Sizzler to sizzle US Carriers?

Originally posted by corruptioninvestigator
And again in 2006 Hezbollah launches an Iranian made C-802 anti-ship missile at an Israeli warship, and again the system fails to detect launch fails to track the missile, ship destroyed. Despite alleged repeated improvements from 1982, 1987, 2006, US,UK, western defenses still can't claim a single successful shootdown of a decent anti-ship missile.

www.fas.org...

I'm pretty sure that Hezbollah actually used the C-701.

First of all becuase the range is about ~20km exactly the range where the ship got hit. Also if you take a look at the damage done it is rougly equivilent to 20 to 29kg warhead which is exactly what the c-701 has. Also another factor to why it was the c-701 is becuase the c-701 is solid fuel which means it doesnt need to be filled with fuel unlike the c-801 which is liquid fueled and there is no evidence that the Lebonese had a liquid feuiling capability within there country at the time.

The c-701 can just be put into the back of a pickup truck with the launch equipment becuase it weighs 100kg while the c-802 is something like 800kg.

www.sinodefence.com...

.

[edit on 8-4-2007 by iqonx]

[edit on 8-4-2007 by iqonx]

A couple things.

The MA-31 is essentially a Kh-31 bought from the Russians with some avionics changes.

Kh-31 is an ARM (anti-radar) missile based on Moskit/Sunburn but somewhat smaller and actually somewhat faster.

It makes an excellent stand-in for a Sunburn because it essentially is a Sunburn.

The hardened warhead on Moskit is built for the purposes of penetrating armored carrier decks, not to survive interception. AAW weapons use fragmentation warheads that damage missile bodies and control surfaces. In the case of a Mach 3 anti-shipping missile, it's not necessary to destroy the warhead - damaging even the control surfaces sufficiently will cause the missile to break up due to aerodynamic forces.

Saying the USN "cannot" intercept a Sunburn is just as foolish as saying a Sunburn "cannot" penetrate a CVBG's AAW screen. Such absolutes rarely hold true in the real world.

So the Iranians now have the Kh-31??!


boy, they sure must be happy with ATS; because we seem to be doing a lot of propaganda PR for them free of cost!


Only known Kh-31 operators: Russia(Soviet States), China, India.

Kh-31 on IAF Su-30:
Kh-31 in Su-30 display

Chinese Kh-31
Kh-31/YJ-91

Besides, the only jets capable of carrying the Kh-31 in the Iranian AF is the F-4(drawing from the MA-31 analogy) and the MiG-29.

On a separate note, I have read from reputable sources that Iran does infact have 2 S-300PMU batteries in Tehran.

Its the Exocet AM-39 that is the only real threat I see from Iran. All other missiles do not have the aerial platform/stand-off range to endanger carriers.







[edit on 8-4-2007 by Daedalus3]

Who said the Iranians have Kh-31?
I was explaining the origins of the MA-31 target missile.

For that matter I've never seen confirmation that the Iranians have Moskit or Sizzler in their arsenal.

I thought you said that!

And my thoughts exactly on the Moskit and Sizzler.
Its those Mirage F-1EQs and AM-39 exocets that one needs to think about.

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Its the Exocet AM-39 that is the only real threat I see from Iran. All other missiles do not have the aerial platform/stand-off range to endanger carriers.

Iranians are using land launched platform for C-701/2 and C-802 Anti ship missiles. They also have them on ships as well and also have an air launched versions of c-802 missiles. I think the c-802 has a greater range then the Exocet by 40km. The exocet has a range of about 80km while the chinse c-802 has a range of about 120km.

They imported over 100 c801/2 missiles from China and have the manufacturing tech to make certain versions of them.

The iranians also have the Fl-7 supersonic anti-ship missiles as well as other missiles:

7/17/96: China is assisting Iran in developing two new anti-ship cruise missiles, according to Asian-based intelligence sources. The missiles are the Karus, believed to be a modified Chinese C-801/802 cruise missile; and the FL-10, a modified Chinese FL-2 or supersonic FL-7 missile. Chinese technicians are helping Iran as "advisors" in the development of the FL-10. China Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CPMIEC) manufactures the C-801/802 and the China National Aero-Technology Import and Export Corporation produces the FL-2 and Fl-7 missiles. ["China Helping Iranian Missile Developments," Jane's Defence Weekly, 17 July 1996, p. 13.]
www.nti.org...

From what i also read in another source the Iranians took the fl-7 and have increased it's range as well.

Yes that is true iqonx, but the USN will not position capital class vessels and high value surface assets a mere 100-150km from the coastline in any scenario. Not initially at least.That nullifies all shored based missile batteries. And these shore based batteries unless well hidden will be one of the primary targets of any high intensity bombing campaign.

Hence the best bet the Iranians will have is to use the Exocet on Mirage F-1EQs by flying them in REALLLLY low(you need good/brave pilots for flying at continuous alt of

thx to iqonix for correcting, the missile that beat the most sophesticated israeli warship was even less than what I thought..

anyways, OK then a few questions for the people who still insist the sunburn/sizzler can be stopped , before slamming into any carrier/frigate/ship totally obliterating it.

1. Exactly WHAT is going to stop it? it's not phalanx machine gun shooting 60 rounds at the second stage traveling at mach3 or any other small projectile. if it's gonna be stopped before then what is this missile that, it's just the same old sm missile-and they will have to intercept it headon? OK maybe you can't say the sizzler/sunburn is 100% but the chance it fails is slim to the point of irrelivance.

Lets not forget that all this talk of MA-31s is just a defense contract to construct a copy missile so that the navy/contractors can begin to develop something that might work, it's nothing thats going to be deployed or even developed anytime soon-there still trying to invent the wheel, their no-where close to a horse carriage.

Speaking of these tests-where are the test results? there are many questions that who knows? apparently the navy/contractors have been testing these for years but unlike the ABM systems (patriot/arrow) the testing seems to be totally unpublished..I doubt it's because there is a 'secret' most likly just because the tests are inconclusive or wrought with failure. and is there any firm evidence that a modern US ship can detect anti-ship missile launch, if it can't detect it can't track, if it can't track it can't stop it. In the Stark situation both the Stark and the AWACS failed to detect launch, and so did the Israeli ship. has this really changed? and even in the case of the ARROW tests do they really launch the test drone at random or do they give the ARROW/PATRIOT system the benefit of knowing exactly where and when the missile is coming from?

Originally posted by corruptioninvestigator
thx to iqonix for correcting, the missile that beat the most sophesticated israeli warship was even less than what I thought..

the BARAK-I systems were turned off and they DO work against
C802-esque targets.
That's the very reason behind their design and deployment.

anyways, OK then a few questions for the people who still insist the sunburn/sizzler can be stopped , before slamming into any carrier/frigate/ship totally obliterating it.

Firstly let us accept that Iran doesn't have these weapons as far as we know.
Then lets look at the operational range of the Sizzler.
Then lets look at anything that can get close enough to a CVBG w/o being picked up by layered surveillance.
THEN we worry about what are the chances of a 'loose' sizzler damaging/sinking a capital class ship.

So, summaring yes the Sunburn/Sizzler(more so the SunburnIMHO) do pose a grave threat to the USN from foes like Russia and China, esp when fired in saturation salvos.
Iran?? Not in the picture for these missiles.

Lets not forget that all this talk of MA-31s is just a defense contract to construct a copy missile so that the navy/contractors can begin to develop something that might work, it's nothing thats going to be deployed or even developed anytime soon-there still trying to invent the wheel, their no-where close to a horse carriage.

Speaking of these tests-where are the test results? there are many questions that who knows? apparently the navy/contractors have been testing these for years but unlike the ABM systems (patriot/arrow) the testing seems to be totally unpublished..I doubt it's because there is a 'secret' most likly just because the tests are inconclusive or wrought with failure. and is there any firm evidence that a modern US ship can detect anti-ship missile launch, if it can't detect it can't track, if it can't track it can't stop it.

Apparently the MA-31PG(latest version) was infact accepted by the USN as a ASchm drone:
www.nawcwpns.navy.mil...

In the Stark situation both the Stark and the AWACS failed to detect launch, and so did the Israeli ship. has this really changed? and even in the case of the ARROW tests do they really launch the test drone at random or do they give the ARROW/PATRIOT system the benefit of knowing exactly where and when the missile is coming from?

Ofcourse they don't do that!
They're not trying to fool the military; they're actually trying to develop working anti-missile systems!
Atleast I'm sure about the Arrow2:

The Arrow missile is launched before the threat missile's trajectory and intercept point are accurately known. As more trajectory data becomes available, the optimum intercept point is more precisely defined and the missile is guided towards the optimum intercept point.

Source

So obv. the target trajectory/telemetry is not known to the ARROW system and infact the missile is launched in a LOAL-analogous scenario.

www.india-defence.com...

"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."

That would make sense, the Russians unloaded a big bunch of sunburns to China after they failed to sell them to the US for a million $s a pop (Clinton refused the sale because he thought they were asking too much for the missiles, and the US just needed them for Anti-missile development) and then China re-sold them to Iran like they always do, we know that China will sell Iran any weapon thats not a nuclear bomb, but any tank, plane, missile, China has no gripes about selling to Iran..so Iran probably has it.

They may have acquired a few copies for analysis and observation; that too only if these speculations are infact accurate.
In any case, they need to to be able to mate it onto platform that can attack the target is salvos; i.e. a seaworthy boat with a operational radius of 100-200km or a fighter.
Lots of ifs for me..

See, the Iranians have 3 Kilo type 877EKM subs as well which are supp to be able to fire the Klub AShCMs. Far deadlier than what we've talked about till now.
But those sub are not very operational right now.

the BARAK-I systems were turned off and they DO work against
C802-esque targets.
That's the very reason behind their design and deployment.

Daedalus3, we’ve all been down that road before, let’s not go there again;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



The possibility off BARAK being switched of is ludicrous, unless the captain was insane. I haven’t heard anything about anybody getting court marshaled.

Firstly let us accept that Iran doesn't have these weapons as far as we know.

I guess being prepared is not considered to be something of importance these days.

I’d like to know what the average life expectancy would be for a soldier that thinks like that while clearing a house.

Something like: “let’s just accept that there are no bad guys with guns behind that door, as far as I know, so I’m just going to come right in…”


I say let’s not assume, I say let’s be ready for it.

McVadon, who has written about the Chinese navy, called the Sizzler “right now the most pertinent and pressing threat the U.S. faces in the case of a Taiwan conflict.” Jane’s, the London-based defense information group, reported in 2005 in its publication “Missiles and Rockets” that Russia had offered the missile to Iran as part of a sale in the 1990s of three Kilo- class submarines.

That report was confirmed by the Pentagon official who requested anonymity. The Office of Naval Intelligence suggested the same thing in a 2004 report, highlighting in its assessment of maritime threats Iran’s possible acquisition of additional Russian diesel submarines “with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.”

The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the Navy “immediately implement” a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler that could be used for testing

www.nowpublic.com...

Then lets look at the operational range of the Sizzler.
Then lets look at anything that can get close enough to a CVBG w/o being picked up by layered surveillance.
THEN we worry about what are the chances of a 'loose' sizzler damaging/sinking a capital class ship.

Lets just see what the NAVY it self has to say about all this.

Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Sizzler’ Missile

The Navy’s ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and destroyers starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect aircraft-carrier battle groups from missile attacks. But current and former officials say the Navy has no assurance Aegis, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting, tracking and intercepting the Sizzler.

“This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001,” Thomas Christie, the Defense Department’s top weapons-testing official from mid-2001 to early 2005, said in an interview.

`A Major Issue’

“The Navy recognized this was a major issue, and over the years, I had continued promises they were going to fully fund development and production” of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler to help develop a defense against it, Christie said. “They haven’t.”

The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. “would send a billion-dollar platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm’s way without some sort of confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a threat very near on the horizon,” Christie said.

The Navy considered developing a program to test against the Sizzler “but has no plans in the immediate future to initiate such a developmental effort,” Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon said in an e-mail.

www.nowpublic.com...

more;
www.bloomberg.com...

www.articlediscovery.com...

I’ve been saying it for years. Unfortunately the ignorance of the general public is just as catastrophic as the ignorance of our NAVY/Pentagon/etc.

Ever since Granit became operational, traditional carrier fleet deployment became obsolete.


No amount of denial and blind patriotism is going to save lives if God forbid even one of these things slams into our fleet.

Russian missiles are a HUGE problem for our fleet, and have been for DECADES, read on if dare, and keep in mind that Sunburn is the 1st generation weapon, while currently the Russians are in 3rd!

"Nevertheless, defense analysts agree that the U.S. is fully a decade behind Russia in high-speed cruise missile designs. Russia currently deploys and exports the supersonic SS-N-22 Moskit cruise missile, NATO codenamed "Sunburn." The SS-N-22 is considered the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world, and flies at over 2.5 times the speed of sound only a few feet from the surface of the water."

"In July 1999, defense analyst Richard D. Fisher wrote an evaluation of the Russian-built Sunburn missile being sold to China. A senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, a Washington based think-tank, Fisher reported that the SS-N-22 may be capable of a dive speed of Mach 4.5 that would help it evade U.S. naval defenses. The Sunburn anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world," wrote Fisher in a review of the Chinese navy. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.5 speed with a very low-level flight pattern that uses violent end maneuvers to throw off defenses. After detecting the Moskit, the U.S. Navy Phalanx point defense system may have only 2.5 seconds to calculate a fire solution -- not enough time before the devastating impact of a 750-lb. warhead."

Pretty darn clear, we’re in deep doo-doo, no really, I mean it;

U.S. missile gap widens, say experts
Pentagon's hypersonic weapon program to deploy by 2010


Despite the Pentagon's development of a new generation of hypersonic missile, the U.S. is still a decade behind Russia in high-speed cruise-missile design, according to defense analysts.

www.worldnetdaily.com...

Here’s an ATS thread from some time ago, which clearly displays the state of general denial to this problem;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Another 1;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

RAM? Bullocks, it’s nothing more then a stop gap-band-aid KIT. It was not designed as a dedicated intercept system, and was never tested against supersonic missile type it’s supposed to counter, much less hypersonic one, and we’ve been down that road as well;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Conclusion?

Deep doo-doo.

Originally posted by FredT
Im sure the US navy has nothing to worry about from a chain of mediocre steakhouses aka The Sizzler,

However if you are fereing to the the SS-N-27 then we can talk.

The 3m-54E variant which has almost Mach 3 speed has a range of about 2200 km. The longer range -54E1 is strictly subsonic. Two other variants are fast but have a limited rage.

To target a CBG you would need to get within the firing envelope of the weapon via aircraft, surface ship or submarine. To do so you would

1) have to get past the submarine and SOSUS nets
2) Get past the standing BARCAP and whatever other a/c were in the air
3) Aegis will have alot to say about both the platform launching the missile as well as the inbounds.
4) Closer in you will have to get past Sea Sparrow and the CIWS and RAM that comprise the close in defence (plus chaff)

Add to the soon to be deployed AESA radar systems on the F-18E/F's which can hunt stealth cruise missiles.

It can be done, but as you see trying to take down a CBG is not like trying to hit the Queen mary.

After reading all the addmitions about Russian weapon supieriority posted by StellerX I can't believe there are still people that have confidence in U.S. Military Tech

[edit on 11-7-2007 by YASKY]

[edit on 11-7-2007 by YASKY]

Originally posted by Daedalus3
So the Iranians now have the Kh-31??!

boy, they sure must be happy with ATS; because we seem to be doing a lot of propaganda PR for them free of cost!

Only known Kh-31 operators: Russia(Soviet States), China, India.

Kh-31 on IAF Su-30:
Kh-31 in Su-30 display

Chinese Kh-31
Kh-31/YJ-91

Besides, the only jets capable of carrying the Kh-31 in the Iranian AF is the F-4(drawing from the MA-31 analogy) and the MiG-29.

On a separate note, I have read from reputable sources that Iran does infact have 2 S-300PMU batteries in Tehran.

Its the Exocet AM-39 that is the only real threat I see from Iran. All other missiles do not have the aerial platform/stand-off range to endanger carriers.







[edit on 8-4-2007 by Daedalus3]

Well if you were in charge of a U.S. C.B.G. Iran would LOVE IT The Exocet AM-39 range is 65 km, www.globalsecurity.org... while the KH-31's is 70 km www.fas.org... Happytrails

After reading someone who believes whole-heartedly in Stellar's arguments, it's hard to believe this thread has any intellectual life left in it.

Regarding the Sunburn: I'll save my worrying for later.
Call it intuition, but I don't think an extremely-capable missile proliferated to a wide variety of buyers that can act as decapitation blow to our aircraft carriers is really going untreated.

Something isn't as it seems, if only because it's too absurd.

Regarding the Sunburn: I'll save my worrying for later.
Call it intuition, but I don't think an extremely-capable missile proliferated to a wide variety of buyers that can act as decapitation blow to our aircraft carriers is really going untreated.

Something isn't as it seems, if only because it's too absurd.

I for one tend to listen to people who are paid to worry about such things professionally, and analysts have been repeatedly stating that we’re in trouble.

Before any given weapon is used, its greatest strength lies in its credibility.

As of now, US NAVY does not field a single system which can effectively counter modern threats, thus placing the credibility of the fleet in question.

If a single supersonic/hypersonic missile strikes ANY of US NAVY ships, the loss of political credibility will be disastrous.

SAAR-5 got hit and lost its credibility.

If a carrier gets hit, it’s not going to be only credibility that will be lost, but lives of our men and women. That’ll be an awfully expensive lesson to learn considering years of ignorance, “because it's too absurd”.

Originally posted by YASKY
Well if you were in charge of a U.S. C.B.G. Iran would LOVE IT

The Exocet AM-39 range is 65 km, www.globalsecurity.org... while the KH-31's is 70 km www.fas.org... Happytrails

I would love what? The range?
sorry didn't get you there..

Originally posted by Iblis
After reading someone who believes whole-heartedly in Stellar's arguments, it's hard to believe this thread has any intellectual life left in it.

As Steller would say, please provide the proof that most if not all those things Steller posted are not true?

This thread is not about Stellar's credibility, that has been challenged enough in threads he actually, actively participates in.

Please keep on topic.

The big picture here is that you have to look at cost analysis. A salvo of 20 sizzlers fired at a carrier could be engaged, but maybe one can get through. If each missle costs a million, thats 20 million to take down a carrier, which is a billion or so dollars...that we will have to foot the bill.