Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[Arminkh]

I want the ship sank. Look at konarak incident . it hit the command bridge but failed to sink a 300ton ship or the incident with Israeli boat against it went for command center instead of the water line and it hit a crane .

Whats the point of sinking a ship but environmental disaster while you can put it out of service for good? In case of Konarak, it just cannot be overhauled. You should use it as scrap metal.

Just imagine what happens if one of US nuclear powered vessels is sunk in the Persian Gulf? It does more harm to Iran than to US

 

[Philosopher]

Whats the point of sinking a ship but environmental disaster while you can put it out of service for good? In case of Konarak, it just cannot be overhauled. You should use it as scrap metal.

Just imagine what happens if one of US nuclear powered vessels is sunk in the Persian Gulf? It does more harm to Iran than to US

Exactly Arminkh Jan,

In a purely military sense, taking a ship out of service is what matters. After that, you can chose to do whatever you want such as take over it, sink it (as last resort) and so on. Downright sinking it and causing 1000's of casualties may force the adversary to do something desperate, including resorting to nuclear systems. This is especially relevant when dealing with trigger happy simpletons like Trump.

I recall an interview with the now current head of IRGC, Gen Salami where he said during a conflict they are not necessarily looking to sink the ships.

 

[Arminkh]

Exactly Arminkh Jan,

In a purely military sense, taking a ship out of service is what matters. After that, you can chose to do whatever you want such as take over it, sink it (as last resort) and so on. Downright sinking it and causing 1000's of casualties may force the adversary to do something desperate, including resorting to nuclear systems. This is especially relevant when dealing with trigger happy simpletons like Trump.

I recall an interview with the now current head of IRGC, Gen Salami where he said during a conflict they are not necessarily looking to sink the ships.

Very true. Limitations has made Iran's military strategists very frugal and practical. Waste less ammo, but result is the same for you. Furthermore, you force the enemy to now get engaged in a much bigger search and rescue mission which will keep them engaged.

 

[skyshadow]

he means he wanted the missile to hit exactly the side

well look at the target it small less then 2 meters so if the target was a destroyer or tanker it would have hit in bullseye

 

[scimitar19]

Again it hit too high for my taste ,wished it hit a little lower.

Your observation is interesting I have to say.
Looks like Iranian AshCM have awkward tendency to hit joint parts between the surface deck and the sides of the ship.

This is damage from INS Hanit taken during Hezbollah war in 2006. Very cloese to the surface of the deck.

Also there was a report that the second missile fired at Hanit missed and locked another merchant ship VM Moonlight a Cambodian merchant ship. After the merchant ship was struck it sank at the bottom of the sea.

Whats the point of sinking a ship but environmental disaster while you can put it out of service for good? In case of Konarak, it just cannot be overhauled. You should use it as scrap metal.

Just imagine what happens if one of US nuclear powered vessels is sunk in the Persian Gulf? It does more harm to Iran than to US

Or you can use it for a live stew pot designed to cook humans. Mmm delicious!

 

[Hack-Hook]

Whats the point of sinking a ship but environmental disaster while you can put it out of service for good?

you have the option that let enemy ships sink your ship and make environmental disaster or you sink enemy ship and let them make that environmental disaster. by the way the only Nuclear ships make environmental disaster , normal ship will make fantastic artificial reefs for marine life to flourish around it.

Exactly Arminkh Jan,

In a purely military sense, taking a ship out of service is what matters. After that, you can chose to do whatever you want such as take over it, sink it (as last resort) and so on. Downright sinking it and causing 1000's of casualties may force the adversary to do something desperate, including resorting to nuclear systems. This is especially relevant when dealing with trigger happy simpletons like Trump.

I recall an interview with the now current head of IRGC, Gen Salami where he said during a conflict they are not necessarily looking to sink the ships.

hitting above deck like what it did , could not damage hanit enough so it need a tug to go to port , and it was fixed very soon. and hanit is small and week structure , consider what little it could do against a cruiser. there is no choice it must hit lower . the lower it fly , the harder to intercept it and the higher the damage would be .

 

[sahureka2]

Sorry if I intrude on the discussion.
Unlike that target that had only limited superstructures therefore the effect of the explosion was free to let off steam outwards, if instead it hit a frigate, a destroyer, a cruisers at that height, it penetrated and exploded, the subsequent wave of impact of the explosion itself would find very few escape routes, this would lead to an overpressure inside which would amplify both the effect of the explosion and internal damage.

 

[makranman]

you have the option that let enemy ships sink your ship and make environmental disaster or you sink enemy ship and let them make that environmental disaster

I wonder what would be cheaper:
nuclear leak from a naval reactor with very pure uranium in the Persian gulf?
loosing some infrastructure in the coast line?

I would personally choose the loosing of infrastructure. just look at how much ukraine and belarus are paying to this day because of chernobil. (as for belarus, it is some 5% of their entire GDP!) even if our government chooses to ignore it (just like what they do for air pollution) the costs will bit us in the back and we will pay eventually one way or another.

now if we sink a carrier, I don't think arab kingdoms would just sit and watch their entire lifeline become radioactive...

sinking those giant ships is not an option...

 

[hussainb72]

you have the option that let enemy ships sink your ship and make environmental disaster or you sink enemy ship and let them make that environmental disaster. by the way the only Nuclear ships make environmental disaster , normal ship will make fantastic artificial reefs for marine life to flourish around it.


hitting above deck like what it did , could not damage hanit enough so it need a tug to go to port , and it was fixed very soon. and hanit is small and week structure , consider what little it could do against a cruiser. there is no choice it must hit lower . the lower it fly , the harder to intercept it and the higher the damage would be .

It's not really a good idea to sink a ship in the gulf, whether it is a nuclear powered or not. The gulf is too shallow and if a ship sinks in an area that is a route used to move in and out, it will be blocked and has to be cleared so that large ships can pass through the area again.

 

[Hack-Hook]

It's not really a good idea to sink a ship in the gulf, whether it is a nuclear powered or not. The gulf is too shallow and if a ship sinks in an area that is a route used to move in and out, it will be blocked and has to be cleared so that large ships can pass through the area again.

No it's not a bad idea . Look at the map ,straight of hormoz is the shallow one , the rest of the Persian Gulf is not that shallow.

By the way if a missile that size fail to sink a small ship like konarak ,you think how will be the damage against a Ticonderoga class ship ?

Sorry if I intrude on the discussion.
Unlike that target that had only limited superstructures therefore the effect of the explosion was free to let off steam outwards, if instead it hit a frigate, a destroyer, a cruisers at that height, it penetrated and exploded, the subsequent wave of impact of the explosion itself would find very few escape routes, this would lead to an overpressure inside which would amplify both the effect of the explosion and internal damage.

Only if like usa leased catamaran the ship is made of aluminum or like our target ships of plywood.
Against an steel or titanium made ship it probable explode at exterior of ship.

 

[hussainb72]

No it's not a bad idea . Look at the map ,straight of hormoz is the shallow one , the rest of the Persian Gulf is not that shallow.

By the way if a missile that size fail to sink a small ship like konarak ,you think how will be the damage against a Ticonderoga class ship ?

First of all, the average depth of the gulf is about 50 meters. So there are some shallow locations, but the main threat will be either at the straight of the Hormoz or near the shores of the arab countries. Both these locations are shallow and you dont want to sink a ship there.
Also regarding the missile that hit the Konark, I have read that it didnt have an explosive warhead. But anyway we have seen the explosive power of Iranian missiles before so you dont have to question this.

 

[sahureka2]

[QUOTE="Hack-Hook]
Only if like usa leased catamaran the ship is made of aluminum or like our target ships of plywood.
Against an steel or titanium made ship it probable explode at exterior of ship.[/QUOTE]

Titanium? It is new to me, which naval unit is made of titanium today?
Steel ?, of course, but today the sheets are not as thick as an Abrams or Leopard tank and the battleships are now retired, therefore when a missile impacts the steel side of a military ship today in Mach 0.8-0.9 or even more, this penetrates inside and it would already cause a lot of damage, then if the explosive charge deflagrates the damage increases exponentially.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Titanium? It is new to me, which naval unit is made of titanium today?
Steel ?, of course, but today the sheets are not as thick as an Abrams or Leopard tank and the battleships are now retired, therefore when a missile impacts the steel side of a military ship today in Mach 0.8-0.9 or even more, this penetrates inside and it would already cause a lot of damage, then if the explosive charge deflagrates the damage increases exponentially.

the sheets are still thicker than what you think and each USA ship that is being built uses more Titanium Alloy Ti-5111 and Ti-6Al-4V ELI than the perevios one in their construction

by the way people posted this picture and made joke about it

but are you aware it managed to sail to its destination

First of all, the average depth of the gulf is about 50 meters. So there are some shallow locations, but the main threat will be either at the straight of the Hormoz or near the shores of the arab countries. Both these locations are shallow and you dont want to sink a ship there.
Also regarding the missile that hit the Konark, I have read that it didnt have an explosive warhead. But anyway we have seen the explosive power of Iranian missiles before so you dont have to question this.

the ship will become a reef that marine life flourish around it

 

[hussainb72]

the ship will become a reef that marine life flourish around it

The deepest point in the strait of hormuz is about 100m, and a US air craft carrier is around 70m. That aircraft carrier has to pass through the route that is 100m to get into or out of the gulf. If you sink the aircraft carrier at that point, the depth will no longer be 100, its gonna become 30m, which means that many large tankers cant use the route anymore. So in a sense, you are blocking the strait partially, and cant use the route anymore.

 

[Oldman1]

Exactly Arminkh Jan,

In a purely military sense, taking a ship out of service is what matters. After that, you can chose to do whatever you want such as take over it, sink it (as last resort) and so on. Downright sinking it and causing 1000's of casualties may force the adversary to do something desperate, including resorting to nuclear systems. This is especially relevant when dealing with trigger happy simpletons like Trump.

I recall an interview with the now current head of IRGC, Gen Salami where he said during a conflict they are not necessarily looking to sink the ships.

Sinking an American carrier won't lead to nuclear weapons launch on Iran unless Iran uses nukes. Just mean more bombings. You know conventional bombing kills more than nukes right?

No it's not a bad idea . Look at the map ,straight of hormoz is the shallow one , the rest of the Persian Gulf is not that shallow.

By the way if a missile that size fail to sink a small ship like konarak ,you think how will be the damage against a Ticonderoga class ship ?


Only if like usa leased catamaran the ship is made of aluminum or like our target ships of plywood.
Against an steel or titanium made ship it probable explode at exterior of ship.

U.S. ships are mostly made of kevlar and steel. And it won't be as thick as battleships of the old. But there are alot of compartments. The Nimitz class and Ford class has hundreds of them, so its contains the blast. Thats why you have yet to see U.S. ships with big holes in them and not yet sunk in missile era. Whether USS Cole style or accidents or USS Stark. Makes it hard to sink them.