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.

 

Video of iranian made VA-111 Shkval missile

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
If this sort of technology means that the US would have to blow up evey small boat that got within 5,000m of a US warship (ie too far away to verify its nature) then the Iranians have already won.

Better get that 'electric curtain' anti-torpedo shield working sooner rather than later.




posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
while i agree with your sources hoever in an exercise of this size certain thigs have to be scripted van riper.


Well they WERE scripted but only to benefit the side who had all the advantages already.


While the style of warfare negeates much of the tech,firepower, logistics,speed etc advantage the us would have its unconventional and would only work in certain countries.


Why would it only work in certain countries? I think it's a failure of imagination ( not to even start on the failure to study military history) to think that only some countries can fight asymmetrically.


In certain scenarios where more sppedis involved u cant just rely simply on low tech such as ina country the size of china,russia,us,or canada or similar size.


Why can't you?


fast attack boats are good great for nullyfying us amphibious assaults however i dont see how it would threaten AC carriers which operate thousands of miles away guarded by sestroyers,battlships,other small boats, helicopters etc and using standoff weapons.


If aircraft carriers are ' thousand of miles away' they will contribute absolutely nothing to the battle anyways so once against scaring away the threat is good enough. For every extra mile from your coast those carriers needs to stay to be 'safe' it reduces the number of sorties they can fly and also their ability to hit targets of opportunity by their absence.


Im not rying to contradict the source just trying to point out how it wont always work and under the proper conditions u ca seriously upset us assaults such as amphibious assaults,land forces etc.


Well you should have continued reading and figured out that his man is trying to warn the US away from assuming that this will only be true for certain cases.


But i dont see how it has anything to do with the AEGIS u stated. Sure it has flaws and a success rate of only 75% where mass attack would get past it however as sysytems progress it should get alittle beeter like 7 percent. nice post anyways.


I have my doubts about AEGIS and i think it will do well to stop 75% of even limited strikes.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
well on an excercise this large certain things have to be scripted it's in the sources you provided. aircraft carriers launch fighter jets they do contribute something to the batlle they are around a 1000 miles or more away from the shore guarded by battleships,helicopters,destroyers etc. This would work well in littoral waters tohugh. the reason why it wouldnt work in russia or some other large country is simple. when you're informing your allies about an attack you're going to have to travel alot and that intel can be outdated. It would only work if your allies are nearby or if it's small country to begin with. I did read the source it's a good lesson and i fell the us should learn from it but i also think is that this is no magic pancea against the US military. Aaymmetric is the best way to take on a powerful military theres no doubt about that. Well im optimistic about Aegis that's still pretty good to begin with. 5 out of siz were successful th (first SM 3 test failed). But you're free to voice your opinion. Once it gets older and gets more upgrades it should develop into a more reilable system its not horrible though.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
well on an excercise this large certain things have to be scripted it's in the sources you provided. aircraft carriers launch fighter jets they do contribute something to the batlle they are around a 1000 miles or more away from the shore guarded by battleships,helicopters,destroyers etc.


The amount of sorties that a aircraft carrier can fly at 1600 km from target becomes almost negligible if one starts considering the support aircraft required to get them there with anything that can be called a 'bomb load'.
Go look at the combat ranges of even the latest F-18's and you can do the math if you like. Without land based tanker support carriers simple can not be useful in a high intensity conflict. If your only there to bomb mud huts in the desert then sortie rates don't much matter.


This would work well in littoral waters tohugh. the reason why it wouldnt work in russia or some other large country is simple. when you're informing your allies about an attack you're going to have to travel alot and that intel can be outdated.


Try again as i have no idea what you just tried to say. Why should US Intel be out of date if they have all those high tech Sat's in orbit ready to read number plates from orbit? Why bomb Chinese embassies?


It would only work if your allies are nearby or if it's small country to begin with. I did read the source it's a good lesson and i fell the us should learn from it but i also think is that this is no magic pancea against the US military.


Well if your such a superpower why do you need allies and why do you still fail even with their help?


Aaymmetric is the best way to take on a powerful military theres no doubt about that. Well im optimistic about Aegis that's still pretty good to begin with.


Where is the evidence that it is all that good? Considering the money spent and what it MUST do for US fleet defense to work, at all, and i sure hope it measures up. I have however seen so much evidence that it probably wont and this will discovered by the American public very much too late.


5 out of siz were successful th (first SM 3 test failed). But you're free to voice your opinion. Once it gets older and gets more upgrades it should develop into a more reilable system its not horrible though.


I have voiced my opinion so far and i'm not quiting any time soon.
The Patriot is pretty old now and it still failing in it's ABM role so my doubts i have.

www.defenseindustrydaily.com...

Well it seems that when something does look like it might work they will try to kill it. Go figure.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
exactly it depeds on the mission at hand. I was referring to the enemy intel as offered in your article the US will be using it'sats no doubt but im just pointing out you have to rely on some form of fast communication if you're in a big country such as china. I was using the countries as en example of how it wouldnt work in a big country. Allies are alwys used inwar so instead of the strain of war being all on one nation its spread out. Its cheaper and helps with a lot of other things. Why fail the Serbs surrendered and so did the iraqi's. Guerilla attacks dont count. Well seperating warheads are one thing. No one ver said it's for all types of misssiles. Well on the other hand the AEGIS engineers are dealing with the porblems right now. It's release will definitely get delayed though. It only failed once though. Well when te PAtriot first came out it was never designed to shoot down missiles. The army adapted the PAc 2 missiles to do that in 1991. The PAc 3 which is the missile designed for interceptions have been successful in 2003 in intercepting iraqi missiles. Plus they're also going to be used on the upcoming MEADS which is designed to replace patriot.

www.defenseindustrydaily.com...
it intercepted several missiles in 2003 during the war thanks to the new missile. www.meads-amd.com...

[edit on 7-4-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley
If this sort of technology means that the US would have to blow up evey small boat that got within 5,000m of a US warship (ie too far away to verify its nature) then the Iranians have already won.

Um, no, just those vessels within 4.2 miles.


....the weapon was most likely a version of the Russian-built VA-111 Shkval rocket-torpedo. But while the Shkval is fast, "the Russians have not had any success convincing the world's navy that their rocket propelled torpedo is a real threat," the Web site said.

"The attacking sub has to get relatively close (within 4.2 miles) to use it. Modern anti-submarine tactics focus on preventing subs from getting that close. For that reason, the Russians themselves tout the VA-111 Shkval torpedo as a specialized anti-submarine weapon for Russian subs being stalked by other subs"....

The Web site's analyst also noted that the Shkval remained an "essentially unguided" weapon. The attacking submarine that carried it had to be lined up directly at its target so that when the Shkval was launched from its torpedo tube its rocket motor could ignite and then propel it in a straight line.


"Do the math, and you will see that there is little margin for error, or chance of success, with such a weapon. If the Iranians bought the Shkval technology from Russia, they got the bad end of the deal," the report said.
Scroll down to "Is Iran's carrier-killer a squib?"







seekerof

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

The Web site's analyst also noted that the Shkval remained an "essentially unguided" weapon. The attacking submarine that carried it had to be lined up directly at its target so that when the Shkval was launched from its torpedo tube its rocket motor could ignite and then propel it in a straight line.

"Do the math, and you will see that there is little margin for error, or chance of success, with such a weapon. If the Iranians bought the Shkval technology from Russia, they got the bad end of the deal," the report said.


I'm sure it would be even more obvious as Iranian ships would have to get even closer. If the missle is fired in a straight line as indicated above ^^, the chances of hitting an allied ship with an unguided missle up to 4 miles away is extremely lucky IMO



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
Some of you guys have not seen the missile being tested but this is a video forum a different forum. it is a big accomplishment for us making our own missiles and one that is like this makes me proud of my country
. it is so fast that not even the camera man could keep it up with it. Correct me if im wrong but iran is the second nation to have missiles like this and the only one in the world that re-engineered VA-111 shkval. Like i said Iran in missile technology is more advanced than any other middle east country.

Link



Iran says fires sonar-evading, underwater missile

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has test-fired a sonar-evading underwater missile that can outpace any enemy warship, a senior naval commander told state television on Sunday during a week of war games in the Gulf.

Western nations have been watching developments in Iran's missile capabilities with concern amid a standoff over the Iranian nuclear program, which the West says is aimed at building atomic bombs. Iran says the program is only civilian.

Analysts say the United States could take military action against Iran if it fails to resolve the nuclear dispute through diplomatic means. Iranian commanders say their armed forces are ready to respond to any attack.

Iran earlier in the war games said it tested a radar-evading missile and Sunday's announcement is likely to add to Western worries. Iran has a commanding position over the Strait of Hormuz at the entrance to the Gulf, a shipping route through which passes some two-fifths of all the oil traded in the world.

"This missile evades sonar technology under the water and even if the enemy sonar system could detect its movement under the water, no warship could escape from it because of its high velocity," Revolutionary Guards Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi said.





[edit on 2-4-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Mehran]

[Mod Edit: Link format - Jak]

[edit on 3/4/06 by JAK]



correct me if im wrong.... those missiles are either designed or made in china


[edit on 10-4-2006 by warset]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   
LOL unguided, oh god that's such third-world, World War Two crap, they might as well storm Washington with Mausers.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
You might find this article on the Shkval interesting if not funny. It's a really indepth analysis of the weapon that Iran has been boasting about. Basically, a WWII U-boat has as good a chance of sinking an enemy sub as anyone using the Shkval.



ENEMY WEAPON: Russian VA-111 Shkval
the speed of sound in seawater about 3,000 knots. A supercavitating weapon doing 300 knots is barely making Mach 0.1 in the medium in which both it and its target are located. And rocket engines are terribly noisy. That noise signature will travel on ahead of the Shkval to be heard by a submarine's passive sonars well before weapon impact


There are at least 20 other reasons listed why this weapon is such a bad choice, but I thought the previous one was the funniest. The target would detect the launch and fire in response before this torpedo even got close to it's target. Of course you'll have to be within 5 nm to launch an attack with one of these weapons. I seriously doubt you can get that close to modern day vessels witout detection.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   

You might find this article on the Shkval interesting if not funny. It's a really in depth analysis of the weapon that Iran has been boasting about. Basically, a WWII U-boat has as good a chance of sinking an enemy sub as anyone using the Shkval.


Wrong. It is not an article but an assay written by a writer who's a Naval enthusiast and wrights fictional novels about Naval warfare.

The essay in question is already being discussed here;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Joe Buffs notions on Shkval and its deployment are misguided at best.

Shkval-1 is not a "dumb" WWII straight runner that can not maneuver. While it is not actively guided, it is pre-programmed with target data and executes a computer generated intercept maneuver, or if manually launched with out targeting data it enters an automatic area search pattern mode.

When launched in manual mode, optimum search pattern model is automatically selected from a pre programmed databank after the operator enters the engagement area parameters and expected target type/classification.

If the engagement area is surveyed and expected threats are assessed, the data can be manually entered and saved as a custom memory mode. This allows the operator to instantly recall targeting parameters relevant to the engagement area and enter the position of the launching platform and expected location/type of the target.

Variable such as surface targets, submerged, water depth/target depth, distance, target speed/maneuverability and expected evasive maneuvers, etc.

After calculating engagement variables the computer chooses the best search pattern mode and launches the weapon.

When targeting data is available the fuse is programed to detonate upon reaching the intercept point and does not require contact with the target.

When targeting data is not available and the torpedo is in search mode, magnetic proximity fuse detonates the warhead upon sensing the the hull of the target.

Do to the speed of the torpedo and its short intercept time, magnetic countermeasures can not be deployed in time to effectively spoof the fuse.

Shkval-1 is the 1st gen weapon which is over twenty years old, and the performance data of the current Shkval-2 is classified, but it is said that it has much longer range, uses thrust vectoring and active guidance, making it the most advanced torpedo to date.

While German Barracuda scav torpedo is said to use active guidance and a rotating nose cone to achieve a high degree of maneuverability, to date only CG graphics of the weapon have been published and no real life test were announced, thus placing the German project in a category of conceptual research and development.


The principle of navigation and targeting is very simple and efficient - internal programming. After a target is detected through visual means, radar, or satellites and its speed and heading are identified, the "Shkval" underwater missile is programmed with estimated intercept coordinates and launched. The missile has no on-board targeting systems, but due to its high speed and stealth its intended target has no way of detecting and evading the missile in short time of the missile's underwater "flight." Naturally, the missile is 100% jam-proof and there are no defenses against this type of weapon in any navy in the world (including Russian).


www.aeronautics.ru...

In order to avoid well expected bias, here's fas.org


The concept of operations for this missile requires the crew of a submarine, ship or the coast guard define the target's parameters -- speed, distance and vector -- and feeds the data to the missile's automatic pilot. The missile is fired, achieves its optimum depth and switches on its engines. The missile does not have a homing warhead and follows a computer-generated program.


www.fas.org...


"Shkval 2" - Current variant; believed to be guided, possibly via the use of vectored thrust, and with much longer range.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Of course the misile has been developed in conjunction with Russia for peaceful purposes only so there is nothing to worry about. Sometimes I get the feeling there are people in this world who view warfare like it's a run for a soccer championship, or something. Believe General Patton who said, 'War is Hell,' because it truly is.

Iran needs to concentrate less on misiles and more on diplomacy and the solution to a deeply troubling problem of their own making.


[edit on 22-4-2006 by The Norm]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Of course the misile has been developed in conjunction with Russia for peaceful purposes only so there is nothing to worry about.


And we are making weapons so we can decorate them with daisys?


Iran needs to concentrate less on misiles and more on diplomacy and the solution to a deeply troubling problem of their own making.


You mean diplomacy like the invasion of Iraq? Based on clearly false intel and against our very own constitution?

What does any of this has to do with Shkval video?

edit: spelling, funny one this time.

[edit on 22-4-2006 by iskander]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I noted the launch map included stationary(underwater) platforms for launching this missile. lining the Straits with mobile underwater platforms is not out of the question; nor are multiple launches at a carrier fleet...shooting fish in a barrell...just one hit and.

So were I deploying them; I'd make plenty and launch them all at once. perhpas 90% would miss, but a few will hit a ship and it's 9/11 all over again.

This is a very dangerous anti-ship weapon and should not be dismissed lightly.

now think of oil tankers and tanker traffic....sink one and all will stop.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I noted the launch map included stationary(underwater) platforms for launching this missile. lining the Straits with mobile underwater platforms is not out of the question; nor are multiple launches at a carrier fleet...shooting fish in a barrell...just one hit and.

So were I deploying them; I'd make plenty and launch them all at once. perhpas 90% would miss, but a few will hit a ship and it's 9/11 all over again.

This is a very dangerous anti-ship weapon and should not be dismissed lightly.

now think of oil tankers and tanker traffic....sink one and all will stop.


Anonymous poster,

YOu do know that the emphasis in the US Navy in the last 10 years has been on the application of special teams operating from submarines..yes??
Both in shallow and deep waters. Think about this application and how it bears on your post.
Also I happen to know that while more submarines are being built with multi purpose roles in mind..they are also being built with the specific adaptations for the underwater teams. The gear is already built in...not added on as in older boats. Thus making both the boats and teams much more flexible. Remember also that these teams/boats can see both in the day and night and are also linked to other resources capable of day or night vision.

I am just wondering if you are thinking from this angle too.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Nuclear torpedoes? AFAIK none exist presently.

I would have thought the greater risk to Iran was from the air or land based-attack, given their relatively small coastal area.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
The VA-111 rocket can be fired from 533 mm torpedo tubes. I don't think this rocket coming from a submarine toward any naval warship could be stopped at present by any naval warships. I read that Russia has equipped their SU-33 fighter jets with a plasma based stealth system and has mid air refueling capability. This jet can carry 3M82 sunburn missiles and P-800 Onyx missiles on it. This jet could take out a aircraft carrier with this ordinance. We will see if a naval blockade of Iran is going to work.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join