It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cruise Missiles smuggled into Iran and China

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Ukraine's prosecutor-general has said that 18 nuclear-capable cruise missiles had been smuggled into China and Iran between 1999 and 2001 by Ukrainian arms dealers.

They were smuggled without warheads which would show that although this occured 5 years ago, they hold the capability to be a fearsome enemy should this US/Iran situation escalate further.

news.bbc.co.uk...





posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   
So how long before everyone gangs together and nukes us?



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   
probaly when ww3 starts witch i bet would happen soon cuz things arent looking so good for us
boy the day we all die isnt that gonna be a happy day



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   
This isn't a big deal at all, unless the cruise missiles and necessary launch equipment was bought by terrorists. Russia sold plenty of supersonic cruise missiles to China, and those brand spankin' new Sunburns put these missiles to shame.

The real threat of missle proliferation is not states, but independent, extremist aggressors. Thankfully, those aggressors don't have mobile launch apparatus, guidance systems, command and control apparatus, etc.. They don't have the infrastructure to make the use of those missiles practical.

I think this story was a clever ploy to deflect blame away from Russia and China if one of the American carriers in the gulf were to suddenly and unexpectedly fold like a fortune cookie and sink like a stone.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
This isn't a big deal at all, unless the cruise missiles and necessary launch equipment was bought by terrorists. Russia sold plenty of supersonic cruise missiles to China, and those brand spankin' new Sunburns put these missiles to shame.


I am a little unsure about the relations position between the US and china although I the way things look between Iran and Isreal, this could be potentially detrimental.



The real threat of missle proliferation is not states, but independent, extremist aggressors. Thankfully, those aggressors don't have mobile launch apparatus, guidance systems, command and control apparatus, etc.. They don't have the infrastructure to make the use of those missiles practical.


How can you be sure of this? However, I believe that you would be correct that extremist agressors would have a hard time procuring the required launch aparatus but I would imagine that the Government in Control of Iran at the time of the procurement would have to have the capability.. to buy such a weapon without the ability to use it would be pointless..



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Klepto
Yeah, Iran has the apparatus, and they have the missiles already. They have their own missiles, plus a bunch on loan from Russia as part of their mutual defense pact. If America messes with Iran, they're going to get supersonic cruise missles spat into their eye.

These missles aren't that advanced, and while they are nuclear capable, so are most artillery shells used by Iranian guns. It's really a matter of provocation. Iran wouldn't be well served by poking a sleeping giant, but they would have a vested interest in neutering a charging giant...

Also, Iran is most definitely a state. They get called a lot of things, including rogue, but keep in mind, they fought for their independence from tyranical rule, and they have a government at least ostensibly elected by the people. Remember the Shah? He was an American style puppet leader, a sell-out that tortured and murdered thousands to keep a tight grip on the reins of power. As soon as he got deposed, the rebellions became almost entirely peaceful. Iran does a lot of things I disagree with, but that's okay, as long as they don't injure me or mine. Those cruise missles can't reach the US East Coast, so I say, let them have them.

And as far as the missiles going to China, they have PLENTY of missiles. I watched about an hours worth of parade footage from 99' and they have so many goddamn missiles it's ridiculous. What do they need with a dozen and a half built on platform a decade old? If those missiles were smuggled out of Ukraine, as opposed to sold, I would be worried.

Keep in mind, Ukraine produces most of the missiles for Russia, including the much-trumpeted Sunburn and it's successor, Onyx - what is being labeled smuggling could very well have been a semi-legitimate sale (probably flying in the face of some international sanction or another). Those are a real threat, granted, but only to aggressors who come close enough to get whacked. If we stayed the hell away from the Middle East, the Russians and Chinese would have nobody to use their cruise missiles on, except of course each other, and Israel.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Wyrdeone,It is common for you americans to see Russian weapons as inferior But it is a fact that Russian Missle Technology is far better than American i know this is hard for you to accept or admit because the patriotism you have and that is normal im not russian im from Europe so i m not bias Nasa officials openly addmited that Russian rocket engines are a marvel and they use Russian rockets to fly in to space even launch Military satelites recently.That is why America is constantly developing new technologis to try to outrun Russian .Look at the Missle shield it doesnt work bad rockets bad computers,and Vladimir Putin recently anounced the development of new Russian rocket technology that and i qoute"that no one has and wont have for some time to come"I presume he know what he is talking about so does the Pentagon.So be very affraid of the rockets they sold



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pretorian03
Wyrdeone,It is common for you americans to see Russian weapons as inferior But it is a fact that Russian Missle Technology is far better than American


Why don't you try reading my posts again. I think the Russian hypersonic/supersonic cruise missiles are the meanest missiles on the block.


Originally posted by Pretorian03
i know this is hard for you to accept or admit because the patriotism you have


Hey, smart guy, why don't you try reading a few of my posts before you make such wide ranging judgements on my character or political affiliations. You're obviously new here, so let me give you some advice - don't jump to conclusions. You're the first person on ATS to say I have too MUCH patriotism, usually I get jerks saying just the opposite.


Originally posted by Pretorian03
and that is normal im not russian im from Europe so i m not bias Nasa officials openly addmited that Russian rocket engines are a marvel and they use Russian rockets to fly in to space even launch Military satelites recently.


I haven't heard of NASA using Russian engines. Do you have any proof of this? The ramjets are quite technologically marvelous, and the Sunburn and Onyx are probably the single greatest threat to American sea power, but I don't think commercial or military rockets flown by NASA are using Russian hardware. Prove me wrong, by all means.


Originally posted by Pretorian03
That is why America is constantly developing new technologis to try to outrun Russian


There is no logic in this statement. America has been in competition with Russia since about 5 minutes after WW2 ended, and the Russians got away with all the good Nazi tech. This isn't a new thing, and it's not because of rockets, and it's not because of NASA. So what the hell are you talking about?


Originally posted by Pretorian03
Look at the Missle shield it doesnt work bad rockets bad computers,


Bad sentence structure...



Originally posted by Pretorian03
and Vladimir Putin recently anounced the development of new Russian rocket technology that and i qoute"that no one has and wont have for some time to come"I presume he know what he is talking about so does the Pentagon.


Yeah, their new rockets are spiffy.


Originally posted by Pretorian03
So be very affraid of the rockets they sold


The MISSILES they sold, are a decades old platform that was probably collecting dust in a Ukraine warehouse. The Sunburn and Onyx series are real monsters, no doubt. But that's not the hardware under discussion. What we're talking about is approximate to a tomahawk.

Ooooohhhhh...scary....

It's not new, it doesn't beat what they had already, and I'm not going to be afraid of it thank you very much. The range on that cruise missle is maybe 1k kilometers, probably more like 250 kilometers or so. I'm fine on the East Coast. No worries. No fear.

The only thing in this thread that terrifies me is your grammar.

[edit on 18-3-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Look you talk about my grammar im not american or english but how many languages do you speak "smart guy"The proof well nasa has been flying to ISS on whos rockets since the stop of Shutlle Program.Yes i jumped to conclusions my bad yes im new and i meant be affraid for the us military if it goes to war with iran but i guess your are not you are safe in the "east cost"And dont get me wrong i dont like the russians selling weapons to iran and i would like to see the U.S. kick their a..(iranian).Let me know if I "lied "about ISS.(Americans flying with Russian rockets no way dude we have tomahawks)


[edit on 18-3-2005 by Pretorian03]

[edit on 18-3-2005 by Pretorian03]



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

There is no logic in this statement. America has been in competition with Russia since about 5 minutes after WW2 ended, and the Russians got away with all the good Nazi tech. This isn't a new thing, and it's not because of rockets, and it's not because of NASA. So what the hell are you talking about?


I'd like you to back this up with some facts, books please. I'm a History Student in England, Degree level and well...everything points the other way. With American and Britain getting most of the Nazi scientists and proto-types before America did.

Operation Paperclip, Operation Alsos, Operation Big, Operation Harborage, etc.

All reports from WW2 actually show America getting most of the technology and Russia getting shafted. It was one of the reasons that helped the Cold War begin.

America not warning about the use of a Nuclear Weapon, lying about what they found in Germany, etc.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Actually I believe the most dangerous anti ship cruise missile is the shipwreck. It can be fired in salvos of dozens of missiles and one missile gets the lead and the others follow much lower in altitude and its just that this missile is so dangerous.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Odium
It stands to reason that since Russia was first in, they got many blueprints, prototypes, and production models of the new rocket technology, and other associated technologies like explosives/propellants, materials (composites/alloys), and missives (heh, not a typo in case anyone was wondering). While I agree the US certainly got most if not all the scientists, it seems logical that Russia got most of the good booty before the Americans even set foot in the city.

I can't find a single reference anywhere on the web, so maybe I'm completely mistaken. However, it would seem logical given the sequence of events, and the progression of russian rocket technology in the decades following, particularly ramjet technology and advanced materials.

Again, I'm totally willing to be wrong on this one. I didn't learn it in school, I just know the timeline of events, and it seems the most likely outcome. Russian troops were turning bunkers upside down before American soldiers were within 50 miles of Berlin (if I'm not mistaken).

Please do prove me wrong if I am, I don't want to spread incorrect information.

COWlan
Can you post some information on the Shipwreck system for us? I'm not well versed on any of the specs for that particular system.

Pretorian
Okay, you're right that NASA has been using Russian rockets since Columbia went down in flames, but I understood your post to mean that Americans were using Russian proprietary technology in domestic rocket designs, which I think is incorrect. Again, and always, feel free to prove me wrong. I won't take offense.

[edit on 18-3-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   
man i say that if Iran Nukes the US we nuke them back AND we nuke Ukraine for selling the missile to them



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Seems like Ukraine doesn´t have much control over their missiles. Remember that Russian plane that got shot down over the black sea with a bunch of Israelis on board not so long ago? That missile came from Ukraine...



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Shipwrecks:

SS-N-19

No photographs of’ Shipwreck’ have yet been published but the missile is believed to have a broad cylinder body with pointed nose. Halfway along the body is an air inlet for the turbofan or turbo-jet which is used in the cruising phase after the missile has been launched with the aid of two solid propellant boosters. There are two sharply swept-back wings and two swept-back tail fins with a similar stabilizer on the underside of the missile.

The missile is believed to have an inertial guidance system possibly with provision for mid-course guidance in over-the-horizon (OTH) engagements although this seems unlikely. Following the usual Soviet practice the missile employs active radar terminal guidance. It uses a 750 kg high explosive warhead with impact and proximity fuses. Alternative payloads were reported to be nuclear or fuel-air explosive. However, it seems more probable that the aircraft and the satellite feed target location data to the ships, and it is noteworthy that all the ‘Shipwreck’ launch platforms carry ‘Punch Bowl’ satellite communications systems.

Contractor NPO Mashinostroenia
Entered Service
Total length 10 meters
Diameter 0.85 meters
Wingspan
Weight 7,000 kg
Warhead 750 kg conventional high explosive or
500 kiloton nuclear warhead

Propulsion 2 solid-fuel boosters
1 turbojet sustainer engine
Maximum Speed Mach 1.6 (some sources state Mach 2 or Mach 2.5)
Maximum effective range 550 km (300 nm) [? 625 km]
Guidance mode inertial with command update, active radar/IR and anti-radar homing

The long-range missiles cannot be controlled once launched, but do have a multivariant target engagement program. When ripple-fired the missiles share information while in-flight. The lead missile assumes a high-level flight trajectory enabling it to increase its target acquisition capacity, while the other missiles follow at a lower level. If the lead missile is destroyed, one of the other missiles will automatically assume the lead role.

This missile can be fired by DOZENS at the same time from one ship and they are all supersonic sea-skimming AScMs. The lead missile stays on top and gets better results from its radars and the rest hide much lower in altitude following the lead missile. Enemy computers will also think that there is only one target when there are dozens of them coming at them at super sonic speed.

The missile doesn't have pictures because non of these weapons have been exported and no one got pics of them during excercises.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by COWlan
Shipwrecks:
SS-N-19

Here´s the SS-N-19 "Shipwreck", but what does this missile have to do with this thread? Looks funny, this missile...


Click the picture for link to the source...



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Excellent, informative post!


Thanks very much. Sounds like a nice system...

Doesn't pack quite the same punch as the Onyx individually, but the 'swarm' behavior is interesting and novel. I imagine such a system would be more vulnerable to MetalStorm than the faster, more maneuverable Onyx (I presume more maneuverable based on initial estimates of its ability to not only 'pop up', but also the on-the-fly obstacle avoidance and random terminal approach maneuvers the Big Bad Black missile is said to perform).

Still the system you describe is interesting, and combined, the missles would DEFINITELY sink an unprotected ship, of pretty much any size, when fired in salvo.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
"My" missile is better than yours...



NSM - Naval Strike Missile

The missile is designed to destroy high-value, well-defended targets at sea and ashore. Survivability and lethality are assured by superior air defence penetration capability. The passive intelligent imaging infrared (I3R) seeker employs the world’s most advanced seeker technology, capable of target recognition. Range: 160 km. deployable from naval combatants, helicopters, aircraft and land-based trucks. Entry service date will be 2005. The Royal Norwegian Navy will get it first...



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   
NSM will truly and surely beat the socks off the infamous swedes!



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
The range is very short..only 160km? That would reduce its viability in my mind. I mean, granted, it looks cooler, but other than that it doesn't seem to be any more viable, in terms of functionality, than the Sunburn or Onyx, and in fact, seems inferior in several ways.

Care to comment?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join