What's new

Iranian Navy | News and Discussions

Possibly but not certainly. Israel lacks size to test a 400km BM, hence they are forced to do it at sea.
So this doesn't mean Lora has terminal tracking.

If this missile has 400 km range and it takes time to reach the target that is lets say they tested missile for max range. Then in that case it takes time to reach the target. Some estimate <1~2 minutes depending on the max speed. That float target had to move a bit so I think this missile should have had terminal guidance. If it was tested somewhere in the ground area then US should be the best place to test any kind of long range ballistic missiles for Israel.

If the missile gets in exact 2 minute range then the average speed of the missile is 3,3 km/s!
 
.
Yea yea, SO WAS SADDAM. I dont buy this that much. old arms are not the same as current arms. For one, nobody knows the actual performance or state of Yemeni govt's Ballistic missile arsenal when last did they fire one properly and accurately? HOw come when they find Houth weaponse these days they are never old stocks like you claim? If Houthis were using those "old fake weapons " no one has seen but only knows of via wikipedia, Saudis would have done more damage to them naturally.

How much then???? $1bn? i doubt it!oh please...that money is all distributed, used up, or looted due to corruption. Saudis couldnt have given Zaydi Shia Houthis even a billion USD. BUt Saudis funded AQ in Yemen too...and probably ISIS...doing deals, mostly to keep them from attacking KSA.


considered best guerilla group by WHO? you? where is the paperwork to support this. I am not saying Houthis are not a competent guerilla force, all i'm saying is that you might be exaggerating their actual independent competence and ability as a guerilla group. without Iran those Houthis would be sht now due to Saudi F15s and stuff....Iran worked so well on the back end, some of you just think Houthis are locally working Saudi militarily "seamlessly". Nothing seamless- its mostly Iranian hardwork, intelligence, materials, manpower, experience, innovation,strategy.

1) Which saddam? 1980 saddam 1990 saddam 2003 saddam?

Literally no one on the planet would call 2003 saddam military “heavily armed”.

1990 saddam was severely weakened from fighting Iran for 8 years

2) There have been successfully Houthi BM attacks. I’m not going to spoon feed you information but one famous one was Tochka Missile attack that wiped out a UAE base in Yemen killing tons of soldiers and destroying countless equipment.

3) Houthi’s are a descendants of the same people who fought for Northern Yemen nearly 100 years ago. Since the 1990’s they have been in various armed conflicts.

They are globally recognized as resilient guirella fighters. Again I am not your teacher and don’t have time to educate you on something that you can easily find on the web.

4) Please learn to speak properly on one hand you ask for “paperwork” that demonstrates that Houthi’s are capable fighters and on other hand you engage in baseless accusations without any proof such as the following “oh please...that money is all distributed, used up, or looted due to corruption. Saudis couldnt have given Zaydi Shia Houthis even a billion USD.”

Iran could give Houthi’s the best technology in the world but if they weren’t resilient and Highly capable fighters then they couldn’t fight their way out of a cardboard box let alone take over half a country. US has tried throwing weapons at insurgent groups and they rarely turn into capable force.

While Houthi’s have certainly gotten a boost from Iran’s involvement in Yemen civil war, you clear lack of knowledge and disrespect to Houthi’s as a people and organization is disappointing.

If this missile has 400 km range and it takes time to reach the target that is lets say they tested missile for max range. Then in that case it takes time to reach the target. Some estimate <1~2 minutes depending on the max speed. That float target had to move a bit so I think this missile should have had terminal guidance. If it was tested somewhere in the ground area then US should be the best place to test any kind of long range ballistic missiles for Israel.

If the missile gets in exact 2 minute range then the average speed of the missile is 3,3 km/s!

Its GPS powered according to maker as well as TV guidance, though I saw no evidence of that on the launch video. Floating target has GPS sensor so in latest terminal phase GPS is fed to rocket. GPS is jammable not smart to rely on that during war time.

As you can see the whole rocket hits the target meaning it’s warhead does not separate from missile body. This makes it easier to intercept as it is bigger target on radar and slower due to drag of body.

Furthermore, this rocket does not leave atmosphere thus terminal speed will not be as much as BM, making it easier to intercept.

Not very impressive considering that Iran was supplying HZ with conversion kits that would turn unguided Zezal rockets into 10-15m CEP precision rockets. Don’t believe me then see what Israel said about it.

This is merely an Israeli version of a guided Zezal-Like artillery rocket.
 
.
Its GPS powered according to maker as well as TV guidance, though I saw no evidence of that on the launch video. Floating target has GPS sensor so in latest terminal phase GPS is fed to rocket. GPS is jammable not smart to rely on that during war time.

It didn't make sense to me with regards to test artillery rocket in the middle of the sea with floating target that is moving. Transmitting GPS signal from the floating object and updating coordinates is a reasonable excuse but hardly any moving target will transmit its GPS in real wartime scenario.

Hmm I was thinking if you could launch a salvo of torpedoes from a ballistic missile warhead. Make upper stage enough room to house a torpedo that will rely on its sonar detection of large naval vessels such as tankers and other ships. Imagine 2k range ballistic missile carrier dropping a loitering torpedo into the ocean stuffed with tankers and cargo ships. That would be a slaughter house.:bounce:
Why just relying on submarines when you can dip a torpedo from 2 000+ km range given you have coordinates of enemy positions?

Guys any thoughts on that?
 
. .
It didn't make sense to me with regards to test artillery rocket in the middle of the sea with floating target that is moving. Transmitting GPS signal from the floating object and updating coordinates is a reasonable excuse but hardly any moving target will transmit its GPS in real wartime scenario.

Hmm I was thinking if you could launch a salvo of torpedoes from a ballistic missile warhead. Make upper stage enough room to house a torpedo that will rely on its sonar detection of large naval vessels such as tankers and other ships. Imagine 2k range ballistic missile carrier dropping a loitering torpedo into the ocean stuffed with tankers and cargo ships. That would be a slaughter house.:bounce:
Why just relying on submarines when you can dip a torpedo from 2 000+ km range given you have coordinates of enemy positions?

Guys any thoughts on that?

A torpedo is 1-3 tones and cannot fit into a warhead easily.
.........
 
.
It didn't make sense to me with regards to test artillery rocket in the middle of the sea with floating target that is moving. Transmitting GPS signal from the floating object and updating coordinates is a reasonable excuse but hardly any moving target will transmit its GPS in real wartime scenario.

Hmm I was thinking if you could launch a salvo of torpedoes from a ballistic missile warhead. Make upper stage enough room to house a torpedo that will rely on its sonar detection of large naval vessels such as tankers and other ships. Imagine 2k range ballistic missile carrier dropping a loitering torpedo into the ocean stuffed with tankers and cargo ships. That would be a slaughter house.:bounce:
Why just relying on submarines when you can dip a torpedo from 2 000+ km range given you have coordinates of enemy positions?

Guys any thoughts on that?

Torpedos are rather archaic technology as they require the sub to get close to the enemy. Almost all modern submarines use either SLCM or SLBM are their primary offensive firepower. Furthermore, in the future drone submarines can do what you ask.

A supersonic or hypersonic CM can also do what you request. Any serious world power (China or Russia) building a true anti ship BM is going to attach a small tactical nuke to the front in order to obliterate the entire carrier group. Iran is one of the few countries building conventional anti ship BMs.
 
.
.Hmm I was thinking if you could launch a salvo of torpedoes from a ballistic missile warhead. Make upper stage enough room to house a torpedo that will rely on its sonar detection of large naval vessels such as tankers and other ships. Imagine 2k range ballistic missile carrier dropping a loitering torpedo into the ocean stuffed with tankers and cargo ships. That would be a slaughter house.:bounce:
Why just relying on submarines when you can dip a torpedo from 2 000+ km range given you have coordinates of enemy positions?

Guys any thoughts on that?

This concept is really hard to implement because when a ballistic missile is launched, it will reach a very high speed when it's in the reentry phase. This very high speed is one of the things that makes ballistic missiles a very good option to use against targets as the current air defence systems cant defend against high speed missiles (hypersonic missiles) properly, and there are few that might be able to get a small success rate but wont really be able to shoot it every single time. So for you to be able to pack torpedoes into such a missile, you would need to reduce the speed of the reentry vehicle so much so that when the torpedo is released, it wont just hit the water's surface and break into pieces instead of penetrating the surface of the water. Also even if the torpedo is designed to be able to penetrate the water surface at high speeds, there is a chance of something going wrong. Reducing the speed of the ballistic missile's reentry vehicle would simply make it an easy target to shoot at.
 
.
well ,economically yes , militarily I don't think so . he even increased military production output to become an exporter of such systes

Merely a paper tiger.

Here’s an article from 1990 before Gulf War even was a thought, that describes their military quite accurately and foreshadows the brutal defeat Saddam would later face.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-08-13-mn-465-story.html?_amp=true

2006 HZ fought Israel to a standstill. 1990 Iraq would get their *** wiped.

The difference? Quality of man. Saddam lost his best troops during the Iran-Iraq war then later began awarding military positions based on loyalty and sect rather than capability, the downfall of any dictatorship is despotism.
 
. .
that could very well be a mini torpedo:lol::lol::lol:

rPpEP6aNQjwwDPt9Qv_gQBUYujLccGlXRORbAB0bGOjqh5COUcIf63kGLHmWTyc73FS252jwX43krj5Yj9QHbYGXyvSRzLAGDsmU




2 unknown unmanned submarines and one
robot

Untitled.jpg


Untitlesd.jpg


Untitlesdd.jpg





Sahere ( Witch ) torpedo.

Utntitlesdd.jpg


Utntvitlesdd.jpg
 
Last edited:
. . .
. . .
Back
Top Bottom