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.

 

Iran tests fastest underwater missile

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I smell the sinking of one of our ships.


Same here. It seems like it would be very stupid strategically for Iran to just load up on a US ship and ask for war right now. But it would be great for the US to justify an invasion, even with so many problems with our country already.




posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
hmm, the shakval have a range of 7500 yards (6,85 km).. seems a bit short to me.

Or what?



Source : www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Expect some kind of 9/11 repeat to justify an attack on Iran.

Then expect massive worldwide upheaval.

[101.1] The terrible calamity!
[101.2] What is the terrible calamity!
[101.3] And what will make you comprehend what the terrible calamity is?
[101.4] The day on which men shall be as scattered moths
[101.5] And the mountains shall be as loosened wool.
.
.
.
.
[101.10] And what will make you know what it is?
[101.11] A burning fire.

All praise is due to Allah.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
The only way Iranians are making Shkval variant domestically is if the Russians gave them all the tooling and manufacturing techniques.

That is hard for me to believe, since currently Shvkal is their cash cow of arms export.

You can't reverse engineer modern high tech weapons, just as an individual I can not reverse engender my car. I can rip the thing apart piece by piece, and even If I manage to completely understand every function including of all of it's sensors and computers, with a manufacturing facility that can let's say make a CAR BODY, all I'll end up with is a lot of pieces.

Exactly the reason why the Chinese didn't just "reverse engineer" SU-27s, but are building their own under contract in plants set up by the Russians.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
It seems like it would be very stupid strategically for Iran to just load up on a US ship and ask for war right now. But it would be great for the US to justify an invasion, even with so many problems with our country already.

One of the talk shows brought out the fact that the timing of the test announcement was suspicious, having happened so soon after the UN Securty Council statement regarding Iran's nuclear program. That statement came out last Wednesday, and the test announcement may be Iran's saber-rattling answer to it.


originally posted by WindWalker
hmm, the shakval have a range of 7500 yards (6,85 km).. seems a bit short to me.

This short-range can be seen as a definite limitation, since the delivery vessel needs to be within that range. And, from the same source you cite, the Russian version was an unguided missile, so once it is launched. it's course cannot be changed, it seems. Of course, the Iranian version quite possibly be guided, although attacking at that short of a range makes it almost unnecessary.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Picture of the missile being test fired
.





posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
If the Iranians do come in a war with America, it looks like they'll be coming kicking and screaming.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
as i mentioned in this very thread here:



the boggest danger to a CBG is not from an ASchM but from a diesel boat on batteries sitting there doing not alot but listening and silently creeping inside the fleet defences , waiting for teh right moment - then BAM off goes 4 squall into the side of a carrier and over she goes sinking in a few seconds.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Sea battles will become very interesting in the future especially when projectiles that go faster than the speed of sound underwater is perfected.

Sounds a lot like science-fiction? I don't think so. and Groundbreaking? Research or should I say underwater-breaking research.

[edit on 2/4/06 by Intelearthling]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
So,

I have the newest theory.
Bush will blow up one of our carriers in persain gulf, so he can start war with Iran.
He can say they used one of these new underwater water missles.





posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
the boggest danger to a CBG is not from an ASchM but from a diesel boat on batteries sitting there doing not alot but listening and silently creeping inside the fleet defences , waiting for teh right moment - then BAM off goes 4 squall into the side of a carrier and over she goes sinking in a few seconds.


Okay, I don't know much about diesel, but you would think that a CBG would know to search for them with Active Sonar, right?

A CBG, according to wikipedia, is comprised of the following:


CVBGs have no definitive specification and are formed and dissolved on an ad-hoc basis, and one may be different from another. However, they all comprise similar types of ships, and a typical U.S. carrier battle group might include:

++a carrier, usually Nimitz-class or Kitty Hawk-class — The carrier provides a wide range of options to the U.S. government, ranging from simply showing the flag, to attacks on airborne, afloat and ashore targets. Because carriers operate in international waters, their aircraft do not need to secure landing rights on foreign soil. These ships also engage in sustained operations in support of other forces. The carrier is the flagship of the battle group, with the commanding rear admiral on board, making use of the advanced combat information center and communications suite.
two guided missile cruisers, usually Ticonderoga class — multi-mission surface combatants, equipped with Tomahawk missiles for long-range strike capability.
++two to three guided missile destroyers, usually Arleigh Burke-class — multi-mission surface combatant, used primarily for anti-air warfare (AAW) and anti-submarine warfare (ASW)
++a frigate, usually Oliver Hazard Perry-class — primarily for anti-submarine warfare (ASW)
++two attack submarines, usually Los Angeles-class — in a direct support role seeking out and destroying hostile surface ships and submarines
++a combined ammunition, oiler, and supply ship, usually Sacramento or Supply class — provides logistic support enabling the Navy's forward presence: on station, ready to respond.


Now, since the Persian Gulf is, imo, one of the worst places to send a blue water fleet like a CBG into (only one exit through the strait, which in a fight would be the first place to be secured by a smart Iranian military), you have the chance to see a disaster if they were to remain in the Gulf and the Strait is shut off/mined/ or otherwise blocked.

Now, according to GlobalSecurity.org, Iran has 3 Kilo class, probably the older model which has a max diving depth of 220 meters. There are also 3 SSI's, but I can't find any information on these, so if someone wants to explain what these are, I would greatly appriciate it.

Now, the Kilo submarine is a double-hulled vessel which is supposedly very capable of surviving a hit. Now since I have seen on this thread that this new missle could destroy the vessel it is carried on (if the vessel is submerged) unless it was double-hulled, it gives credibility to this missle's use even if it is at a short-range.

Here is how I would see things go down if there was a CBG with 3 ASW-capable screen ships (2 in front, 1 in back. This changing accordingly as they are orbiting around the carrier.)

Now all three Kilos are sitting on the bottom of the sea, silent. All power has been shut down that could, and there is a skeleton crew on them. Even as the ASW screen comes near them, their sonar reads that there is only an odd shape on the floor. Now even though they would be actively pinging, they may not be able to detect the full shape of a submarine, although a good sonarmen would note, and maybe even call their supervisor to show, the objects on the floor.

Okay, the trap is layed, and the Kilos wait until there is only one ship in front screening, and the Carrier is within the range. All three suddenly spring up, and when the appropriate depth is reached, all three fire a single Shkval (I think that this would be the maximum damage they could handle, but I could be wrong).

The first strikes the lone ASW vessel, then the other twotravel and slam into the Carrier, incapacitating it.

Now is when I would move in with several small, low-profile vessels capable of firing a single Shkval each (I think this is the SSI I was asking about earlier, but I can't be sure) into the rest of the fleet.

And there you go, one CBG down, and all without a single Iranian ship lost or by using any nukes.

At least that is how I see it...



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Sorry, but no cigar on your scenario there. Kilos may be quiet, but not undetectable. But thats not the issue, the fact is, the US navy can simply make it so the Kilos come to them. Make them come play out in the blue water. The Kilos maximum depth is 300 meters, and 240 meters with full operational capability. LA class subs can go 500 meters at maximum depth. If the US wants to counter the kilos, then just make the kilos come out to them. Simple really. In sub on sub combat, the LA class is superior to the Kilo, which is a formidable platform.

The Seawolf is much quieter than the the new and improved LA class subs(10 times quieter to be exact. And is considered the quietest sub in the world. If those were sent out to kill those Kilos, I dont see it being a contest. But I dont see our most prized subs, next to our SSBN's being sent out to do that job.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sir Solomon
Here is how I would see things go down if there was a CBG with 3 ASW-capable screen ships (2 in front, 1 in back. This changing accordingly as they are orbiting around the carrier.)


Getting inside the bubble is not as easy as “laying in wait” and active sonar is just one method of submarine detection not to mention everything that moves in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman is tracked by the numerous multinational forces already operating in the region. Iranian submarines will most likely be the first naval targets eliminated in a confrontation.

The exercise Arabian Gauntlet has been executed each year since the 1990’s which is eerily similar operations scenario facing the US and coalition forces face today. Iran is already virtually surrounded and in an event as afore described the capital ships will remain in support out in the deeper waters of the Arabian Sea until the conflict region is void of tangible threats.

Any attempts to engage any of the groups out in the open waters of the Arabian Sea would be just plain foolish.


mg



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I think we will invade Iran from the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq if it ever turned into a land based war. Our ships in the Persian Gulf would be well protected but the new missile still poses a threat. Our subs should be able to destroy Iran's capabilites of launching that missile without many problems.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
This missle has a range of only 1/4 of mile. How the hell is Iran going to get with in 1/4 mile of anything with don't want them too, so that they can launch this thing?



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoQuest
If the Iranians do come in a war with America, it looks like they'll be coming kicking and screaming.


It seems that Iran is doing all it can to provoke a war with the US. Do they realize that, despite their 'advanced' weaponry, the US has the capability to render a rather large valley out of what used to be Iran? There is just no way the US would allow the kinds of losses Iran is saying they would inflict.

Iran had better start listening to reason.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Iran is just too overconfident, yes , Iraq is defeniteley provoking war.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
A friend of mine put it in fewer words and more succinctly than I could when he said, "When 9-11 happened, do you know what the whole world did? It went, 'oh crap - what's going to happen now?'"

After 9-11, and - more specifically - after the determined and inevitable invasion of Iraq (which was the result of a miscalculation in my opinion; whether you are for or against it, serious mistakes were made, and it startled many governments due to the determination on the part of the U.S. and our refusal to back down even in the face of U.N. resistance and in some cases, condemnation), I believe many nations took stock of the situation and defined their current strategic goals and operational planning to reflect what they saw in U.S. strategic policy decisions that were being (rapidly) made. This was probably actually one of the objectives of the war in Iraq; to attempt to show the world the U.S. could act irrespective of pressure from other actors in a way and at a time of its own choosing. That was achieved, however the result seems to have been an attempted arms build up and rapid modernization effort by countries who now believe that similar action against them may be equally inevitable.

Several documentaries regarding the cold war - which is about as close as I can imagine a situation being to the one we're in now, though even it isn't really comparable - indicated shock on the part of many ordinary Russian citizens when told that Americans had feared Russian nuclear strikes against the U.S. during those years. Likewise, many Americans never imagined Russians - both in the government and in the general populace - sitting across the world fearing or planning for an attack by the U.S. Both sides saw the other as a clear and present threat, but neither side seems to have realized that their adversary was just as threatened by them as they were.

Many view the Iranian regime as a grave threat to peace in the region, and I can't say whether that is or isn't the case, but I can say that I have yet to see many people speculate that Iran might be genuinely concerned by (perhaps even expecting) the prospect of surprise or pre-emptive strikes by the U.S. and/or its allies. If we look at the situation through the lens of a threatened Iran, and not just a threatened America or region, then it becomes possible to imagine a scenario in which steps taken by the United States meant to ratchet up pressure on Iran might be seen as preparation for an attack. This exponentially increases the potential for miscalculation on Iran's part, and it is one thing I am deeply concerned by.

Whether such fears are well founded or not, we may find ourselves in a conflict simply because neither Iran nor the U.S. will have imagined its adversary's perception of the threat they themselves pose to it. There are no guarantees in life, and a conflict between the United States and Iran would be a bloody affair for both sides. The longer the paranoia and mutual fear - if present on either side or both sides - go unrecognized and unrestrained, the more both sides will prepare for the possibility of conflict, and the bloodier that conflict will be when it comes.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
who is mehran a terrorist, his epitaff sounds like a 911 killer waiting in the dark for iran. By the way oil is not our blood, yes we all over the world depend on it. your saudi princes should stop parading around like they are the gods of the planet cause they have access to all that oil. We are not terrorists mehran, we only want peace. It seems this world is getting a little to small for us all, we need to calm down. what happens when you take out the target, no missles to fire.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by shire19
Is the Western media the first ones Iran contacts when it reveals a new weapon (reverse-engineered) ?
I hardly see these on Iranian news sites


Western media scriptors most likely know things before Iran does.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join