How dangerous are Iran’s missiles?

[Harry_Thomason]

Additionally, the sort of missiles Iran uses are mobile, and generally moved via TEL to the launch location before firing. They are vulnerable on the ground before they even get launched.

Ever heard of "Whack a scud"? US tried to hunt down Iraq's TELs, never were able to. Its hard to find some truck in hundreds of thousands of sqv. km, and then to catch it before it disappears. Plus unlike Iraq, Iran actually has some air defenses, good luck with "Whack a Sejjil"

Comparing the cost of the jets vs. the missiles is silly. A more appropriate comparison would be the cost to deliver 1,000 kilos on target over a sustained campaign. In this case, it's no contest. A JDAM is cheap. Very cheap. And more accurate to boot.

Its silly to assume all countries has similar capabilities. Read up my earlier post, and if you see any mistake - get back to me, otherwise this point is closed.

Ballistic missiles can do none of these, despite the folk who think Iran will somehow be able to launch a ballistic missile that can hit a Naval vessel on the open ocean.

Its actually interesting topic. To hit stationary target in the ocean is no problem - Iran already did tests hitting at 1900+km distance targets in Indian ocean.

However moving targets are different beast. For short range distance its enough to have smart missiles which can auto-correct their impact coordinates on the fly. For ~2000+km moving targets its not enough to have a smart missile, it has to be uploaded with changed coordinates from other source - satellite, drone, etc. Iran doesnt have a net of military satellites, but they have drones. Would it be sufficient? We dont know, its anyone's guess at the moment.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

It's not just cost. I'll re-emphasize again, it's a numbers game. No country, not Iran, not the USA, Russia, China, can sustain any sort of campaign using ballistic missiles. They can be useful as a shock weapon, they can do some damage, but the pace of operations in a heavy shooting war would see Iran's stocks depleted in a matter of days.

Additionally, the sort of missiles Iran uses are mobile, and generally moved via TEL to the launch location before firing. They are vulnerable on the ground before they even get launched.



Comparing the cost of the jets vs. the missiles is silly. A more appropriate comparison would be the cost to deliver 1,000 kilos on target over a sustained campaign. In this case, it's no contest. A JDAM is cheap. Very cheap. And more accurate to boot.



No, not really. The reason the USA (and pretty much every other country) invests in fighter-bombers is that they can do the following:

1) Attrit enemy air
2) Interdict logistics
3) Attack moving targets
4) Support troops in contact; CAS
5) Provide real-time battlefield intel
6) Attack naval targets that move

Ballistic missiles can do none of these, despite the folk who think Iran will somehow be able to launch a ballistic missile that can hit a Naval vessel on the open ocean.

In the end, hundreds of thousands of $500 iron bombs will trump a few hundred MRBMs. Missiles make sense when WMD-equipped, but that's another thread.

The whole point of having missiles is to provide the shock that prevents the opponent from even starting a resistance. That's why Russia pointed thousands of missiles at Central Europe and China pointed thousands of missiles at Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. The objective is to destroy most of their air force on the ground, destroy radar stations, destroy bridges, etc. and send in your own air force and boots to finish the job.

Of course, not just ballistic missiles, also need cruise missiles for different flight profile and high accuracy, but its the same thing in terms of investment. You're investing in many one time use weapons as a shock weapon so your own air force and ground forces can rush in. A cruise/ballistic missile that takes out a bridge could provide over a 1000:1 return on investment, while a bomber trying to get through might just get shot down.

 

[regular]

DEAR.i just said 300 shahab-3Bs not 300 balistic missiles.shahab-3B is the modern missile that is able to guide by GPS too diferent and specific from the A one.also we have 500 or 600 shahab-3A and 200 or 300 SEJJIL-1 and -2.

U know all ballistic missiles are guided by the GPS systems...the 300 figure is nothing if U realli want to face US firepower.....cuz each carrier of US carries at least 300 Tom Hawk cruise missiles.....U need at least ten times of it to face US fire power and to survive it.I'm just trying to give U a caution at this moment otherwise ure military strategists knowz better than me what they got in hand.....

 

[Vassnti]

as i said before your IQ is as less as a seaweeds IQ.

shahab 3B has 1000 kg warhead.190 meters CEP(too enough for a HQ).2000 km range.
and there are 300 shahab-3B in service.i think they are too enough for you.
ooops.i forgot SHAHAB-3A,SEJJIL-1,SEJJIL-2!

190m want to provide some data to back that up?

Most sources suggest that the guidance system of the Shahab 3 is based upon the inertial system used in the ‘Scud’ missiles, giving the missile an accuracy of about 2500 m CEP. The Pakistani version, the Hatf 5, is believed to employ Chinese guidance technology that significantly improves accuracy.6 The Shahab 3 may use similar technology, especially in its later variants, but early versions of the missile likely had very poor accuracy. With an accuracy of 2500 m CEP, the Shahab 3 missile is primarily effective against large, soft targets (like cities).

MissileThreat :: Shahab 3

 

[Banglar Lathial]

I can't deduce any alternative conclusion after re reading your post. So why don't you tell me what you were trying to say.

I would ask you to join English comprehension classes, then.

 

[Banglar Lathial]

Facepalm. Chogy explained so well and clear, that everyone with IQ over 50 would understand. But you still dont understand.

Sadly, for you, IQ ranges end at 70 while for most others, 100 is considered the "average" (mean).

I mean Hitler shootng himself and his dog.

The Holocaust was a myth all along, then?

 

[Banglar Lathial]

190m want to provide some data to back that up?

Most sources suggest that the guidance system of the Shahab 3 is based upon the inertial system used in the ‘Scud’ missiles, giving the missile an accuracy of about 2500 m CEP. The Pakistani version, the Hatf 5, is believed to employ Chinese guidance technology that significantly improves accuracy.6 The Shahab 3 may use similar technology, especially in its later variants, but early versions of the missile likely had very poor accuracy. With an accuracy of 2500 m CEP, the Shahab 3 missile is primarily effective against large, soft targets (like cities).

MissileThreat :: Shahab 3

It is not wise to take any (Western) sources from the Internet or elsewhere as a reliable source of information when it comes to their potential adversaries' weapons. Likewise, you may doubt the claims put forth by Iranian official statements. The most reliable evidence would be provided by events as they unfold in a real war.

 

[500]

Sadly, for you, IQ ranges end at 70 while for most others, 100 is considered the "average" (mean).

It's Arab countries, including ur Algeria, where average IQ is in 80-es.

The Holocaust was a myth all along, then?

I already explained: Hitler wasted enermous resources in useless ballistic missiles. If he was using these resouirces in planes and tanks he could last much longer and kill much more innocent people.

 

[kollang]

190m want to provide some data to back that up?

Most sources suggest that the guidance system of the Shahab 3 is based upon the inertial system used in the ‘Scud’ missiles, giving the missile an accuracy of about 2500 m CEP. The Pakistani version, the Hatf 5, is believed to employ Chinese guidance technology that significantly improves accuracy.6 The Shahab 3 may use similar technology, especially in its later variants, but early versions of the missile likely had very poor accuracy. With an accuracy of 2500 m CEP, the Shahab 3 missile is primarily effective against large, soft targets (like cities).

MissileThreat :: Shahab 3

i think my source is more valid than yours.
it says that its CEP is about 30 to 50 too enough for a HQ
Shahab-3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Zabaniyah]

^Only trolls quote from Wikipedia as far as weapons go.

 

[scholseys]

Iranians in this forum have a lot of claims without any actual proof. One even claims that Iran has got the bomb and what not. Lots of blind hope against the USA. I like their spirit though!

 

[kollang]

^Only trolls quote from Wikipedia as far as weapons go.

Shahab 3: an Advanced IRBM
again CEP is about 30 to 50
do you need more?

 

[Zabaniyah]

^Not saying its a bad missile. Wikipedia isn't exactly the most reliable reference since any Tom, Dick and Harry can edit the crap.

Let's see...

On July 22, 1998 Iran conducted the first flight test of the Shahab-3 MRBM missile based on No-dong-A. The following information was revealed about this test in the Washington Times, on July 24, 1998, "The missile exploded 100 seconds after launch ---- after traveled about 620 miles (997.58 km. down range) over a missile test (range) site in Northern Iran. --- It is uncertain whether that was an accidental explosion or they terminated the flight after achieving what they had to do or because of other reasons." (4) This certainly indicates that the flight was not a total failure but at least a partial success. The Washington Post added it would take one or two years before the Shahab-3 MRBM would be deployed and that, "One government expert described it as "a flight-test for technical purposes" in which the dummy warhead exploded before hitting the ground well down (the test) range." (5)

The missile was launched at 06:00 from a firing range about 100 miles southeast of Qom. Two or three American early warning and SIGINT signal intelligence satellites detected this first launch of the Shahab-3 ballistic missile. After launch the missile flew approximately 100 seconds to the southeast. The rocket exploded or was deliberately detonated about 100 seconds into the 115 seconds burn of the single stage, either because of engine steering vanes disintegration failure or instrumentation/guidance failure which may have caused the premature warhead detonation. There is also the possibility that the Iranian's, were satisfied with its Shahab-3 rockets performance, and had decided to detonate it by remote control. However this is highly questionable as a missile testing procedure. Almost certainly the missile had gone out of control and was deliberately destroyed. The flight ended near the time the fuel on the single stage missile would have been exhausted at 115 seconds from start up, at which point in an operational flight, the warhead would normally separate from the missile and fly to its target.

Due to the missile's mid-air explosion, which was picked up by American satellites, it was initially believed that the test was at least a partial failure. However, following careful examination of the initial technical data, some experts reportedly concluded that the test was in fact successful. They were wrong. The US Government expected that there would be additional tests, and that several more tests would be required before Iran was confident of the abilities of the missile. The Washington Times also suggest that the CIA knew that the flight would be in 1998 and also knew of the flight being prepared "first test was imminent". (6) It was to be a modified No-dong missile.

Design Heritage
The No-dong ballistic missile was developed by the North Korean's with Soviet Gorbachev era technical participation along with Chinese contributions and Iranian financial assistance. The former Soviet Union's technology transfer contribution is strongly suspected as having come from the Acad. V. P. Makeyev OKB Design Bureau developers of the Soviet era Scud-B, and its follow on SLBM's. The 9D21/S-2.___ Isayev OKB Scud-B engine was already in the North Korean‘s possession. While the Isayev OKB, S-2.713 rocket engine design used on the Soviet SS-N-4 SLBM is also thought to have been a part of this technology transfer. This was directly the results of strategic arms reduction treaties creating unemployment in a large Cadre of technically qualified personnel in the Makeyev OKB's essentially cancelled liquid propellant SLBM programs of the Former Soviet Union. This was because no other form of employment was successfully offered to them. That highly modified Isayev OKB, S-2.713M rocket engine design strongly reflects its Scud-B design heritage but represents an entirely new liquid propellant rocket engine far beyond the growth potential of the modified Scud-B and C class engines for application to the No-dong-A. That No-dong-A engine also reflects modern Soviet rocket engine start up design technology such as the solid charge starter to spin up the turbo-pump, instead of start up propellant tanks, and the pyrotechnics used to open the propellant flow and to cut it off. It also reflects the typical on off rocket engine design philosophy used by the Soviets. All Soviet era SLBM's owe their design heritage to the Scud-A and Scud-B tactical ballistic missiles.

China's contribution to the No-dong-A project came from the joint North Korean/Chinese project conducted between 1976-78, the cancelled DF-61 missile, essentially a Scud-C capability ballistic missile with a range of 600 km. carrying a 1,000 kg warhead that also featured a strap-down guidance system. Iran in fact decided to totally rework the North Korean No-dong-A design to their liking with Russian and now Chinese help but they have yet to successfully indigenously produce the whole vehicle to North Korea's standards.

Iran was slated to receive the first shipment of the missiles late in 1993. However it was suggested that the delivery was halted due to American pressure on North Korea. According to some reports, as of 1995 Iran had not received the missiles. However Israeli press reports in 1996 cited intelligence reports which claimed that at least a dozen No-dong missiles had been delivered to Iran from North Korea. But General Peay, USCINCCENT, claimed during a spring 1996 interview that attempts by Iran to buy No-dong missile from North Korea had failed for financial reasons. The Washington Times, on September 11, 1997 reported that Iran had received from China's, Great Wall Industries Corporation, “guidance, and Solid propellant motor technology” as well as general missile testing technology. The Shahab-3 and conceptual Shahab-4 programs appear to be getting considerable assistance from China and Russia. (1) For the first time publicly the Shahab-3 and Shahab-4 missile programs were identified in this article. Shahab-3 is said to have a range of 930 miles (1,496 km.) while the Shahab-4 is credited with 1,240 miles (1,995 km.) the prototype of which was expected to be only 2-3 years away. (1)

Shahab-3

It's actually not a bad missile. But in a long battle, not enough against USN. Although, sufficient against the Gulf Arab states, which lack such capabilities. It is highly unlikely that the US would attack Iran directly, but would rather use a proxy.