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.

 

iranian missile capability

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I was interested in Iranian missiles/rockets capabilities and what they had so I built a basic “database” of all the stuff I could find if you guys have information on anything I have missed please let me know and I will add it.

First read this for weapons imported by Iran and from where and quantity of this is only for the imports and not the indigenous manufacturing of weapons made illegally/or licensed in Iran :
www.nti.org...

keys
+ = Iran has applied own custom upgrades to the original design improving the missiles wither in warhead/fuses/guidance/electronics/aerodynamics or any or all the upgrades combined.

I = indigenous manufacturing. Makes the item in Iran either reserve engineered or licensed production. Or has designed it from scratch in its own country and builds it itself.





Surface to surface (ballistic)

All these missiles are (+) and (I)

Mushak-90 (range 90km) solid fuel
Mushak-120 (range 130km) solid fuel
Mushak-160 (range 160km) solid fuel
Mushak-200 (range 200km) solid fuel

Zelzal-2(upgraded frog-7) range 125km

Iran-700 (range 700km)

Shahab-1 (range = 285-330)
Shahab-2 (range = 500-700)
Shahab-3a (range = 1500ish)
Shahab-3b (range = 1800ish)
Shahab-3c (range = 2000)
Shahab-3d (range = 2200km)

M11 (Chinese) ballistic missiles quantity unknown range = 280~350km (DF-11); >500km (DF-11A) Accuracy: CEP 500~600m (DF-11);




posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
US is screwed if they try anything with them, they actually have missiles unlike Iraq who was still using old cold war junk in the first gulf war. Well one thing is for sure: They have enough missiles to sink the entire US navy in the gulf in a single night and enough anti-tank to wipe out any tank assult the US will launch if they use them wisely.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vekar
US is screwed if they try anything with them, they actually have missiles unlike Iraq who was still using old cold war junk in the first gulf war. Well one thing is for sure: They have enough missiles to sink the entire US navy in the gulf in a single night and enough anti-tank to wipe out any tank assult the US will launch if they use them wisely.


iran has lots of cruise missiles(anti-ship) im sure they have missiles that i havent been able to find altough i must admit more then 50% of there anti-missiles are of older design but the electronics inside them are different and modernised to make them more effective. if Iran launches a volly of them they could take out ships personally if i was iran i wouldnt hoard the missiles and save them in an attack i would just launch volly after volly of anti-ship missiles at any suspected target i would only save the more advanced versions of missiles for targets which have been confirmed.

if iran plays its millitry stratergy well iran could cause serious havoc against america by attacking millitry bases in the middle east with ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. also it would be better at stopping an armoured invasion into or around its country by using its wire guided anti tank missiles.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vekar
US is screwed if they try anything with them, they actually have missiles unlike Iraq who was still using old cold war junk in the first gulf war. Well one thing is for sure: They have enough missiles to sink the entire US navy in the gulf in a single night and enough anti-tank to wipe out any tank assult the US will launch if they use them wisely.


The US military was designed to fight a Juggernaut called Russia which is much stronger and better equiped then Iran. Iraq wasnt a push over either in the Gulf War with the forth largest standing army in the world and a massive air defense network. With some advanced parts for the time parts thanks to things like fiber optic networks they got from China.

Irans still is using alot of essentially the same stuff Saddam used over a decade ago. 1,000 SCUD type missiles LOL There still using junk T-72s oh those worked well 15 years ago for Saddam. There still using a chinese version of the Russian BMP-1 which was built in the 1960s. Their airforce would be wiped out before it ever got off the ground and its armoured divisons would be torn apart without air suppport. They also havent had any combat experience in nearly two decades.

Going up against a battle harden force with superoir technology they wouldnt stand a much better chance then Saddam did.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
The VC did, the NVA did, shoot a bunch of poorly armed militia are doing damage to your "war machine" in Iraq, the north koreans held you off well enough (with chinese help later on) and they lacked technology. hmmmmm interesting track record, Iran has something you DONT have in the middle east: Enough missiles that they could just carpet bomb the place and do just fine. Also Sadam didnt really have an airforce and Iran has a more centralized one. Also Sadam didnt have anti-air missiles to the extent Iran does. I wont go into great detail because you will go through the roof with how you will always win because your so much better and so much stronger than everyone else which is a bunch of BS.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vekar
the north koreans held you off well enough (with chinese help later on) and they lacked technology.

N Korea got its butt kicked up the peninsula China with millions of soldiers was able to fight to a stalemate while losing about a million soldiers.

But it all moot it was a different era US military technology has increased exponentially since then. You also talk of track record lets take a step in the modern world. Gulf war most lopsided war in human history, Afghanistan fell something the Soviets tried and left with their tails between their legs and Iraq fell again.

You do make mention of a modern battle in Iraq and the damage the Insurgents are doing is of little effect to any war machine of decent size. No war machine can fight a gorrilla insurgency and not lose a few men.

Iran couldnt even beat Iraq
Anything Iran has close to new has never been combat proven just like their soldiers. and if you think Iran has more missile then the US you are misinformed.

But go one thinking Iran could win a convential war with a military super power
Irans just trying to create a nuclear bomb because they have so much faith in their convential forces

[edit on 9-2-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

The US military was designed to fight a Juggernaut called Russia which is much stronger and better equiped then Iran. Iraq wasnt a push over either in the Gulf War with the forth largest standing army in the world and a massive air defense network. With some advanced parts for the time parts thanks to things like fiber optic networks they got from China.

Irans still is using alot of essentially the same stuff Saddam used over a decade ago. 1,000 SCUD type missiles LOL There still using junk T-72s oh those worked well 15 years ago for Saddam. There still using a chinese version of the Russian BMP-1 which was built in the 1960s. Their airforce would be wiped out before it ever got off the ground and its armoured divisons would be torn apart without air suppport. They also havent had any combat experience in nearly two decades.

Going up against a battle harden force with superoir technology they wouldnt stand a much better chance then Saddam did.


i must make a few corrections to your post first of all saddam hussain actually did use t72 tanks, on the other hand irans tanks are based on the t72 design and british chieften design and theres are hybrids of lots of different tanks. iraqs tanks where 105mm cannons with no additoinal armour and no night vision. irans tanks have auto targeting like modern tanks, they have latest 125mm cannons and there tanks are layered with composite armour and ERA armour just look at the pictures of there tanks they are abolsutly nothing like saddam hussians t72's although i will admit they are not the latest and greates like the british challenger2 tanks but they still are better then anything that saddam hussain had.

secondly about the scud missiles irans main scud missile id the SCUD-C saddam hussain SCUD missiles where type A and B there is a huge difference between these missiles in accuracy irans missiles are significantly more accurate infact if the warhead where clustered run-way busters they could effectly destory runways using them thats how accurate they are CEP of less then 200m becuase the chinese M11 is similar to the scud-c you will notice that they have imported these and the manufacturing technology to make these. saddam hussians scuds had an accuracy of over 750m-1km which is crap.

take a look at the iranian BMP-1 it is upgraded and superior to the orgonal one with addiotonal armour better quality gun and night vision capability.

and about the fiber optic networks you will notice that these came very late in terms of millitry preperation and also notice that not every single one of there Air defence was linked into the actual network but only a handful of systems that could actually be connected. also iraqs main downfall was they almost nill shoulder launched surface to air missiles and very low quantity of InfraRed guided surface to air missiles combined with the fact the majority of the air defence was manual unguided ww2/col-war style air artillery this shows thats iraqs air defence was poor quality on the other hand iran imported over 2500 hawk missiles alone and iran has made serious modifications to those missiles and the electronics for the radars/comms and launchers also iran manufactures the missiles them selves so the true quantity of hawks is unknown. these are just points to consider when trying to compare iraq and iran on the surface the technology may seem similar but beneath where the technology is they are completly different in both terms of quality and quanity becuase unlike iraq, Irans air defence is majority of SAMS including I.R,radar and laser(RBS-70).



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

But it all moot it was a different era US military technology has increased exponentially since then. You also talk of track record lets take a step in the modern world. Gulf war most lopsided war in human history, Afghanistan fell something the Soviets tried and left with their tails between their legs and Iraq fell again.


so has the enemies firepower becuase technology has increased and has become cheeper and enemies are no longer retricted to RPG like iran has shown who has close to almost multiple tandem warhead anti-tank wire guided missile systems.

soviets lot against afghanistan for 2 reasons

1. america gave stinger missiles to afghans directly/indirectly and this meant that russian aircrafts/helicopters where vulnrabel becuase you also have to rember that at that time ECM technology was in it's infancy and was not very wide spread this caused alot of damage to russian air-power over afghanistan also you must rember that at that time Stinger missiles wher top of the line technology . when america went to afghanistan there where almost no surface to air missiles which allowed america to control 100% of the airspace without being challanged thats why you see videos of american helicopters hovering in certain areas unchallenged but if you where to do the same thing today and give afghans top of the line SAMS the russian SA-18 Igla american helicopters and jets would drops like dead birds also ECM have also become more advanced today then in the 1980's.


2. when russia went into afghanistan in 1980 ERA and compostite armour was not wide spread or in wide use becuase these once again where in there infancy making the RPG-7 a very capable & deadly weopon against there intended targets russia towards the end had introduced new types of add-on armour but by this time it was too late. when america went in the year 2002 it went in with the latest technology facing an old obsolete technology such as the RPG-7 whic the russians faced almost 20 years before. give afghans the latest 105mm tandem warhead RPG rockets for there rpg-7 launchers and wire guided anti tank missiles with tandem warheads and once again you would get the same results as soviets.

fact is america is facing old weopons by afgans while america uses the latest generation of woepons it self. this is unfair comparson becuase when russia had to fight afhans tey faced the latest weopons or woepons which where effective for its time aka rpg-7 and stingers where deadly against all vehicles and aircraft in the 1980's but by 2001 and further along in time the rpg has become worthless and the afghans dont even have stingers.



Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Iran couldnt even beat Iraq
Anything Iran has close to new has never been combat proven just like their soldiers. and if you think Iran has more missile then the US you are misinformed.



the islamic revolution happened in 1979 and the war was in 1982ish now thats about 3 years. iran did great for a country that was under sanctions buy america a country at that time who's sanctions could cripple your economy(not so much today). also iran had alot of its woepons sabotaged by the western engineers before they where thrown out. iran did quite well for its circumstances and considering they had only been in power for about 3 years while iraq had almost 30-40 years to build its millitry they did quite good for the war altough they did suffer heavy casulities.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Anyone who thinks the US military doesn’t have a plan to deal with Iran’s anti-shipping capability will be in for a big surprise if (or when) the shooting starts.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
if you where to do the same thing today and give afghans top of the line SAMS the russian SA-18 Igla american helicopters and jets would drops like dead birds also ECM have also become more advanced today then in the 1980's.


Bollocks, it wouldn't make a bit of difference. The US planes can drop precision guided munitions well outside the envelope of any MANPADS. The hand held SAM's couldn't even get close to them.


give afghans the latest 105mm tandem warhead RPG rockets for there rpg-7 launchers and wire guided anti tank missiles with tandem warheads and once again you would get the same results as soviets.


The US doesn't have any tanks in Afghanistan, they didn't need them. Thousands of Al-Qaeda/Taliban were wiped out with heavy smart aerial bombs, directed mostly by Green Berets working with locals on the ground. One story I read was that the Taliban had the superstition that a bomb wouldn't labd in the same place twice, well that was before smart weapons. The Green Berets would watch survivors pile into a crater left by the last bomb and guide the next one straight into it.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx


i must make a few corrections to your post first of all saddam hussain actually did use t72 tanks, on the other hand irans tanks are based on the t72 design and british chieften design and theres are hybrids of lots of different tanks. iraqs tanks where 105mm cannons with no additoinal armour and no night vision. irans tanks have auto targeting like modern tanks, they have latest 125mm cannons and there tanks are layered with composite armour and ERA armour just look at the pictures of there tanks they are abolsutly nothing like saddam hussians t72's although i will admit they are not the latest and greates like the british challenger2 tanks but they still are better then anything that saddam hussain had.

secondly about the scud missiles irans main scud missile id the SCUD-C saddam hussain SCUD missiles where type A and B there is a huge difference between these missiles in accuracy irans missiles are significantly more accurate infact if the warhead where clustered run-way busters they could effectly destory runways using them thats how accurate they are CEP of less then 200m becuase the chinese M11 is similar to the scud-c you will notice that they have imported these and the manufacturing technology to make these. saddam hussians scuds had an accuracy of over 750m-1km which is crap.

take a look at the iranian BMP-1 it is upgraded and superior to the orgonal one with addiotonal armour better quality gun and night vision capability.



Yes yes but see those are all rehashes of as Vekar so eloquently put it "Cold war crap" I would hope that they made some improvments over what Saddam had in 1990 since it is 2006 and some of the orginal Russian designs had some huge flaws. Like the BMP-1 those huge back doors were not that thick because of armour it had there rather thats were the fuel tanks were. If it took a incindary round up its rear it would killl everyone inside.

I doubt Iran could even defeat Israel in a convential war by itself

[edit on 10-2-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
China with millions of soldiers was able to fight to a stalemate while losing about a million soldiers.


China only rotated 2million soldiers during the whole conflict. If nearly one million soldiers were killed (as claimed by the US). then more wold have been wounded. So your saying every chinese soldier that went to korea was either killed or wounded?



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

China only rotated 2million soldiers during the whole conflict. If nearly one million soldiers were killed (as claimed by the US). then more wold have been wounded. So your saying every chinese soldier that went to korea was either killed or wounded?



Those werent all combat deaths most western estimates put death toll anywhere from 500k-1 million chinese killed in action or died of disease, starvation, exposure, and accidents. Starvation and exposure can easily kill more then combat in war. Even Chairman Mao's only healthy son, Mao Anying was even a KIA. China's tactics like human wave attacks are well known to produce high KIA numbers. US soldiers reported the first people in the waves often didnt even have guns or shoes but charged anyway. were they counted in the 2 million Chinese force or were they just cannon fodder?

It really boils down to who you choose to believe Chinese sources or those from the Western world. Both have reasons to skew the numbers but IMHO seeing how bad communist have hidden anything that can make them look bad I tend to go with the West where there mistakes are front page global news.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Bollocks, it wouldn't make a bit of difference. The US planes can drop precision guided munitions well outside the envelope of any MANPADS. The hand held SAM's couldn't even get close to them.


i think you have too much confidence in the air force flying high all the time. fact is to use certian types of weopons and carry out certian misions you have to fly low either with jet or helicopter and the sa-18 can go high and long enough to hit them. dont assume your aircraft are invincible from missiles. some guided munition can only be fired from a max of 10,000-12,000 feet the sa-18 can reach an a range of 5km and altitude of (3.5km)11,000 feet slant range and even more higher altidude if fire at a closer target with high altiude possibly upto 15,000 feet if fired at a high slant.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElTiante
Anyone who thinks the US military doesn’t have a plan to deal with Iran’s anti-shipping capability will be in for a big surprise if (or when) the shooting starts.


anyone who thinks america is invincible is in for a big surprise if they ever start a war against iran or china.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   

China's tactics like human wave attacks are well known to produce high KIA numbers.


Battle of Huai-Hai. 500,000 american trained KMT soldiers vs 400,000-500,000 communist soldiers. The communist soldiers used the same tactics they would later use in korea to completely destroy the american soldiers and not suffering high KIA.

Chinas tactics were never human waves. they were lanuched at night and was all about infiltration and psychological effects of being surrounded. Blowing bugles to spread fear and sometimes soft music would be used to play with your head. If you look at the battles china actually fought it was againest the south koreans instead of the americans which would noramally retreat and call in air strikes. If you would read up on communist tactics or read the civil war battles between 1947-1949 you would have a clear idea of what tactics were actually used and how effective they were.

When the chinese entered they only had 270,000 men, the 13th and 9th group armies and three articllery divisions. While most if not all western sources put the figure of over 300,000 and sometimes even 500,000. Over-estimation?

--------------------------------

American sources are still putting the air victories of american forces as 10:1 even though after the war and with de-classifled soviet documents the figure was not 760+ fighters gunned down but only 340+ fighters.

Now why dont the american sources change that figure around?


Those werent all combat deaths most western estimates put death toll anywhere from 500k-1 million chinese killed in action or died of disease, starvation, exposure, and accidents.


Your point is?. The fact of the matter is china only rotated 2 million men during the whole conflict. If 500K were killed more would have been injured. ANd that would nearly equal more than 50% casulities. If that was the case why didn't chinese forces crack because of the lack of suriving personal?


Both have reasons to skew the numbers but IMHO seeing how bad communist


Being communist does not judge your character.


Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Even Chairman Mao's only healthy son, Mao Anying was even a KIA.


He was a commander of a regiment or battilon and never saw combat but was killed in his base by a air strike. Why does this have to do with human waves?



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   

i think you have too much confidence in the air force flying high all the time. fact is to use certian types of weopons and carry out certian misions you have to fly low either with jet or helicopter and the sa-18 can go high and long enough to hit them. dont assume your aircraft are invincible from missiles. some guided munition can only be fired from a max of 10,000-12,000 feet the sa-18 can reach an a range of 5km and altitude of (3.5km)11,000 feet slant range and even more higher altidude if fire at a closer target with high altiude possibly upto 15,000 feet if fired at a high slant.


What munitions would those be? Even the free falling JDAM one of the USAF shortest range weapons has a range of more then 24KM and can be dropped from 45,000 FT. Not to mention that any SAM and Radar site would be taken out by cruise missiles long before any aircraft enter Iranian airspace. So I ask again, what munitions are you talking about?



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Its seriously absurd to think iran would even stand a chance, hands down they would get thier asses handed to them easily guarenteed. The americans have a contingency plan for every possible situation. First off we wouldnt tell everyone we are going to war on a such and such date. It would be out of the blue, bam element of suprise right there. secondly dont you think the americans know all the # that iran has, they know everything they have how it works and where its located. America is a badass when it comes to killin and we are the best at it. So yes i believe iran war would be over in less than a month, 2 months max, remember we arent occupying, but the military would be defeated in about that much time. Another note iran doesnt have the technology to strike 10,000 targets at once with missile from planes, ships, subs you name it, america does, we dont even need to send planes in, the warships send out 1000 missiles that cant be detected by irans outdated radar, all targeting different targets, boom iran is pretty much out in the first day.

And the whole thing with vietnam, the americans lost vietnam becuase we didnt have bombs that could penetrate underground bases and tunnels.

But now i hope everyone realizes that america will not lose any war for at least 100 years, as in defeating the enemys army not occupying, people who think otherwise probly have a bias towards americans and dont want to admit that americans are the best at killin, is what it comes down to, look at the facts, we win everytime.

also on another note, america has the most highly spohisticated missiles on earth and those are the ones we know about, we dont know everything the america military has. believe me we have tons of topsecret weapons no one know about, trump cards as it be.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

China's tactics like human wave attacks are well known to produce high KIA numbers.


Battle of Huai-Hai. 500,000 american trained KMT soldiers vs 400,000-500,000 communist soldiers. The communist soldiers used the same tactics they would later use in korea to completely destroy the american soldiers and not suffering high KIA.

Chinas tactics were never human waves. they were lanuched at night and was all about infiltration and psychological effects of being surrounded. Blowing bugles to spread fear and sometimes soft music would be used to play with your head. If you look at the battles china actually fought it was againest the south koreans instead of the americans which would noramally retreat and call in air strikes. If you would read up on communist tactics or read the civil war battles between 1947-1949 you would have a clear idea of what tactics were actually used and how effective they were.

When the chinese entered they only had 270,000 men, the 13th and 9th group armies and three articllery divisions. While most if not all western sources put the figure of over 300,000 and sometimes even 500,000. Over-estimation?

--------------------------------

American sources are still putting the air victories of american forces as 10:1 even though after the war and with de-classifled soviet documents the figure was not 760+ fighters gunned down but only 340+ fighters.

Now why dont the american sources change that figure around?


Those werent all combat deaths most western estimates put death toll anywhere from 500k-1 million chinese killed in action or died of disease, starvation, exposure, and accidents.


Your point is?. The fact of the matter is china only rotated 2 million men during the whole conflict. If 500K were killed more would have been injured. ANd that would nearly equal more than 50% casulities. If that was the case why didn't chinese forces crack because of the lack of suriving personal?


Both have reasons to skew the numbers but IMHO seeing how bad communist


Being communist does not judge your character.


Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Even Chairman Mao's only healthy son, Mao Anying was even a KIA.


He was a commander of a regiment or battilon and never saw combat but was killed in his base by a air strike. Why does this have to do with human waves?


were really going to believe what russia de-classified and what china says about thier wars, that is rediculous, china and russia have always lied about everything. this is what happened and prolly what they said:

china: we just got our asses kicked all over the place.

russia: yeah we got our asses handed to us also.

russia/china: better lie about it, we'll just keep sending our people mis information and they will believe anything we tell them becuase we censor everything making our people ignorant to the rest of the world.

americana: pawned (song from team america starts playing) "america, america were gonna kick your mother#in ass yeah"



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Being communist does not judge your character.



I didnt mean it like that just that Communist states are not as open as the west and have a broad history of hiding the truth even from there own people. Not that the west doesn't do the same thing just not to that degree.

For example even today China Regulates Internet usage among its own people and even their version of Google is goverment censored.

These are not the actions of a country that is open or wants it people to discover any truth they have not determined to be acceptable.







 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join