Iran test fires submarine to surface missile

This is a better picture of the YJ-82 missile lanuched by the Song class. Its actualy a C-802 > YJ-82




The missile is lanuched by releasing a container with the missile inside and when it reaches the surface, it ignites and breaks the container then finds the target from there.

Originally posted by bucca220

the kilo is very silent but our 688i's and seawolfs/virginia's r deadly silent in my humble opinion 3 kilos firing "Cruise missles" at a U.S. Battle group would be pretty stupid none of the vamps would get through any usns ageis CG/DG, if they did lets just hope CIWS radar is on unlike the mistake israel made

Well...seeing what happened in Israel, against the stealth boat,and the rumor that Barak failed because it was jammed...I wouldn't assume right away that the US anti-missile capabilities would deal with all the missiles. Again, just a mission kill to a carrier would be quite a victory...

Overconfidence is a weakness...you can ask Israel...

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by planeman
the amount of times I've seen footage on Western news channels supposedly showing one thing when I can tell just from general knowledge of military equipment that it must be stock footage.

That's because the US media, when it come to military systems, has very little specific knowledge. But I though this was the state run media of Iran?

Not really, their media uses a lot of stock imagery just like everybody else. I haven't seen the news video but people say that it shows two different types of sub - clearly only one type is involved here so that's proof of the pudding.

Re the submarine involved, the Ghadir class has at least 2x 21" torpeado tubes. It's a very small sub so it probably only carries maybe 4-8 torpeadoes/missiles/mines. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the Ghadir we are talking about.


[edit on 4-9-2006 by planeman]

Buddy, if they launch, I want you to realize several things:

The U.S. has been restrained from using the bulk of its military strength due to the nature of attacks in Iraq. Don't use that as comparison.

Iran, at best, could destroy several U.S. military centers. The U.S. would then obliterate Iranian population centres, provided this moved from a realm or tactical intervention to strategic.

Third, the U.S. has been in this business quite a bit longer. If you think a >mile piece of hardware, which is absurdly small, will be causing any great deal of damage-- Though I will not deny the impact even a single missle striking any ship will have-- to our navy, you've lost it.

Lastly, although the U.S. has taken to cowboy democracy, we are fully within our rights and obligations to threaten Iran with force. They do not listen to the U.N., and rather, mock them. They threaten our allies constantly, also being apart of their state charter, and a nuclear-capable Iran would destabilize the region further beyond all semblance of reason-- Among other things, hiking gas prices. [I'm an American. I gotta' talk about gas-prices.] ;]

Iran is far too much of a loose cannon to have the right to nuclear capability. Talk about the U.S., Russia, Pakistan, India, Israel all you want-- But they are, relatively, politically stable and not openly on the brink of war. [Which Iran is, regardless of their open announcement, by continuing to supply arms to hostile forces in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, etc.]

Pakistan is every bit as despicable as Iran is really.. politically.. ideologically etc etc.. Its helping the war on terror because it has a gun pointed to its head.
Why the favoritism cruel apathy?

I do not mean to appear as though I'm saying 'My country will wtfpwn your country'-- But realistically, to say 'They'd better watch out' or anything under that banner is absurd.

Just pointing out the realities of a situation, when a misguided comment was said, no harm intended. :]

Originally posted by Cruelapathy
The U.S. has been restrained from using the bulk of its military strength due to the nature of attacks in Iraq. Don't use that as comparison.

Well...I'd think occupying a country would require a lot of military strength, but if the US attacked Iran, I don't think anybody thinkgs it will be at half strength

Iran, at best, could destroy several U.S. military centers. The U.S. would then obliterate Iranian population centres, provided this moved from a realm or tactical intervention to strategic.

Mmm...I differ, Iran could do some damage to the Navy. Planeman would have to tell if Iran would be capable or not of harming US air, since I regard him the SAM expert. About military bases...well, I really don't think Iran would bomb the US bases in Saudi Arabia, but other bases in the inmediate area would be touched, no doubt. Obliterate population centers? Why, if I may ask, since Iran would only be hitting military assets?? Kinda genocidal...

Third, the U.S. has been in this business quite a bit longer. If you think a >mile piece of hardware, which is absurdly small, will be causing any great deal of damage-- Though I will not deny the impact even a single missle striking any ship will have-- to our navy, you've lost it.

Well...the problem is, there is a whole lot more than one missile in Iran's stock, and those Kilo subs are good at hiding in shallow waters...I'd see more than one missile hitting (especially with Phalanx equipped...)

Lastly, although the U.S. has taken to cowboy democracy, we are fully within our rights and obligations to threaten Iran with force.

I differ with that, your right and obligations end where your coastline ends.

They do not listen to the U.N., and rather, mock them.

US has done that, and that doesn't give the world to turn on the US, does it??

They threaten our allies constantly

Ally...apart from Israel, who else is in danger from Iran, if I may ask??

and a nuclear-capable Iran would destabilize the region further

Perhaps they want nukes because someone else in the region has them...ever thought of that?

hiking gas prices. [I'm an American. I gotta' talk about gas-prices.] ;]

Gas prices would go through the roof if yet another oil producing country is attacked, if gas prices bother you, you may not want war with Iran...

Iran is far too much of a loose cannon to have the right to nuclear capability.

There's another loose cannon just around the block from Iran, keep that in mind.

Talk about the U.S., Russia, Pakistan, India, Israel all you want-- But they are, relatively, politically stable and not openly on the brink of war.

Well...US kinda is still at war, Russia has Chechnya, Pakistan and India...well you know their story...and Israel is kinda still occupying half from another country...

[Which Iran is, regardless of their open announcement, by continuing to supply arms to hostile forces in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, etc.]

Well, that's one side of it, but the US supplied weapons to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran before, so accusing Iran for that, when the US not so long ago did the exact same thing is not so valid...