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

[Aramagedon]

U.S.A is a fake country

That country is red Indian country and Safavids discovered that country before Americans

 

[gambit]

Your thinking is nonsense, Iran can take a conventional Ghadr and switch the warhead to nuclear warhead.

And how long will that take? What are the safeties required? Can it be done in the field?

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.

Never said 'cannot'. And never said anything about aerodynamics which is not a factor in the first place. You are making things up that I said.

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

This is where you clearly have no experience in R/D. Clue for you: ALL tests are rigged.

When you have a new rubber compound for a tire, you first test on dry roads. That is a rigged test and nothing wrong with it. Then you move to varying degrees of wet roads. Then you test for temperatures. And so on and on. Then you move to production and eventually sales. Get it?

Anti ballistic missile defense testings are no different. We INCREMENTALLY introduce variables like weather, different launch locations such as land and sea, human related factors like the launch crew under chemical attacks, and so on. Overall, can the system perform as customer's specs?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13556-10-impossibilities-conquered-by-science/

The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers’ flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”,...

Damn good thing we do not have your attitude.

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

Of course I will not take your word for it. I used to live in that world. I know better.

 

[AmirPatriot]

It's more likely that there is a nuclear variant of the DF-21, or variants that are designed to be armed with either. Don't think the DF-21D is that variant though.

 

[LeGenD]

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.

This is the animated view of a live-fire experiment (FTM-25) in 2014:-

An Arleigh Burke class destroyer was subjected to a barrage of 2 x ASCM and 1 x SRBM.

ASCM = Anti Ship Cruise Missile
SRBM = Short Range Ballistic Missile

Each target performed maneuvers to stress-test target acquisition and monitoring capabilities of the Aegis sensor suite. Nevertheless, Aegis was able to identify, distinguish and track all targets in real-time, and produced a fire solution for each. In short, the Arleigh Burke class destroyer neutralized all targets and went about its way.

You will find their preparedness level way too good. Just ask the Houthi - they found out in 2016. Aegis can respond to any threat in under a minute (8 minutes is lot of time).

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.

A single American warship can respond to multiple threats at a time, without any issue. USN Jets and helicopters will be taking care of your speedboats and drones, leaving ample space and room for the warships to concentrate on other form of threats.

Say hello to the Cooperative Engagement Capability of USN: https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=325&ct=2

They will have a rich picture of all developments in the theater (Sensor Netting), and will know what to do (hundreds of operators to manage hundreds of assets at a time).

Iran is a formidable regional power but it stand no chance against US in a conventional war. There is much disparity in size, budget and technology of the armed forces of the two countries.

 

[fitpOsitive]

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/

Why can't Iran give up this intimidating tone every time? By this intimidation, you guys are just making things worse for the people of Iran.. Create your goodwill, rather than this reputation.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Each target performed maneuvers to stress-test target acquisition and monitoring capabilities of the Aegis sensor suite. Nevertheless, Aegis was able to identify, distinguish and track all targets in real-time, and produced a fire solution for each. In short, the Arleigh Burke class destroyer neutralized all targets and went about its way.

It mean it detect them but destroying them is depend on how the defensive equipment perform . as the ship did all that on software level not a real intercept.

Why can't Iran give up this intimidating tone every time? By this intimidation, you guys are just making things worse for the people of Iran.. Create your goodwill, rather than this reputation.

Iran built goodwill several years ago but one party showed they don't honor their agreement and want more. In short its time that somebody else create goodwill .

 

[LeGenD]

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!!

Holistic intercept record of American BMDS is 83 of 103* since 2001 = 80%

*Failures are mostly due to technical faults which came to light during the course of development, testing and maturation (misses are rare). However, failures have been valuable teachers, and technical faults largely addressed.

Target base is massive ranging from Lance (MGM-52) TBM to 4-stage solid fueled ballistic missiles equipped with battlefield applicable countermeasures. Some of the live-fire experiments were really expensive due to high degree of sophistication involved.

Lot of [intentional] disinformation out there - do not be fooled.

It mean it detect them but destroying them is depend on how the defensive equipment perform . as the ship did all that on software level not a real intercept.

Friend,

The animated view is of this live-fire experiment: https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84571

Iran built goodwill several years ago but one party showed they don't honor their agreement and want more. In short its time that somebody else create goodwill .

Yes, Trump administration walked out from the nuclear deal.

Perhaps he want a better deal?

I hope that US and Iran sort out their differences for long-term.

 

[fitpOsitive]

Iran built goodwill several years ago but one party showed they don't honor their agreement and want more. In short its time that somebody else create goodwill .

Keep looking then, may be you will guys get an inspiration. The sentence should be: cooperate then demand, not demand then cooperation.

 

[VEVAK]

Keep looking then, may be you will guys get an inspiration. The sentence should be: cooperate then demand, not demand then cooperation.

LOL! That's coming from people who simply don't have Iran's experience!

Between the Brits, Germans & the Americans during 50 years of the Pahlavi's Iran not only cooperated but bowed to the wests every demand. In return do you know what Iran got? Yes we had NO trouble buying weapons but when it came to asking our so called allies to help build simple Steel mill in Iran it took 40 years of begging under the Pahlavi's to finally accomplish quite latterly the Pahlavi's begged over an over again from 1928 to about 1970 to finally get the west to build them a freaking steel mill!

Yes as long as we were simple consumers of their goods they had no problem hell even when it came to buying weapons of war and Nuclear Powerplants they would gladly sell it BUT only if the maintenance of our weapons and our Powerplants were under their control! Hell even the 16 dams the Pahlavi's got them to build for Iran were under their control! And that's what your so called cooperation got Iran!

 

[fitpOsitive]

LOL! That's coming from people who simply don't have Iran's experience!

Between the Brits, Germans & the Americans during 50 years of the Pahlavi's Iran not only cooperated but bowed to the wests every demand. In return do you know what Iran got? Yes we had NO trouble buying weapons but when it came to asking our so called allies to help build simple Steel mill in Iran it took 40 years of begging under the Pahlavi's to finally accomplish quite latterly the Pahlavi's begged over an over again from 1928 to about 1970 to finally get the west to build them a freaking steel mill!

Yes as long as we were simple consumers of their goods they had no problem hell even when it came to buying weapons of war and Nuclear Powerplants they would gladly sell it BUT only if the maintenance of our weapons and our Powerplants were under their control! Hell even the 16 dams the Pahlavi's got them to build for Iran were under their control! And that's what your so called cooperation got Iran!

I kinda getting what you are trying to say. And I agree with these realities. But sometimes Iran behaves in such a way that may be described as an overkill.

 

[VEVAK]

So its either bowing down or ? Any thing in between?

NO! No one said there is nothing in between! 1st and foremost Iran needs to increase it's indigenous domestic industries and technological capabilities so when you sit down to negotiate a compromise your on a more equal footing and you ARE NOT seen as a country that can be pushed around so easily.

If Iran starts sending heavier Sats into GEO orbit their would be no point in the U.S. sanctioning Iran's Space industry and preventing other countries from launching Iranian Sat's
If Iran starts producing it's own Titanium alloy composites there would be no point in sanctioning Iran and preventing it from importing Titanium

Iran's nuclear program is a good example for Iran 1st attempted to buy fuel for it's reactor in Tehran that requires 20% enriched uranium and the west sanctioned Iran and banned Iran for buying the fuel rods for it's Tehran reactor and in response Iran told them if you don't sell it to us we will produce it on our own and they laughed!
And once Iran responded and started producing 20% enriched Uranium for it's reactor in Tehran then clearly the Sanctions that banned Iran from buying the fuel rods for it's reactor in the 1st place ended up being counter productive.

And that way Iran can sit down and compromise and say as long as the fuel for the Tehran reactor is sold to us we will stop enriching above ~4%

When it comes to NOT negotiation with the Trump administration well that's just simple LOGIC and common sense! Any international lawyer will tell you that IF Iran was to sit back down and renegotiate the nuclear deal with the Trump administration the country will be setting a precedent (Precedent: An earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.) that every new U.S. administration and even other countries in the world will follow.
Which means what? It means every time the U.S. gets a new President Iran has to sit back down and renegotiate a new deal that's more beneficial to the U.S. with every new U.S. president. IT'S ABSURD!

 

[gambit]

It mean it detect them but destroying them is depend on how the defensive equipment perform . as the ship did all that on software level not a real intercept.

Have you ever hunted with a rifle or even done skeet shooting with a shotgun?

In skeet shooting, the target's movement is a predictable arc where you can better estimate where it is going to be, then you aim for that point. In hunting an animal like a deer whose movements are not always predictable, the deer may suddenly stop, or jump, or dart in any direction. In either case, YOU have to provide the targeting solution and that is half of the problem. How you control your weapon is a different issue.

A descending warhead do not move like a deer, rather, the warhead's movement is very much predictable like the clay discs in skeet shooting. Even when the warhead is supposedly 'maneuverable', its Mach+ speed limits its range and degrees of possible course deviations.

So try to imagine the targeting problem for both sides: warhead and ship.

To the warhead, the ship is a target.

To the ship, the warhead is a target.

Each is trying to shoot the other. Each is moving relative to each other, therefore, every targeting solution -- per course deviation -- is complex and variable, even if their relative dislocations to each other is just one degree in any time period. However, there is a major disadvantage for the warhead -- its course is INEVITABLE. What 'inevitable' mean is that the warhead cannot reverse course like the ship can. The ship can literally come to a stop and back up. The warhead cannot do that. The ship can make a full circle. The warhead cannot do that. The ship can slow its forward speed at will. The warhead cannot do that, its speed can only be slowed by aerodynamic drag and that is also predictable. In short, the warhead's targeting solutions (multiple) cannot anticipate what the ship can do, whereas, precisely because the warhead is on an inevitable descending path, the ship can generate multiple targeting solutions that are more predictive despite itself is moving.

In the old days, like when I was active duty under Raygun, computers were already sophisticated enough to compute those targeting solutions against maneuverable targets. The only thing that saved the warhead was its Mach+ descending speed, which was too fast for MECHANICAL responses like redirecting the guns or missile turrets. That is not the case anymore. The Phalanx gun turret traverse its full range at 100 deg/sec and within that range, wherever it stops, the deviation from where the barrel actually points and where it supposed to point is less than 1 deg, and with its own targeting radar, correction is near instantaneous.

Ballistic missile defense has crossed the %50 threshold.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Have you ever hunted with a rifle or even done skeet shooting with a shotgun?

In skeet shooting, the target's movement is a predictable arc where you can better estimate where it is going to be, then you aim for that point. In hunting an animal like a deer whose movements are not always predictable, the deer may suddenly stop, or jump, or dart in any direction. In either case, YOU have to provide the targeting solution and that is half of the problem. How you control your weapon is a different issue.

A descending warhead do not move like a deer, rather, the warhead's movement is very much predictable like the clay discs in skeet shooting. Even when the warhead is supposedly 'maneuverable', its Mach+ speed limits its range and degrees of possible course deviations.

So try to imagine the targeting problem for both sides: warhead and ship.

To the warhead, the ship is a target.

To the ship, the warhead is a target.

Each is trying to shoot the other. Each is moving relative to each other, therefore, every targeting solution -- per course deviation -- is complex and variable, even if their relative dislocations to each other is just one degree in any time period. However, there is a major disadvantage for the warhead -- its course is INEVITABLE. What 'inevitable' mean is that the warhead cannot reverse course like the ship can. The ship can literally come to a stop and back up. The warhead cannot do that. The ship can make a full circle. The warhead cannot do that. The ship can slow its forward speed at will. The warhead cannot do that, its speed can only be slowed by aerodynamic drag and that is also predictable. In short, the warhead's targeting solutions (multiple) cannot anticipate what the ship can do, whereas, precisely because the warhead is on an inevitable descending path, the ship can generate multiple targeting solutions that are more predictive despite itself is moving.

In the old days, like when I was active duty under Raygun, computers were already sophisticated enough to compute those targeting solutions against maneuverable targets. The only thing that saved the warhead was its Mach+ descending speed, which was too fast for MECHANICAL responses like redirecting the guns or missile turrets. That is not the case anymore. The Phalanx gun turret traverse its full range at 100 deg/sec and within that range, wherever it stops, the deviation from where the barrel actually points and where it supposed to point is less than 1 deg, and with its own targeting radar, correction is near instantaneous.

Ballistic missile defense has crossed the %50 threshold.

the question is how long it take for the ballistic missile to travel 2-3 km range of the gun if you want to use Phalanx against it ? let say the missile only travel at mach 3 it means 1km per second or better say in 2 sec the warhead must be destroyed but even if it hit the target several time it take that 2 sec to destroy it so yo must expect the warhead at least explode just over the ship or after it hit the ship ,and the derbies can damage the sensors so the next missile have much larger chance of hitting the target , also you can use the old technique of launching several missile , after all if you even fire 10 ballistic missile and 10 cruise missile at your enemy frigate his loss is still more than 30 time of what you spent.
https://www.afr.com/news/frigate-ex...on-price-tag-for-new-warships-20180519-h10ahb

let be honnest it even worth if you use that much against a corvette as an European built corvette can cost up to 1milliard and the 640ton HSwMS Helsingborg cost 200milion to be built

Have you ever hunted with a rifle or even done skeet shooting with a shotgun?

no only hunting pests like Mouse and lizards with air guns and my solution for that was to sit still and when they show up shot them as fast as possible

 

[gambit]

the question is how long it take for the ballistic missile to travel 2-3 km range of the gun if you want to use Phalanx against it ?

I knew this would happen...

I use the Phalanx as an example of the improvements in complex weapons systems responses, not that the Phalanx would be used against a descending ballistic warhead.

 

[drmeson]

An Arleigh Burke class destroyer was subjected to a barrage of 2 x ASCM and 1 x SRBM.

ASCM = Anti Ship Cruise Missile
SRBM = Short Range Ballistic Missile

Each target performed maneuvers to stress-test target acquisition and monitoring capabilities of the Aegis sensor suite. Nevertheless, Aegis was able to identify, distinguish and track all targets in real-time, and produced a fire solution for each. In short, the Arleigh Burke class destroyer neutralized all targets and went about its way.

You will find their preparedness level way too good. Just ask the Houthi - they found out in 2016. Aegis can respond to any threat in under a minute (8 minutes is lot of time).

Can you determine what were those maneuvers that tested Missiles performed? Maneuvering can be random, patterned (most of the times), passive (in response to incoming ABM), lateral, linear changes in velocity by throttling (caused by different rate of bond cleavages during molecular combustion) or by control surface actuation (Physical phenomenon). Quick changes in above mentioned parameters are achieved by fuel throttling at molecular levels. Not even the molecular designer can know how would the RV behave. ABM tech and pen-aid are both modernizing at same rate.

I would ask again, what were those maneuvers that missiles performed ?

Phase of maneuvering
Warheads separated ?
Kinetic hits or warhead based ?
changes in lateral xyz
rate of change of velocity
what was the mechanism of maneuvering ? Molecular levels throttling or control surface ?

Iran is a formidable regional power but it stand no chance against US in a conventional war. There is much disparity in size, budget and technology of the armed forces of the two countries.

Theoretical research costs very less. Iran already has large infra structure for BM/CM/SLV production. Iran has extremely high STEM output rate and government is hungry for tech. You can not stop brains from thinking.