.

The Iranians even have the feared Soviet SA-10 Grumble SAM system which
is
among the best in the world. I'm pretty curious how the U.S. is going to
take them out. If the Iranians have any sense at all they'll move them on
a
daily basis, otherwise they'll be easy bait for the cruise missiles and
F-117's.

They will likely be easy beait anyway, since they rely on an outdated radar
system that broadcasts its presence like a searchlight.

George

"Lord Vain" wrote in message
om...

"George" wrote in message
news:T71_f.915202$xm3.227305@attbi_s21...

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..
"Joe Delphi" wrote:

223 mph ?? Does that number sound correct ?

Why not? Shkval allegedly can reach 300 mph...

Juergen Nieveler
--
Open Windows and let the bugs in.

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.
They make it sound like something special, but the fact is that the U.S.
has supercavitating weapons already. They have nothing new here,
nothing
that can't be taken out during the first days of any air campaign. And
all
the while we can stand back at a distance and pound the hll of them.
Iran
is blowing smoke.


The Iranians are claiming that the underwater rocket has a range of 10km,
but there's not a chance in hell that an Iranian sub or ship will get
within
10km's of a U.S. aircraft carrier.

Exactly.

So basically the entire weapon is fundamentally flawed. It's only usefull
against oil tankers and cruise ships but those could just as easily be
taken
out with normal torpedoes or even mines.

Which they no doubt would try to go after, much to the dismay of the rest
of the world. Not a good way to win over the hearts and minds of people if
they want the world on their side. But then, whoever said the Ayatollahs
gave a damn what anyone else thinks about them?

George

"Lord Vain" wrote in message
om...

"George" wrote in message
news:sj1_f.915211$xm3.493467@attbi_s21...

"miket6065" wrote in message
. com...
At Strategy page there was an article on this. It seems this
underwater
missile is very short range, 5-7 km, and extremely limited steerage.
Notice that no one else has developed such a missile, only the
Russians
make them. Per the article the missile is a last ditch defense system.

Think again. We have an underwater supercavitating projectile that
breaks
the sound barrier. We also have supercavitating bullets:

http://www.supercavitation.com/html/projectiles.html

Which was probably copied from the Russians Prior to the announcement
of
the Russian underwater rocket (in 1995) no U.S. supercavitation torpedo
was
in development AFAIK.

The U.S. played around with supercavitation back in the 1960s and found the
same limitations with it that the Russians and Iranians are currently
discovering. Our supercavitating projectile is a last ditch weapon to kill
a torpedo or other target at very close range. That's about all they are
currently good for.

george

In article ,
Juergen Nieveler wrote:

....

X-Post to SMN for the naval topics - people there will be thrilled to
hear of the torpedo-detecting radar :-)

No kidding, wait until I tell the guys at work that we can track
torpedos with radar now... should save us BIG bucks on tracking costs
big evil grin

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

"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

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..
"Lord Vain" wrote:

The Iranians are claiming that the underwater rocket has a range of
10km, but there's not a chance in hell that an Iranian sub or ship
will get within 10km's of a U.S. aircraft carrier.

Look at a map of the Straits - there are parts where it's quite narrow,
about 30km if you don't count the narrow parts where a carrier can't go.

Add to that the territorial waters of Iran, and the straits become very
narrow indeed...

I can assure you that even Iranian territorial waters are eyed with a fine
tooth comb when U.S. ships travel those waters. Anything considered
remotedly dangerous to U.S. ships under these circumstances would be a dead
duck in the water before it knew what hit it.

So basically the entire weapon is fundamentally flawed.

Unless the Iranians can read charts and know what a chokepoint is...

Choke points, during times of armed conflict, have a way of disolving
themselves when confronted with any U.S. armada that, when under combat
operations, and all by itself, is one of the most powerful military forces
on ther planet.

It's only usefull against oil tankers and cruise ships but those could
just as easily be taken out with normal torpedoes or even mines.

Maybe they put the torpedo into a mine similar to CAPTOR (but command
activated from the beach - no need fussing around with acoustical
sensors)... the technology isn't that complicated when you thing about
it.

If the Strait of Hormuz, even at it's narrowest, is only 30 km wide, as you
say, then our ships would have to be within 10 km of Iran's coast in order
for the weapon to have any chance at all. and our Navy simply doesn't have
to get that close. In fact, they don't even have to enter to Gulf at all
to carry out their mission.

George

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

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.

Clue: unless the whole battlegroup goes into line formation, at least
some of the escorts will have to get at least that close to the Iranian
coast when going through the Straits.

Clue: They don't have to be in the Gulf to get the job done, should it
come to that.

George

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

I can assure you that even Iranian territorial waters are eyed with a
fine tooth comb when U.S. ships travel those waters. Anything
considered remotedly dangerous to U.S. ships under these circumstances
would be a dead duck in the water before it knew what hit it.

The Germans thought the same when the Scharnhorst entered the Oslo
Fjord...

We aren't the Germans, even though people like you tend to equate us with
them. And we don't have to enter the Gulf to get the job done. There are
maps on Google of the Arabian sea in relation to Iran, if you are
interested.

Choke points, during times of armed conflict, have a way of disolving
themselves when confronted with any U.S. armada that, when under
combat operations, and all by itself, is one of the most powerful
military forces on ther planet.

Still they can't check every single fishing vessel (most of which will
belong to neutral countries), every little bush on the shore (which
might or might not hide a missile launcher), every little creek or bay,
and every single suspicious sonar echo (which might be a submerged sub
hiding on the bottom). Repeat after me: If the US attack Iran, there
WILL be US losses.

They won't have to. Any vessel coming within a designated distance of any
of our war ships when we are in operational manuvuers will be forewarned to
stay clear. Any that don't will be subject to extreme prejudice. Yes
there will be U.S. losses. Where did I say that there wouldn't be? That's
not the issue here. The issue is whether or not this cavitation weapon of
Iran's has a chance in hell of being successful. The chances are very low.

If the Strait of Hormuz, even at it's narrowest, is only 30 km wide,
as you say, then our ships would have to be within 10 km of Iran's
coast in order for the weapon to have any chance at all.

Torpedoes don't NEED to be fired from the beach, you know? They could
be hidden below a fishing boat for all you know... look at how the
first generation of torpedo boats looked, they lowered the torpedos
into the water with winches...

Torpedos are not a problem. We have plenty of countermeasures for those.
And any vessel that launches one against us will not launch a second. See
above for countermeasures for your fishing boats.

and our Navy simply doesn't have to get that close. In fact, they don't
even have to enter to Gulf at all to carry out their mission.

Depends on what the mission is. Remember, there's still troops in Iraq
who need support, too - if the Straits are closed, they're stuck on the
far end of a very dangerous supply line through possible enemy
territory all around.

If the straits are closed, they won't stay closed. Yes, troops are in
Iraq, and we have the forces there to protect them, and more that can
arrive there on a moment's notice. You must know that our forces are very
flexible. The most flexible, in fact, anywhere, particularly our Naval
forces and Naval air forces. Do you know of another nation that could
round up the forces necessary to take Baghdad in a mere few weeks? Iran
couldn't do it after ten years of trying and a million dead. How many did
we lose by comparison?

George