Iran says new missiles can strike US ships in 435-mile radius

[Mrc]

You contradicting yourself, as speed increases,maneuverability/agility decreases @AmirPatriot


as speed increases,maneuverability/agility decreases @Mrc

U dont need to do bailey dancing... its enough maneuverable to do the job ...

 

[Stryker1982]

U dont need to do bailey dancing... its enough maneuverable to do the job ...

lol

 

[AmirPatriot]

You contradicting yourself, as speed increases,maneuverability/agility decreases @AmirPatriot

I said nothing about agility. I said they can pull high Gs. Even a slight (though sudden) turn at high speed will create significant G forces that make a missile hard to intercept. An interceptor has to pull higher Gs to hit the missile.

 

[TheImmortal]

BMs are easy to detect, but hard to intercept. Their separating warheads are small targets, manoeuvre at high Gs, and travel at a high rate of Mach. Just a single hit is enough to cripple a ship.

It takes a Shahab-3...8 mins to travel from iran and strike Israel.

Assuming there is a carrier group hanging out within 300 miles of Iran. A F-110 will reach its target quicker.

I am not sure the preparedness level for a carrier group to respond to an attack THAT fast.

The attack will likely start off with a distraction (unmanned speedboats, drones, CMs, etc) while the missile(s) is being launched in order to delay recognition by the opposing force. Furthermore, it will likely be launched in a salvo of up to 6 F-110s to further cause confusion about the trajectory of the final target and increase survivability.

 

[Arminkh]

It takes a Shahab-3...8 mins to travel from iran and strike Israel.

Assuming there is a carrier group hanging out within 300 miles of Iran. A F-110 will reach its target quicker.

I am not sure the preparedness level for a carrier group to respond to an attack THAT fast.

The attack will likely start off with a distraction (unmanned speedboats, drones, CMs, etc) while the missile(s) is being launched in order to delay recognition by the opposing force. Furthermore, it will likely be launched in a salvo of up to 6 F-110s to further cause confusion about the trajectory of the final target and increase survivability.

That is not the only challenge for the carrier group. The intercepting missiles have a kill probability that is less than 100%. I think in the case of the current systems it is around 90%. They need to at least fire 2 missiles in that short time to achieve 99% kill probability.

 

[TheImmortal]

That is not the only challenge for the carrier group. The intercepting missiles have a kill probability that is less than 100%. I think in the case of the current systems it is around 90%. They need to at least fire 2 missiles in that short time to achieve 99% kill probability.

Lol Who told you is 90%?

The fact is NO ABM system has been tested in war conditions against a MODERN BM equipped with countermeasures!

There are many research articles on this! Controlled ABM tests against a 60’s ERA scud missile does not count! Especially when the test is rigged for the ABM system to win!

You would be lucky to achieve 50% probability kill ratio against a sophisticated BM.

The numbers for the US mainland air defense network is even worse at less than 30%!!

That is why US doesn’t want Iran or any non-global power to have ICBM technology! They are clearly exposed!

Fact is no one knows what these ABM systems can do in a war time scenario! Interception rate could be 0% 10% 50% Who knows!!

 

[zectech]

We should have something that could repel them in the air too for that distance ...



Don't you think they are responses to American policy towards Iran? for example we didn't occupy Canada and Mexico as the US neighbors while saying all options are on table from our military bases in the region.. we don''t have our fifth fleet of navy docked in Gulf of Mexico sending our drones inside of the US airspace... we have never supported a dictator in the US .. we never committed a military coup in the US against its elected democratic government ... we never supported Canada to invade the US ... we never supported Canadian dictator to use CW against American ... we never put sanctions on American so it become harder and harder for Americans to have access to medicine and job ... it ain't Iran that has used nukes against Japan and has 1000s of them and meanwhile scare people around the world from The US peaceful nuclear program ...

Tell them get out of this region .. u'd see nothing from us:
View attachment 510251

"Iran is a 'hateful' country against zionist aggression, they don't allow Washington military bases all over Persia.", says the zionist warmongers in Washington.

PS - you missed the illegal bases in Northeast Syria.

 

[Oldman1]

First of all, who says we let you get out of Persian Gulf?

Secondly, you're the best friend of Saudi beheaders. whats does that have to do with the discussion? nothing. i just want to make sure that you'll be reminded of your shit morality every time we speak

Since when can you say who leaves the Persian Gulf? You didn't stop U.S. carriers from going in and out. I'll just remind Iran's morality whenever we speak. I'm fine with that since you have something against me and will follow me wherever I go.

This is just wrong.

Most fighter jets don’t carry CM’s they carry air to air missiles, BVR missiles, PGMs. So no there are no “missiles” that have 2000KM range or even 1000KM range. Most air to air missiles are less than 200KM range and PGMs much less than that unless using a glide kit.

Cruise missiles on fighter jets doesn’t count.

And why would a carrier group use a fighter jet to launch a CM when it’s own destroyers could do it? Tomhawks have plenty of range without the need for an aircraft to carry it.

Fighters jets and bombers that are equipped with air launch version of CMs are usually nuclear capable, not conventional as that is a waste.

Even in cases of Israel that uses the Dalieah cruise missile pgm, it’s operational range is only 250KM.

CMs are not designed for fighter jets or bombers, rather some have been MODIFIED to fit on fighter jets/bombers for unique circumstances such as nuclear deterrence or for countries that lack adequate Navy’s (Ie Iran).

Wrong, most fighter jets these days can be equipped with cruise missiles. Not just the U.S. but other countries.
JASSM, Storm Shadow, Delilah, etc.

The JASSM has 1000km range currently. And the future upgrade JASSM will have almost 2000km. You can look it up. Tomahawks are useful but not easily replenish in the middle of the ocean when 5 to 6 destroyers or cruisers fires them. While on the other hand dozens of aircraft can launch, land and launch more cruise missiles stored on the carriers. And destroyers/cruisers can only fire at least 30 missiles. They have other weapons like SAMs to handle other responsibilities besides firing cruise missiles. And also most of the weapons can be conventional not nuclear only.

I don't think you need the future for aircraft to launch 2000km missile. A Su-24 with a reconfigured Soumar as (Air to Ground Missile) should be able to travel 2000km.

SU-24 is a bomber. And the aircraft on the carriers like the F-18 have short legs. Not much we can do about it. Hence why the long range cruise missiles.

 

[drmeson]

You contradicting yourself, as speed increases,maneuverability/agility decreases @AmirPatriot


@Mrc

This is not important. Random lateral movement caused by either actuation or Fuel throttling (changes at molecular levels, dispersion molecular system, grain size difference, layered grain with variable combustion rate, layered variable combustion system etc) causes random lateral delta.xyz. Imagine that happening in wartime.

............................

Quasi BM carrying separating MaRV will be a hell for ABM in wartime. If you are following Houthis BM strikes on KSA, none of the intercepts shown have provided any proof of interceptions made on separating RV. The BM's body was hit instead which is not true "interception".

 

[gambit]

DF-21 is also designed to carry a tactical nuclear warhead. So pinpoint accuracy is not really that important as long as the missile lands within the general location of the carrier group, the destruction would be fatal.

Hold on...

A missile is not a bomber or a fighter. Once a missile warhead compartment is loaded with a type of warhead, the missile will stay that way most likely for the remainder of its deployment life, and when I say 'most likely', try %99.999.

What does it take to remove an ICBM from active status to inactive for maintenance? Would you believe DAYS? The entire silo must be 'safed' for maintenance, then the missile is essentially decommissioned with its fuel removed, all safety mechanisms installed, then the warhead -- nuclear or else -- separated. And this is a missile that is fixed in location and have an independent housing.

The DF-21 and variants are designed to be mobile and that means as minimal maintenance as possible. To have something with minimal maintenance, the item must be designed to be as self contained and that mean greater difficulty for disassembly. This is why mobile missiles are preferably solid fuel because this type of fuel is quite 'forgettable', meaning install the solid fuel blocks and leave as is. Then once a missile is loaded with a type of warhead, its mission is changed, so if a missile is loaded with a nuclear warhead, it will have limited targeting options. This is NOTHING like changing the oil in a car. A general cannot simply pick up the phone and in a few minutes, the missile is nuclear.

Destroying a US aircraft carrier with a nuclear missile will mean the end of the war -- in US favor.

 

[TheImmortal]

Hold on...

A missile is not a bomber or a fighter. Once a missile warhead compartment is loaded with a type of warhead, the missile will stay that way most likely for the remainder of its deployment life, and when I say 'most likely', try %99.999.

What does it take to remove an ICBM from active status to inactive for maintenance? Would you believe DAYS? The entire silo must be 'safed' for maintenance, then the missile is essentially decommissioned with its fuel removed, all safety mechanisms installed, then the warhead -- nuclear or else -- separated. And this is a missile that is fixed in location and have an independent housing.

The DF-21 and variants are designed to be mobile and that means as minimal maintenance as possible. To have something with minimal maintenance, the item must be designed to be as self contained and that mean greater difficulty for disassembly. This is why mobile missiles are preferably solid fuel because this type of fuel is quite 'forgettable', meaning install the solid fuel blocks and leave as is. Then once a missile is loaded with a type of warhead, its mission is changed, so if a missile is loaded with a nuclear warhead, it will have limited targeting options. This is NOTHING like changing the oil in a car. A general cannot simply pick up the phone and in a few minutes, the missile is nuclear.

Destroying a US aircraft carrier with a nuclear missile will mean the end of the war -- in US favor.

Many countries are preparing “tactical” battlefield nuclear weapons. Russia, Pakistan, China, and even US to name a few.

If US-China engage in large scale war (not a brief skirmish). The use of tactical nuclear weapons increases greatly. Even Putin has said in a war against NATO that they would use battlefield nukes.

The question then becomes, does the opposing country respond with same level of weaponary or move to full scale nuclear weapons?

MAD Doctrine would indicate that the US would be inviting it’s own demise if it were to switch from battlefield tactical level nuclear response to large scale nuclear response as that would end up in complete destruction of both countries.

Hate to break it to you but mainland US air defense network that is ment to prevent nuclear strike on US mainland has a much lower kill ratio than other mobile US ABM systems (possibly less than 30%).

So the question becomes what country will “legalize” tactical nuclear weapons first.

 

[gambit]

Many countries are preparing “tactical” battlefield nuclear weapons. Russia, Pakistan, China, and even US to name a few.

If US-China engage in large scale war (not a brief skirmish). The use of tactical nuclear weapons increases greatly. Even Putin has said in a war against NATO that they would use battlefield nukes.

The question then becomes, does the opposing country respond with same level of weaponary or move to full scale nuclear weapons?

My point is that noting X missile is 'designed' to be etc...etc...etc...is not very illuminating.

If you have a platform that is supposedly reconfigurable, once an individual unit is configured for a particular warhead type, it will stay in that configuration %99.999 of its planned deployment life.

If the political climate make nuclear use unpalatable, whatever nuclear missiles you have in inventory are essentially useless even as your battlefield losses increases. In the end, there will be no distinction between 'tactical' and 'strategic'.

Hate to break it to you but mainland US air defense network that is ment to prevent nuclear strike on US mainland has a much lower kill ratio than other mobile US ABM systems (possibly less than 30%).

Hate to break it to you, but that have nothing to do with technology but from treaty limitations.

I was active duty during the Raygun's 'Star Wars' yrs. In public, the idea was loudly ridiculed, but behind closed lab doors, even the Soviets admitted if the US put its scientific minds to it, the idea will be operational ahead of everyone else's ability to counter. The Nike missile program was already approaching %50 threshold of testing successes on ABM program when it was killed due to treaties with the Soviets.

 

[Maarkhoor]

Iran has just announced its breakthrough missile capabilities that may put U.S. vessels in jeopardy.

A senior Iranian official confirmed Tuesday that Iranian land-to-sea missiles can now strike any ship at a distance of more than 400 miles, though they maintain their missiles are solely for defensive uses, Reuters reported Tuesday.

“We have managed to make land-to-sea ballistic, not cruise, missiles that can hit any vessel or ship from 700 km (435 miles),” said Amirali Hajizadeh, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps’ (IRGC) air space division.

Iran’s previous missile range was approximately 290 kilometers (180 miles), as they debuted in a ground-to-sea missile in 2008.

The IRGC has been working on an improved, longer-range missile over the past decade. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reportedly directed the IRGC to develop a missile capable of “hitting ships.”

The announcement is contrary to what Iran claimed earlier this year when they indicated that they were not planning to increase the range of their missiles.

Chief of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, said in June, “We have the scientific ability to increase our missile ranges, but it is not our current policy,” according to the Times of Israel.

Defense Minister Amir Hatami also said recently, “Today, I announce that we are not concerned about the sanctions because we have produced all our defensive needs in all the marine, air and ground sectors.”

U.S. special envoy to Iran Brian Hook said that Iran’s missile development was worsening tensions in the region.

“We are accumulating risk of regional conflict if we do not do more to deter Iran’s missile proliferation in the Middle East,” he said.

A report from earlier this month indicated that Iran had launched as many as 39 ballistic missiles since 2015.

Iran’s shorter-range missiles have been deployed in Syria over the past two years in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. They’ve also used in drones in at least 700 attacks.

Their latest attack took place Oct. 1 and involved six ballistic missiles and seven drone bombers launched at targets in eastern Syria believed to be the location of militants responsible for the Sept. 22 deadly parade attack.

In August, Iran just released an improved short-range missile, though the upgraded range was not disclosed, and they promised to continue improving their missile capabilities. The following month, Iran said they’d possessed missile-equipped hovercraft capable of delivering swift missile strikes against enemies.

Last year, Khamenei ordered that Iran’s missile capabilities remain limited to 2,000 kilometers. With their latest missile coming in at a range of 700 kilometers, they aren’t expected to hit the limit any time soon.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...siles-can-strike-us-ships-in-435-mile-radius/

 

[HariPrasad]

Iran just speaks too much which is not necessary. You can't hit US ships just keep quite and don't provoke enemy who is muchbstrongermthan you. Doing this is not a very smart thing.

 

[TheImmortal]

My point is that noting X missile is 'designed' to be etc...etc...etc...is not very illuminating.

If you have a platform that is supposedly reconfigurable, once an individual unit is configured for a particular warhead type, it will stay in that configuration %99.999 of its planned deployment life.

If the political climate make nuclear use unpalatable, whatever nuclear missiles you have in inventory are essentially useless even as your battlefield losses increases. In the end, there will be no distinction between 'tactical' and 'strategic'.


Hate to break it to you, but that have nothing to do with technology but from treaty limitations.

I was active duty during the Raygun's 'Star Wars' yrs. In public, the idea was loudly ridiculed, but behind closed lab doors, even the Soviets admitted if the US put its scientific minds to it, the idea will be operational ahead of everyone else's ability to counter. The Nike missile program was already approaching %50 threshold of testing successes on ABM program when it was killed due to treaties with the Soviets.

Your thinking is nonsense, Iran can take a conventional Ghadr and switch the warhead to nuclear warhead. So this thinking that the DF-21 cannot be switched for a nuclear variant is nonsense. As long as the dimensions of the warhead stay the same there is no change to aerodynamics.

And ABM has NOTHING to with treaties.

ABM tests are a joke and rigged against a severely downgraded threat that the system already knows all about.

Modern BMs that carry sophisticated countermeasures (MIRV, decoys, flares, inflatable countermeasures, etc) along with a constant changing flight are no match for an ABM system. Hence WHY you have TREATIES in the first place.

Don’t take my word for it, do some research and see the misconceptions for yourself by reputable sources.

Either way with Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGV) being put into service, traditional ICBMs are becoming more archaic.