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.

 

Missile Defence System

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I think talk of a missile defense system is misguided.
It seems to me that in theory it gives the US a first strike capability with a smaller risk of being wiped out by any response. That's certainly how China, Russia and other countries will see it. It is an agressive move that will create another arms race.
That is if it could work and I don't think it would on a large scale.
Better off spending the money on diplomatic missions to stop people hating your country so much thus reducing the risk of nuclear attack
Simple really.... well it is to me.




posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoSocialist
I think talk of a missile defense system is misguided.
It seems to me that in theory it gives the US a first strike capability with a smaller risk of being wiped out by any response. That's certainly how China, Russia and other countries will see it. It is an agressive move that will create another arms race.
That is if it could work and I don't think it would on a large scale.
Better off spending the money on diplomatic missions to stop people hating your country so much thus reducing the risk of nuclear attack
Simple really.... well it is to me.


Little recent history lesson. The Reagan Military buildup and S.D.I. in particular were the straws that broke the back of the Soviet Union in the 1980's. Sure the Soviets were ready for transformation, but it was Reagan's bulidup that accelerated their fall.



[edit on 2-9-2006 by pavil]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil


Little recent history lesson. The Reagan Military buildup and S.D.I. in particular were the straws that broke the back of the Soviet Union in the 1980's. Sure the Soviets were ready for transformation, but it was Reagan's bulidup that accelerated their fall.



[edit on 2-9-2006 by pavil]


Perhaps but the Soviets were ready to crumble anyway they couldnt keep up with spending. Things are different now especially with China.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 06:09 AM
link   
I'm a little worried that this is a system to support nuclear beligerance more than anything.

With Mutually Assured Destruction, no one would be stupid enough to start tossing nukes around.

Without that constraint, I fear to think what could happen.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Planeman, always a pleasure.


And then when you've bought 500 batteries of Patriot, they go and put the warhead on a torpeado.....


Yep, something like this;

warships.ru...

And then off course we have the good old (currently in Iranian possession btw);

warships.ru...

Speaking of SM-3, does this look familiar?

warships.ru...

Operationally deployed in 1983.

planeman, do Iran/Syria field Redut btw? If they do, there goes the carrier group. 270km reach is nothing to sneeze at.

warships.ru...


Little recent history lesson. The Reagan Military buildup and S.D.I. in particular were the straws that broke the back of the Soviet Union in the 1980's. Sure the Soviets were ready for transformation, but it was Reagan's bulidup that accelerated their fall.


Sorry pavil, you need to look into things and not just repeat what is told to you on TV. Military build up had nothing to do with the collapse of USSR. Wrong thread anyway.

As for the rest, I agree with planeman entirely and see no need to waste any more words.

Good faith diplomacy is the only "Missile Defense" there is. What is the best bullet proof vest? Not getting shot at. The most elementary logic, which unfortunately still escapes people which them selves have not suffered the misery of war.

Exactly why the idea of USA acting as the worlds "police" is a ludicrous concept put together by a think tank in order to create an image of America for its own citizens.

In reality, the role of USA after the collapse of USSR immediately turned into a worlds only economic colonial power. This is openly stated on official web sites and policy making think tanks. Post USSR America is a mix of Rome with colonial England in its peak.

Exploitation continues, and no "defense shield" will protect us from the uprising of the people we exploit. That's why Rome fell, English Empire, etc.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander


Speaking of SM-3, does this look familiar?

warships.ru...

Operationally deployed in 1983.


LOL, A ridiculous comparison, the missiles share none of the same performance charactirstics. The M22 looks more like a copy of the SM-1 which entered service with the US Navy in 1967, than the SM-3 :
THe SM-1 also had a far greater performance than the Soviet M22
Seem the Soviets probably copied the M22 from outdated 1960's USN tehnology.




posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   



And then when you've bought 500 batteries of Patriot, they go and put the warhead on a torpeado.....


Yep, something like this;

warships.ru...

I guess. I was simply suggesting that some "Dr Evil" grade foe might just fire nuclear torpeados at the Panama cannal, or at the bridges near Manhattan - neither quite as bad as an ICBM attack but both essentially capable to bringing about a major bad hair day for Uncle Sam.


And then off course we have the good old (currently in Iranian possession btw);

warships.ru...

I don't think that Iran has Moskit and I don't think that it would make a good nuclear land-attack ruise missile either. In general though cruise missile technology is not all that advanced, epecially if you have a nuclear warhead because accuracy becomes less of a factor. And why not just use civilian GPS if it's specifically for a first strike - the GPS system is only shut down if the US knows it's under attack and that GPS is being used - i.e. after the fact.

Re Iran's cruise missile capabilities. No confirmed capability but 6 AS-15 Kent cruise missiles were illegally sold by corrupt Ukrainian officials to Iran. These wouldn't be operational but for R&D purposes, they'd be ideal.

Re the SA-11/SN-7/SA-17 family of missiles. Resemblance to the Standard is coincidental. A closer "copy" of the Standard is the French Masurca www.astronautix.com... But anyway, the SA-11 isn't really relevant except to say that it reputed to have good anti-cruise missile capabilities - not that these would be much use to prevent cruise missile attacks because it'd require rather lucky positioning of the ship.

planeman, do Iran/Syria field Redut btw? If they do, there goes the carrier group. 270km reach is nothing to sneeze at.
. Short answer, no.
Syria's coastal defence missile batteries:
24 x SSC-1B Sepal launchers
24 x SSC-3 Styx launchers

Iran's coastal batteries are far more credible although numbers are unconfirmed. But they include "Silkworm" (um, actually not Silkworm but basically Chinese developments of the Styx theme), C-803 (as per the Israeli warship getting hit off Lebanon) and C-701, both of which are locally produced.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

I don't think that Iran has Moskit and I don't think that it would make a good nuclear land-attack ruise missile either. In general though cruise missile technology is not all that advanced, epecially if you have a nuclear warhead because accuracy becomes less of a factor.



This time, though, the Iranians possess at least 300 Exocet antiship missile systems and an undisclosed number of Russian Moskit supersonic antiship systems--and possibly also the improved Moskit version, the Yakhont.



Intelligence assessments indicate that Iran has purchased supersonic 3M82 Moskit sea-skimming missiles (NATO code-name SS-N-22 (“Sunburn” or Mosquito) anti-shipping cruise missiles, which are extremely fast, giving the defender a maximum of 25-30 second response time until impact.



Re Iran's cruise missile capabilities. No confirmed capability but 6 AS-15 Kent cruise missiles were illegally sold by corrupt Ukrainian officials to Iran. These wouldn't be operational but for R&D purposes, they'd be ideal.



According to Israel’s outgoing Intelligence chief, Major General Aharon Ze'evi (Farkash) Iran recently acquired 12 cruise missiles with a range of up to 3,000 kilometers. Speaking at the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee, last Tuesday, December 20, Farkash claimed that the missiles had the ability to carry a nuclear warhead. News reports had already mentioned last March, that Ukrainian arms dealers had smuggled 18 nuclear-capable cruise missiles to Iran and China in 1999-2001.

On the same day, the Hamburg based Bild Zeitung quoted reports by BND (German Intelligence) sources saying that Iran had purchased 18 kits of BM-25 Mobile missiles from North Korea. The German tabloid further claimed that the BND has intelligence indicating Iranian scientists are working intensively to attach nuclear warheads to its missiles. Near Tabriz, 600 km North of Teheran, the BND has allegedly located a test-pad for silo based missiles. The BND also warned that China had shipped aluminum rings to Iran which could be used to build multi-stage rockets with a range of 10,000 km and which could reach the United States. Defense-Update was unable to confirm any of these reports, and its in-depth investigation could not establish technical data for a so-called BM-25 cruise missile under North Korean origin.



Last March, following persistent political unrest, Ukrainian Defense Minister Yevhen Marchuk finally admitted, that several hundred of his country's missiles were ‘unaccounted’ for. The weapons, including 575 X-55 and X-55M were supposed to have been decommissioned in the years that followed the break-up of the USSR. On 22 March 2005, Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Svyatoslav Piskun, reluctantly confessed in an interview with the Financial Times that Kiev had sold 18 strategic X-55 air-to-surface cruise missiles to Beijing and Tehran in 2001. The somewhat ‘shady’ agreement was fraudulently arranged by official Ukrainian ministry departments, intelligence sources said. It came to light, following an investigation, which revealed that the missile deal was based on a fabricated contract with the Russian state-owned Rosvooruzhenie Corporation. A dubious document, apparently unsigned by a responsible person, merely stated, according to these reports, that it was filed on February 1st 2004 by the Ukrainian arms export company, Ukraviazakaz.

The X-55 (also termed Kh-55 Granat or AS-15 Kent) has a range of approximately 3,000 km and is capable of carrying 200 kiloton nuclear warheads.


Sources;

www.defense-update.com...

www.technologyreview.com...


In general though cruise missile technology is not all that advanced, epecially if you have a nuclear warhead because accuracy becomes less of a factor. And why not just use civilian GPS if it's specifically for a first strike - the GPS system is only shut down if the US knows it's under attack and that GPS is being used - i.e. after the fact.


Actually I started a thread about that, but so far no one seems to recognize the gravity of the situation;
www.abovetopsecret.com...'


LONDON — Iran has obtained advanced military global positioning systems from Germany.

The systems were designed for use on unmanned aerial vehicles, several of which were supplied by Iran to Hezbollah during its recent war with Israel.

German prosecutors said Iran established front companies that procured satellite navigation systems for unmanned aerial vehicles. The prosecutors said the GPS significantly enhanced the UAV payload.


www.worldtribune.com...



Re the SA-11/SN-7/SA-17 family of missiles. Resemblance to the Standard is coincidental. A closer "copy" of the Standard is the French Masurca



Is Masurca a French development or is it manufactured under license? I don't know much about French Navy.

I'm not sure what you meant by


the SA-11 isn't really relevant except to say that it reputed to have good anti-cruise missile capabilities - not that these would be much use to prevent cruise missile attacks because it'd require rather lucky positioning of the ship.



Buk-M1 (9M28M1) and Grizzly (9M317) are incredibly capable systems. Both are designed with double hit intercept fusing as standard anti-ordinance feature. I've seen great videos where Buk (and Tor) hit a cruse missile with a double hit. First hit takes out the target, the second mops up the debris.

Both Buk and Tor systems were specifically designed with anti-ordinance capability, which include all kinds of guided and unguided munitions, including guided bombs and unguided MLRS type rockets.

Again, not sure what you meant by "rather lucky positioning of the ship".


Iran's coastal batteries are far more credible although numbers are unconfirmed. But they include "Silkworm" (um, actually not Silkworm but basically Chinese developments of the Styx theme), C-803 (as per the Israeli warship getting hit off Lebanon) and C-701, both of which are locally produced.


By "Sikworm" do you mean autonomous Rubezj coastal defense system?









While Rubezj is still a viable system do to its mobility and autonomy (each battery can operate completely independently), the problem is that Syria already fields P-35 SS-N-3 "Shaddock" based Redut system.



Syria Missile Imports from North Korea;


1994 North Korea information on missile technologies and UAVs; access to the 9K79 Tochka (SS-21 Scarab) SRBM, P-35 Redut (SSC-1b Sepal) cruise missile, P-20 Rubezh-A (SS-C-3 Styx) anti-ship missile, solid-fuel motor techology and the DR-3 Reys UAV


www.nti.org...

Furhter more, speaking of Bazalt SS-N-12 "SandBox";

Does this look familiar?



Emirates already stocked up on the next gen;




According to the source, Emirates representatives were shown the Bereg mobile artillery complex and Redut and Bal-E rocket systems for several years. They chose the more modern Club-M, also on the recommendation of the Russians. Under discussion is the delivery of two or three launchers, each of which can carry up to six missiles.

Club-M mobile pinpoint missiles can hit targets on land or sea at a distance of 250 km. The missile's producers, Novator, part of the Almaz-Antei concern, received permission to export it in 2005. The missile was first exhibited abroad by Rosoboronexport in India at the DEFEXPO in January.




Here's what they passed on;

Bereg







So the tactical situation when it comes to possible attacks on Syria/Iran are a much more complicated then we are led to beleaive. While media keeps hammering away at the "axis of evil" image, and the need for regime change, nobody actually talks about the obsitcles in the way of armed regime change.

Considering the pace at which military capacity of Iran/Syria/Korea is growing, neather missile defense system nor pre-emptive war will provide the protection we're told we need.

That's just my two cents.

edit: missed a bracket

[edit on 4-9-2006 by iskander]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Iskander,

Re Moskit. Yes, there has been constant speculation that iran has them but I don't think they do for several reasons:
1) When Iran gets new kit it tends to show it off for the local media - we would have seen reports
2) The Moskit is a MASSIVE missile and the only warships big enough to carry it in the Iranian navy are the Alvand class corvettes which we know carry C-802 not Moskit. The only other real option is the Mowaj class corvette under construction but I think that's unlikely also.
3) The Moskit is not likely to be used for either shore launch or air launch because the Iranians have already invested heavily in the Chinese C-701 & C-802 systems.

Re. Iran's AS-15 cruise missiles. Reports vary about the number but recent talks between Ukraine and Japan put the number at 6. In general the Israeli sources will inevitably be alarmist and make the most of the situation. In reality I don't think it's credible that these missiles are operational because:
1) Again we would have heard about it in the iranian press.
2) They are air launched versions so candidate aircraft are the Su-24 Fencers and maybe P-3 Orions. When you factor in intergration, test firings etc, you are looking at maybe having 2-3 missiles to use. The Russians probably wouldn't help them integrate the missiles because Russia would want to sell Iran its own AS-15s or whatever. It's just not cost effective for the Iranians.
3) No one (credible) seems to think that Iran has ANY operation nuclear warheads at this time
4) Note: "Nuclear capable" is alarmist twaddle. Virtually every missile is nuclear capable, if you have the warheads.

re GPS. So what, again an alarmist slant. This technology could also be brought in from China or Ruissia and even civilian GPS is useful. It has no real bearing on the missiles.

Re Mascura, not a system I know much about. As far as I recall it is completely French and just coincidentally resembles the Terrier/Tarter/Standard family, but I coyld be wrong. Either way it's obsolete, replaced by the Aster and Standard in French service.

Re the SA-11/17 family. Yes excellent missile systems. Never envisaged as having the same range as the Standard, these are much shorter ranged. Naval version used by Russia, China and India. but it has little relevance to the question of missile defence because it is so short ranged. It is not thought to have a particularly good ABM capability but against cruise missiles it's apt to the job. But in terms of defending a coastline, you'd need a lot of platforms to give adequate coverage.


So the tactical situation when it comes to possible attacks on Syria/Iran are a much more complicated then we are led to beleaive. While media keeps hammering away at the "axis of evil" image, and the need for regime change, nobody actually talks about the obsitcles in the way of armed regime change.

Considering the pace at which military capacity of Iran/Syria/Korea is growing, neather missile defense system nor pre-emptive war will provide the protection we're told we need.

Here we are very much on the same page. Syria I'd say is the least of a threat. But really, WHY does America need to change these Regimes. If morals are the issue Burma should be way up on the list but I don't hear the current administration talking about doing anything there.

[edit on 4-9-2006 by planeman]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Just to be clear civilian GPS already cannot be used to guide missiles, there are certain inherent restrictions placed on civilian GPS that would make using it to guide a cruise missile for example useless.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Just to be clear civilian GPS already cannot be used to guide missiles, there are certain inherent restrictions placed on civilian GPS that would make using it to guide a cruise missile for example useless.
Please explain. We are talking about nuclear warheads so pinpoint accuracy is not an issue.

[edit on 4-9-2006 by planeman]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

2) The Moskit is a MASSIVE missile and the only warships big enough to carry it in the Iranian navy are the Alvand class corvettes which we know carry C-802 not Moskit. The only other real option is the Mowaj class corvette under construction but I think that's unlikely also.


Maybe your thinking of Bazalt here. Moskit (Kh-41) is an air launched version of the weapon.

Moskit/SU-33 Mounting diagram



Mounted on actual SU-30



An even more advanced and more powerful next generation of Moskit is 3M55 Yakhont (SS-N-26), and it can also be mounted on SU-33;



Chinese already use Yakhont in their navy.


3) The Moskit is not likely to be used for either shore launch or air launch because the Iranians have already invested heavily in the Chinese C-701 & C-802 systems.


Not sure about that, because to this day USN does not have an effective countermeasure against Kh-41.


Re. Iran's AS-15 cruise missiles. Reports vary about the number but recent talks between Ukraine and Japan put the number at 6. In general the Israeli sources will inevitably be alarmist and make the most of the situation.


That I do agree with.


1) Again we would have heard about it in the iranian press.


I'm not sure about that. They sure do boast every system they can, but when it comes to shady under the table deals, they do keep very quiet.


2) They are air launched versions so candidate aircraft are the Su-24 Fencers and maybe P-3 Orions. When you factor in intergration, test firings etc, you are looking at maybe having 2-3 missiles to use. The Russians probably wouldn't help them integrate the missiles because Russia would want to sell Iran its own AS-15s or whatever. It's just not cost effective for the Iranians.



3) No one (credible) seems to think that Iran has ANY operation nuclear warheads at this time


It's true but the sure have all the fixings to cook them up.



4) Note: "Nuclear capable" is alarmist twaddle. Virtually every missile is nuclear capable, if you have the warheads.


I can't agree with that. The payload of the delivery vehicle is a big issue. Low yield warheads are portable enough to be mounted on just about anything including an atomic recoiless rifle, but only technologically advanced nations are capable of packaging high yield warheads.

That's where delivery method and payload capacity do play a significant role. Just because something flies doesn't mean that you can slap a nuclear bomb on it and expect it to work, a whole lot goes into making it all work.


re GPS. So what, again an alarmist slant. This technology could also be brought in from China or Ruissia and even civilian GPS is useful. It has no real bearing on the missiles.


Not really planeman, I only intended to display how easy it is on the modern market to acquire various technologies.


Re the SA-11/17 family. Yes excellent missile systems. Never envisaged as having the same range as the Standard, these are much shorter ranged. Naval version used by Russia, China and India. but it has little relevance to the question of missile defence because it is so short ranged. It is not thought to have a particularly good ABM capability but against cruise missiles it's apt to the job. But in terms of defending a coastline, you'd need a lot of platforms to give adequate coverage.


Agree entirely. In pure ABM role it's not a player at all, but it does play a significant role in a SAM defense network as anti-cruise missile system.

S400/BUK/TOR/Tunguska. A basic network structure covering all intercept ranges.


Here we are very much on the same page. Syria I'd say is the least of a threat. But really, WHY does America need to change these Regimes. If morals are the issue Burma should be way up on the list but I don't hear the current administration talking about doing anything there.


Damn right planeman. I love my country, but when rouge administration assumes a role of the worlds teacher and gives everybody lessons in "Western Hypocrisy", they don't speak for me.



Just to be clear civilian GPS already cannot be used to guide missiles, there are certain inherent restrictions placed on civilian GPS that would make using it to guide a cruise missile for example useless.


WestPoint23, German GPS sold to Iran was not civilian, it was military.


Iran has obtained advanced military global positioning systems from Germany.


www.worldtribune.com...



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Iskander. Re "moskit" SS-N-22 Sunburn whatever you want to call it. The only known operational version is a ship launched anti-ship missile used by Russia and China and Ukraine. It's massive and very capable, but also relatively short ranged. There is NO credible evidence that Iran has it. It is widely thought that the air-launched version shown on the Su-33 is not an operational proposition because even the Flanker would struggle to carry it - the Su-24 doesn't have the ground clearance for an under-fuselage carriage and it's too heavy for the underwing (it weighs about 4,500kg!).

As an aside, the chinese Navy does NOT have the Yakhont. India has a varient called Brahmos and Indonesia has reportedly just ordered some. China has the following main types of anti-ship missile operational:
1. YJ-83 (C-803) - related to and slightly better than the iranian C-802s
2. YJ-63 - an indiginous cruise missile akin to the Tomahawk but seemingly currently only employed for anti-ship (?)
3. SS-N-22 Moskit - only on Russian designed Sov' destroyers
4. AS-17 Krypton - air launched from some Su-30 Flankers
5. SS-N-27 Klub cruise missiles - seemingly only anti-ship versions. Launched from Kilo class subs.

Re nuclear weapons. High yield, low yield, that's not part of whether it's "nuclear" capable or not. In Russian service the AS-15 has (I assume) a high yield warhead, but if Iran were to attach an indiginous warhead, it'd probably be lower yield. It'd still be a nuclear missile though.

But all this is missing the obvious = 6 second hand and unsupported missiles does not a nuclear strike capability make. It sure as hell is good for Iranian R&D to get their hands on them, but an indiginous or different imported system would be needed to carry it through to the point of having submarine launched land attack cruise missile capability, nuclear or otherwise.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Iskander. Re "moskit" SS-N-22 Sunburn whatever you want to call it. The only known operational version is a ship launched anti-ship missile used by Russia and China and Ukraine. It's massive and very capable, but also relatively short ranged. There is NO credible evidence that Iran has it. It is widely thought that the air-launched version shown on the Su-33 is not an operational proposition because even the Flanker would struggle to carry it - the Su-24 doesn't have the ground clearance for an under-fuselage carriage and it's too heavy for the underwing (it weighs about 4,500kg!).


planeman, I'm aware that there were a lot of debates about SU-33 and Russian Carrier capabilities. Uninformed people are quick to make judgments since Russians use STOBAR ski ramp and not a flat deck CATOBAR.

I'll address everything step by step and I hope that you'll appreciate the fact that the sources I provide are not those of the main stream media.

By the way, thanks again for SAM coords in Crimea. I've placed SAM installations on the coords provided and use them to this day, so thanks again.

Basic SU-33 stats;

Empty weight: 18,400 kg (40,600 lb)
Loaded weight: 29,940 kg (66,010 lb)
Maximum Take-Off Weight: 33,000 kg (72,750 lb)

More then enough to accommodate the 4&1/2 ton Moskit. The problem with carrier operations is simple though. Once airborne, do to the weight of the weapon it either has has be used, or a pilot has to make a risky landing on minimal fuel reserve.

That is why the only demonstrations of the Moskit armed Flankers were from land and not a carrier.

I already posted one picture showing SU-33 mounted Moskit;

Here's another one;


This heavily armed Su-27K carrying a centreline Kh-41 Moskito ASM and a full load of AAMs sits at Zhukovskii, with wings and tailplanes folded.




I'm sure you'll agree that Russians will not commit funds to developing a launch mounting for a weapon that can not be used.

This one is from International Assessment and Strategy Center.


The Su-33 series best compares to the recently retired F-14 and qualifies as a maritime air superiority fighter with the capability to deliver anti-shipping missiles. Both the Kh-41 Sunburn and Kh-61 Yakhont have been displayed on the Su-33 Flanker D, as well as the Kh-31P anti-radiation missile. Any PLA-N variant would also be expected to carry the Kh-31A and Kh-59MK now deploying on the Su-30MK2. It is likely that a PLA-N buy would number enough aircraft to provide two carrier air wings and one shored based conversion training unit, with a mix of Su-33 and Su-33UB.


www.strategycenter.net...

More from GS;


The air-launched version, officially called ASM-MMS and apparently also Kh-4, is intended specially for Su-27K (Su-33) carrier-based fighter aircraft. It was for the first time shown to the CIS leaders in February 1992 in Machulishche and then to the public in August 1992 at the Moscow Air Show in Zhukovskiy. The missile is propelled by a dual (rocket-jet) engine operating by the same principle as the Kh-31 engine. The missile, suspended under the aircraft, has a folding wing. The missile is guided by an autopilot during the initial fight stage, with possible correction by the aircraft pilot, and by active radar during the final flight stage.

Raduga continues to develop the system for domestic and export customers. It has continued work on the the air-launched variant, known as the ASM-MSS and Kh-41. In August 2001 Raduga displayed a lightened 3M-80E1, with weight reduced from 4150kg to 3970kg, and range reduced from 120km to 100km.


www.globalsecurity.org...


It's massive and very capable, but also relatively short ranged.


The ship launched Raduga 3M-80 SS-N-22 is ranged between 90 and 160 km depending on targeting/guidance quality.

As noted above the air launched version is between 100 and 120 km.

Tu-160/Tu22M Blackjacks/Bear launched Moskit does go out to 160 km do to guidance correction provided by the launch platform.


There is NO credible evidence that Iran has it.



Iran is said to have successfully tested an upgraded, indegenious, guided surface-to-sea missile, media reports confirmed on Saturday.

Analysts however suspect this missile is based on the Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn missile that Iran is said to have acquired via China in 2004. The Sunburn missile is a Russian missile of the Soviet era and can carry a warhead of up to 300kg and is said to have a range of 100km-120kms.


www.india-defence.com...


The only known operational version is a ship launched anti-ship missile used by Russia and China and Ukraine.



THE NEW SOVREMENNYS

According to early January reports out of Russia, the latest Chinese Sovremenny contract is for a new ship, the Project 956EM, which are expected to incorporate recent Russian advances in warship design and weapons. These may use stealth shaping similar to the Project 17 frigates that Russia is building for India. The 956EM are also expected to be armed with a new smaller cruise missile, such as the Mach 3 speed and 300km range NPO Machinostroyenia Yakhont, or the subsonic speed 220km range Novator Club-N. At least one report indicates that the 956EM could carry up to twelve Yakhonts, marketed as having a land-attack capability as well.


CHINA BRIEF
Volume 2, Issue 3 (January 31, 2002)

www.jamestown.org...


No US defense vs supersonic cruise missiles.

The US and UK aircraft carrier battle groups do not have any known defense against the new supersonic missiles of their adversaries. The Phalanx and Aegis ship defense systems may be effective against subsonic cruise missiles like the Exocets or Tomahawks, or exo-atmospheric ballistic missiles, but they are inadequate against the sea-skimming and supersonic Granits, Moskits and Yakhonts or similar types (Shipwreck, Sunburn and Onyx - North Atlantic Treaty Organization codenames) of modern anti-ship missiles in China's inventory.

Not only China and Russia have these modern cruise missiles, so do Iran, India and North Korea. These missiles can be delivered by SU-27 variants, SU-30s, Tu22M Blackjacks, Bears, J6s, JH-7/As, H-6Hs, J-10s, surface ships, diesel submarines or common trucks.

Adding to the problems facing aircraft carriers are the SHKVAL or "squall" rocket torpedoes installed in some Chinese and Russian submarines and surface ships. At 6,000 lbs apiece, these torpedoes travel at 200 knots (or 230 miles per hour) with a range of 7,500 yards guided by autopilot. They are designed to sink aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. Again, it is unfortunate for the US and UK to have no known or existing defenses against this new generation of rocket torpedoes.


Written by;


Victor N Corpus is a retired brigadier general. He has a master's degree in public administration from the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. His major assignment while serving in the armed forces of the Philippines was as chief of the intelligence service.


Entire article here;

www.atimes.com...


This one is back from 1998. A clear trend there.


Strategic Trends in China

SESSION 4:
Defense Policy and Posture I



RICHARD FISHER, The Heritage Foundation
PAUL H. B. GODWIN, National War College



The PLA-Navy (PLAN) continues its modernization drive in two other central areas-submarines and antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs). The PLA-Navy has already purchased four KILO-class submarines from Russia, two each of both the less capable 877 export model and the more sophisticated 636 model. Domestically, the SONG SS is in production, and future versions of this submarine may benefit from Russian and other foreign technology. China is also developing a new class of SSN submarine, the 093, according to the Office of Naval Intelligence, and this SSN submarine may approach the Russian VICTOR III-class in terms of capabilities. The 093 is also to be the basis for the next Chinese SSBN submarine, the follow-on to the XIA-class SSBN submarine. These new submarines may well be equipped with long-range, land-attack cruise missiles or new Russian super-sonic cruise missiles. China may indeed be the first to deploy the Russian YAKHONT super-sonic ASCM, which is small enough to backfit on existing Chinese frigates and destroyers, unlike its larger cousin, the SUNBURN). When they undergo scheduled maintenance cycles, China's KILO-class submarines may also be backfit with the YAKHONT.

China is also purchasing the MOSKIT or SUNBURN SS-N-22 ASCM to be on the SOVREMMENY DDG. Two SOVREMMENY DDGs may be delivered to China by 2000. Again, while the U.S. Navy may be able to shoot down this missile with the AEGIS ship defense system, it is nearly impossible for the PHALANX point defense system to defeat it.

This has clear implications for the Taiwan Navy, equipped as it is with PHALANX system. This problem will only compounded if the PLA-Navy acquires the YAKHONT. When China acquires the SOVREMMENY, the PLA-Navy will also acquire its first dedicated, purpose-built ASW helicopter, the KAMOV-27 (KA-27). KA-27 radars could help China's supersonic cruise missiles achieve over-the-horizon targeting, as could Israeli or British radars.



www.fas.org...


Prepared For The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission,

by Richard D. Fisher, Jr, Center for Security Policy

Submitted on October 7, 2003

Air-launched YAKHONT, due to be tested in 2004. NPO Mash denies reports it will arm the new PLA Navy destroyers now being built in Russia.

One surprise of the show was that NPO Mash’s main foreign partner with the YAKHONT, the Indian-Russian venture BRAHMOS, was not at the show. BRAHMOS is an almost exact replica of YAKHONT that is being produced in India and they had a popular display at the 2001 MAKS. It is due to begin production in 2004. From the demeanor of one NPO Mash official one could sense that perhaps they are feeling the heat from Indian competition, as they are also marketing BRAHMOS for foreign sales. At the 2002 Zhuhai show one source noted that he expected China to buy YAKHONT, and there have been Russian press reports that it will arm two new SOVREMENNIY destroyers being built for the PLA Navy. However, NPO Mash officials denied that YAKHONT would be sold to the PLA.



www.uscc.gov...


Re nuclear weapons. High yield, low yield, that's not part of whether it's "nuclear" capable or not. In Russian service the AS-15 has (I assume) a high yield warhead, but if Iran were to attach an indiginous warhead, it'd probably be lower yield. It'd still be a nuclear missile though.

But all this is missing the obvious = 6 second hand and unsupported missiles does not a nuclear strike capability make. It sure as hell is good for Iranian R&D to get their hands on them, but an indiginous or different imported system would be needed to carry it through to the point of having submarine launched land attack cruise missile capability, nuclear or otherwise.



I hope I've provided enough credible information to establish the clear and present danger (not just 6 second hand missiles) our forces will encounter in case of US/Israeli forceful escalation of hostilities, and the fundamental flaws in the reliance on Missile Defense System concept instead of diplomacy.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
WestPoint23, German GPS sold to Iran was not civilian, it was military.


That doesn't make any sense, the military version of GPS is encrypted and that encryption can be changed if compromised, I'm sure they change it periodically anyways. Even if Iran has military hardware which was designed to use the military feed of GPS they won't work if the US has changed the signal since then, those systems would not be able to identify the new encryption.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Iskander, I admire your google skills but I'm not really sure that you have "established a clear and present danger" as you put it.

Basically if we are talking about Iran then your sources still don't provide any compelling evidence that it has Moskit.

And at any rate, Moskit is irrelevant in the topic of this thread which is missile defence - in the context of US mainland defence against nuclear attack. The debate moved towards the non ballistic missile threat - i.e. cruise missiles - and there potential adverseries having submarines and cruise missiles is a real issue. But the Moskit is not a land attack cruise missile and not really suited to that role.

If we list the countries popularly seen as potential enemies of US and look at what technology they probably have at this second in time that could be turned into a nuclear armed cruise missile attack system:

China
Modern subs: 8 x Song SSK, 1 x Yuan SSK, 5 x Han SSNs, 10 x Kilo SSKs
Sub launched missile technology: Yes, YJ-82/3, Klub
Cruise missiles: Yes, Klub, YJ-63 tech, AS-15 tech
Nuclear tech: Yes

Syria
Modern subs: None - some old Romeo class SSKs
Sub launched missiles: No
Cruise missile tech: No
Nuclear tech: Some

Iran
Modern Subs: 3 x Kilo SSKs. 1 x Gahdir but that's probably far too short ranged.
Sub Launched missile tech: Yes but very inexperienced. So far only one launch.
Cruise missile tech: AS-15 tech but probably no firing experience.
Nuclear tech: Some

North Korea
Modern Subs: None. Again old Romeo SSKs
Sub Launched missiles: No
Cruise missiles: Unlikely.
Nuclear tech: Some

Venezuala
Modern subs: 2 x Type 209
Sub launched missiles: No
Cruise missile tech: No
Nuclear tech: No



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
After the latest test of a ground based interceptor it is starting to look more and more as if we will have a decent chance at knocking down a small scale ballistic missile attack on North America.


They had the technology to do that back in the 1960's and it's terrible that the whole technology base just somehow 'got lost' after the clear capability proven back then.


No system will ever be 100% fool proof but at least it offers some protection. The first voices to decry it will also be the first voices saying "why didn't we have this in place" if a missile hits the U.S.


The Sa-5 the former USSR deployed oh so very long ago had a clear capability against SLBM's and i have the source material that proves just how much of a headache even a battery or two of these missiles caused a strategic planner who wanted to ensure the destruction of a specific target known to be defend by those. Even limited defense capability is a significance worry to strategic warhead allocation.


My question is how do you feel about this? Is it worthwhile to you or just not worth the cost or does it destablize things even more?


Any country who chooses to avenge the death of hundreds of millions instead of bankrupting itself in the process of trying to protect them is just criminal. People just have no idea how much effort other countries ( notably Russia and Switzerland ) has spent towards civil defenses in general.


My opinion is even if it is not 100% perfected or sucessful each time, if it gives a chance to shoot down a lone missile before it can deliver it's payload, it is worth implementing and developing further.


Even such would have saved tens of millions of lives with 1960's technology as was well understood back then by those who studied the question. Russia has been operating a national missile defense system which at it's height had probably on the order of 10 000- 15 000 missiles ready to fire on a few thousand launchers.


The alternative of having no option to shoot down a lone missile is not one I would prefer. Hopefully, it never has to be used and if it does, hopefully it is successful.


It's in fact just plainly criminal negligence hoping for a lack of justice after the fact.


We can't develop this defence system after the fact, it must be up and giving us a chance to succeed in intercepting missiles before the threat actually manifests itself from rouge nuclear states.


There should be no need to spend additional funds as the technology was rather well understood back in the day as the system the US deployed was arguably more ( even far more) advanced than the one the USSR managed in the next decade. If one looks at what the USSR deploys now ( pretty awesome stuff) the USA either has a hidden ABM capacity ( particle beam or laser point defense stations in hidden locations ) or lost the cold war and is now slowly being ground down by the real victors. Based on what i have seen and read i am currently working on the basis of the second option as that best describes the decline and slow destruction of the USA.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Iskander, I admire your google skills but I'm not really sure that you have "established a clear and present danger" as you put it.


planeman, with all do respect, if you run a search on ATS you'll see that this is not the first time I'm discussion such issues. And definitely not the first year. More then a decade would be more accurate.


Basically if we are talking about Iran then your sources still don't provide any compelling evidence that it has Moskit.


I'm not following you planeman. If you don't consider India Defense as a reputable source, I can invite you to look into it for your self.

I'm also greatly puzzled by your threat assessment.


If we list the countries popularly seen as potential enemies of US and look at what technology they probably have at this second in time that could be turned into a nuclear armed cruise missile attack system:


I'm not sure what you base such threat assessment on, but for years now I saw a completely different picture.

cns.miis.edu...


”Iran has bought 18 disassembled BM-25 missiles from North Korea with a range of 2,500 kilometers (1,553 miles),” Bild newspaper said, citing a report from the German secret services.


www.defensenews.com...

A lot of capability to consider there, and under no circumstances to be discarded and simply ignored.



That doesn't make any sense, the military version of GPS is encrypted and that encryption can be changed if compromised, I'm sure they change it periodically anyways. Even if Iran has military hardware which was designed to use the military feed of GPS they won't work if the US has changed the signal since then, those systems would not be able to identify the new encryption.




WestPoint23, in theory it is exactly how it should work, yet in current reality it's not always how it works out. Remember how easy it was to hack a MODERN encrypted high bandwidth Direct TV sat signal with just a 486PC? It is possible to this day. Now on to GPS signal encryption and its essential venerability.

GPS encryption code cracking is not necessary for receiving mil accuracy navigation. Encryption cracks are rather useful for point jamming, not signal jamming.

That is very useful to confuse movements of various forces and especially very useful as ECM against GPS guided weapons. Cruise missiles in particular.


Cracking the Secret Codes of Europe's Galileo Satellite

Newswise — Members of Cornell's Global Positioning System (GPS) Laboratory have cracked the so-called pseudo random number (PRN) codes of Europe's first global navigation satellite, despite efforts to keep the codes secret. That means free access for consumers who use navigation devices -- including handheld receivers and systems installed in vehicles -- that need PRNs to listen to satellites.

The codes and the methods used to extract them were published in the June issue of GPS World.


Then go right here;


P-Code-Enhanced Encryption-Mode Processing of GPS Signals

This is an improved method of processing without knowledge of the encryption code.
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California

A method of processing signals in a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver has been invented to enable the receiver to recover some of the information that is otherwise lost when GPS signals are encrypted at the transmitters. The need for this method arises because, at the option of the military, precision GPS code (P-code) is sometimes encrypted by a secret binary code, denoted the A code. Authorized users can recover the full signal with knowledge of the A-code. However, even in the absence of knowledge of the A-code, one can track the encrypted signal by use of an estimate of the A-code. The present invention is a method of making and using such an estimate. In comparison with prior such methods, this method makes it possible to recover more of the lost information and obtain greater accuracy.


www.nasatech.com...

Some good general GPS jamming info here;

www.globalsecurity.org...

In short, if you got mil grade gear, your good to go. Not to mention that modern GPS receivers also receive GLONASS signal.

Here's where the real pickle with that is;



diminish the military advantage of SA because they could be rendered inoperative, if warranted, through detection and destruction or by jamming. It is opinion of the NRC committee, however, that any enemy of the United States sophisticated enough to operate GPS-guided weapons will be sophisticated enough to acquire and operate differential systems. Enemies could potentially take advantage either of the existing, commercial systems available worldwide or install a local DGPS system, which could be designed and operated in a manner that would be difficult to detect. These systems can have the capability to provide velocity and position corrections to cruise and ballistic missiles with accuracies that are equal to or superior to those available from an undegraded C/A-code. It should be noted that with both GPS- and DGPS-guided weapons, accurate knowledge of the target location is a prerequisite for weapon accuracy. Even if the level of SA is increased, DGPS methods could still be used to provide an enemy with accurate signals. Thus, the NRC committee concluded that the existence and widespread proliferation of DGPS augmentations have significantly undermined the effectiveness of SA in denying accurate radionavigation signals to our adversaries. In addition, the Russian GLONASS system broadcasts unencrypted signals with an accuracy comparable to an undegraded GPS C/A-code, which further erodes the effectiveness of SA.4 The unencrypted C/A-code, which is degraded by SA, still provides our adversaries with an accuracy of 100 meters (95 percent probability). With SA set at zero, the standalone accuracy improves to around 30 meters (95 percent probability).5 While this improvement enhances the ability of an adversary to successfully attack high-value point targets, significant damage also can be inflicted with accuracies of 100 meters, (95 percent probability). Therefore, in either case (30-meter or 100-meter accuracy) the risk is sufficiently high to justify denial of the L1 signal by jamming. The jamming strategy has the additional benefit of denying an adversary all radionavigation capability, including the even more accurate DGPS threat. The NRC committee strongly believes that preservation of our military advantage with regard to radionavigation systems should focus on electronic denial of all useful signals to an opponent, for example, by jamming and spoofing, while improving the ability of civil and friendly military users to employ GPS in a jamming and spoofing environment. Continued effort to deny the accuracy of GPS to all users except the U.S. military via SA appears to be a strategy that ultimately will fail. Thus, the NRC committee recommends that the military employ denial techniques in a theater of conflict to prevent enemy use of GPS or other radionavigation systems. 4 Global Navigation Satellite System or GLONASS is a space-based radionavigation system also consisting of three segments just as GPS does. GLONASS is operated and managed by the military of the former Soviet Union. The GLONASS space segment also is designed to consist of 24 satellites arranged in three orbital planes. The full GLONASS constellation is currently scheduled to be completed in 1995. GLONASS does not degrade the accuracy of its civilian signal by SA or similar techniques. 5 Recent measurements with SA turned to zero have ranged from 5 meters to 10 meters (95 percent probability). However, the accuracy without SA greatly depends on the condition of the ionosphere at the time of observation and user equipment capabilities.


darwin.nap.edu...

More on that here;


Now part of the emerging Global Information Infrastructure, GPS use reduces the costs of a variety of civilian and military navigation and positioning activities by improving efficiency and accuracy for no more than the cost of a receiver.
GPS is not the only existing RNSS. The Russians operate a counterpart system known as GLONASS, which stands for the Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite System. While 24 satellites are required to provide precise navigation information worldwide, only ten GLONASS satellites are currently functioning. These ten satellites provide good coverage in Russia, and parts of Europe and Asia, but not worldwide. GLONASS's deterioration is a result of Russia's poor financial situation. When fully functional, GLONASS provides better positioning accuracy than GPS's CA-code with SA turned on. GLONASS, which possesses no SA feature, operates at different frequencies and uses different position algorithms than GPS. Thus, the two systems require different operating equipment. GLONASS, like GPS, is owned and operated by the Russian military, and has its own version of GPS's P code. Because GLONASS supports the Russian military, the nation has a strong incentive to keep the system operating. In order to attract funding for GLONASS, Russia has offered to let the system be the basis of an international navigation system and has also negotiated funding and use arrangements with various countries. 9 Russia launched two GLONASS satellites in October 2000. At least 15 more satellites need to be launched in the next few years to keep the system operational.


www.gwu.edu...

I hope somebody appreciates my google skills. It's all about knowing what and where to look for. It sure is quicker then searching bookmark archives.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedMatt
I personaly don't think the system is worth the investment ($10 bil. per year for several years running now, it's the single biggest item in the defense budget). I see to basic problems with missile defense:


Who said it needs cost 10 billion a year for several years? The technology base existed back in the 60's and any additional spending is just corporate greed and disarmament campaigning lies.


[1] There's noone to defend against.


Russia still deploys a better equipped strategic nuclear force than the USA does not even mentioning their massive civil defenses and active National missile defense system.


Missile *defense* is of limited capability,


Based on what data is this so?


it's only designed to stop one or two ICBMs at most.


A complete fabrication.


This rules out Russia and China's rather larger arsenals. And the Ground-based Missile Defense is in a fixed location: the only other country it's positioned to defend against is N. Korea.


Russia deploys 1500 - 2000 ABM missiles on mobile Tel's that could be used in ABM defense system not counting reloads or lasers/particle beams and radio interferometry.


And 4th of July test showed just how much of a non-threat that nation is. Their ICBMs are liquid fueled, have to be stored without fuel, and take days to prepare for launch.


The USA would obviously know exactly when they start refueling them for a first strike. That being said i believe that the USA already deploys sufficient beam weapon defenses to counter the threat from these smaller nations.


I'd rather we be ready to destroy the launch pad (100% chance of success)


The North Koreans love digging very deep well reinforced holes so that 100% is just complete speculation even if one were 100% sure were they all were.


than rely on the vastly more complex system our government has proposed for defense.


Defense is what any responsible government do FIRST before considering anything else. Either they are lying about what defenses they have or they have non; both are criminal actions.


But thats not something you have to worry about until they can prove they can keep a missile in the air for more than 30 seconds.


Best to wait and see if NY goes up in flames?


[2] It's too easy to defeat.


Says who?


FOBS could deliver warheads from an unexpected direction.


Which only means there are more directions you need to build defenses for. If one is serious about self defense this is hardly a serious problem; self defense is not about 'economics' and when it becomes so one should fire everyone that swore to protect you.


Manueverying warheads can easily dodge inctercept attempts.


Claims the Russians and we know they never lie. Funnily they have devoted massive resources ( and still do as they keep on refurbishing and deploying ever better ABM missiles) to their own missile defenses so who do we believe? Would the 'poor' Russians ( some still believe that is true) really waste money on very expensive weapons that they do not believe will work against American MIRVs?


Decoys can present so many targets that sorting out and hitting the warheads would be nearly impossible.


A typical claim based on the hope that the enemy does not nuke your re-entry vechile before it even gets a chance to shed MIRV's. Russian still likely deploys somewhere between 700 and 20 000 nuclear warheads that might be able to take a ride on the S-300 type system.


Or you can simply fire more missiles/MIRVs to overwhelm the system. It wouldn't take that many.


Overwhelm the system in what sense? How many missiles must you now allocate to every target to ensure it's destruction? I would in fact argue that highly mobile ABM's ( as the Russians are deploying by the hundreds- 600+ Tel's with 4 ready to fire missiles each) is a hugely destabilising factor for anyone who wants to nuke the country deploying them as keeping track of them all is largely beyond the meager means of the American defense intelligence establishment. Sure you will saturate some targets out of existence but how many will be left untouched due to relative to over allocation on must kill targets? It's a nightmare to plan for when the enemy can move their defenses around with relative great ease.


Any one of these solutions would render ground-based interceptors completely ineffective.


Says people who want to keep America vulnerable to foreign manipulation.


And while they're more expensive and complex, anyone who wants ICBMs will be certain to implement countermeasures agsint our defense.


It will result in the intolerable certainty that the attack might 'somehow' be completely ineffective while leading to possible national suicide. If you stick a broom stick out of the bunker window when the enemy is 15 000 miles away he might very well decide not to come close enough to test your bluff. This is especially true now that it's not only him that might die but all his family, friends and favorite pets.


After investing all that money in missiles, they'd be stupid not to spend a little extra to make sure they work.


Who would be willing to test them with symmetric aggression?


Which I feel is the real danger of missile defense: it leaves us feeling isolated and protected when, based on the system's abilities, we really aren't.


So you refuse to build your houses walls with brick as you realise that you will have to include windows and a door to live in it? Ludicrous. One does what you can in a effort to defend yourself as far as it does not destroy what your trying to protect.


If a missile hits the USA before we get the system running, people are going to demand an explanation. But people will always find something to complain about.


They will do that now but the US government is apparently hoping that there wont be a court left to stand trail in for their criminal negligence


A much more realistic scenario is that missile defense will be implemented, and because we've spent $10s of billions on that implementation, it will be claimed that it's effective. After all, how could we spend that much money on something we can't depend on?


Much like the USSR building those 60 000 tanks one has the feeling that even thought the tanks 'suck' when sometimes compared to western models they must have some kind of ace up their sleeve.... It's not the best example but feigning strength and creating doubt in your enemies mind might prevent battles you might have lost had you not invested in the bluff. Few will be willing to risk a American counter strike but no amount of desperation will drive a man to try a attack that he knows are unlikely to draw anything like the amount of blood he will certainly soon spill. Terror works only as far as it can deny the terrorized the opportunity to strike back effectively.


And someday in the future we overplay our hands with military action or politics, because our govt. actually thinks our defense will work.


America has been overplaying it's hand for decades now and yet only the stupid ( well mostly ) who have gone overseas to get killed, mostly by mud hut residents, has paid a serious price so far. For genocide and repeated mass murder the average US citizen has paid almost no penalty and they are unlikely to suffer more with a national missile defense shield.


If you don't believe me, skip back a few months to N. Korea's missile tests. We hadn't had a succesfull test in years, and the radar needed to guide the interceptors was in Hawaii being repaired. But the military trotted the sysem out as "fully operational" anyway, ready to knock down any ICBMs N. Korea launched.


Well if they can not do it they are completely incompetent ( The Israeli's/Chinese/Russians are doing just fine ) so i suspect gross mismanagement or sabotage.


It's a good thing Korea's ICBM crashed and burned, because we would have looked all kinds of foolish if we tried to shoot it down ourselves.


Trying to defend never looks sillier than inviting a attack so you can avenge yourself / relatives. Bah.


So what happens when a missile smacks into the US despite GMD (see point #2) and people start asking why we depended on a system we should have known wouldn't work, but spent $10s of billions on anyway?


When someone tries to kill you will you be more thankful when you landlord shoots and misses ( with a gun you paid for ) or if he races down to the basement bunker he built with your rent leaving you to your fate? Even if my landlord is the the worse shot in the world i would rather he spent my money in my defense than in his own.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Iskander, I am quite respectful of India Defence, but there's something I haven't been telling you about why I discounted the image in that report. My guess is that India Defense used a "stock picture" - common theme today.

The article is dated 26th Aug 2006.

The picture shows a Moskit (SS-N-22 Sunburn) being fired from an unidentifed FAC, although the fact that it has a proper main gun (either OTO-M 76mm or AK-176 76mm)



Now, Iran only has one type of FAC with a proper main gun - the Combattante's of which maybe 6 are active and have OTO-M 76mm. These have two twin C-802 launchers firing ahead at about 20 degrees from the rear deck - the width of the superstructure ruling out forward firing as seen in the pic. Plus Iranian ships normally have a black hull number which is convieniently missing in the pic.

Now you could hypothosise that it's the newly built Sina. But given what comes next we can discount that.

Anyway, if you look at the properties in the India Defense article, the picture is called "sunburnlaunchinthepacific" - Pacific???? So I googled "sunburn launch pacific" and low and behold I found another site with the exact same pic...
www.newprophecy.net...

The image appears to be from 2004... and the credibility of that source... well I'll let you judge for yourself.

And then, after deducing that the pic is of a Tarantual (I initially thought the gun was definately an OTO-M 76mm so wrongly thought the boat was a PS'd Indian Tarantual firing a Swtichblade), I found this article from 2000 showing the picture describing it as a Tarantual III firing a Sunburn. ads.wnd.com...
Well Russian Tarantual IIIs do indeed have Sunburns so this was no great surprise although it makes me wrong about the gun..

EDIT: Note that the above article says that China has Tarantual III which is clearly not the case.

And it answers the question - the pic is not evidentual to proving that Iran has Moskit. The article, although from a generally good source, is only speculation and is unsubstantiated.






[edit on 4-9-2006 by planeman]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join