DESERT FIGHTER
ELITE MEMBER
![](/styles/default/xenforo/ranks/FieldMarshal.jpg)
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 46,973
- Reaction score
- 95
- Country
- Location
Which engines are used on Q-313,hesa.saqeah etc?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Which engines are used on Q-313,hesa.saqeah etc?
I can't really understand that what IRAN will do against NATO??
With no bases and no air superiority, NATO warships will be like sitting (or even moving) ducks to Iranian antiship, cruise missiles, and the stealthy Qaher-313.
IF you put you ships in the Gulf that is. And I don't see why NATO would need to do that.
If NATO does not need to do that Penguin, what does it need to do ?
Think about all the other possibilities and their consequences, they can use the British islands in the Indian ocean or send ballistic missiles, both will jeopardize the places where they will be sent from and the senders homes too, and much more.
The Idea you do not seem to grasp is that Iran will close the strait of Hormuz, where 40% of the world's oil transits from, so one way or another NATO will have to put its ships in or close to the gulf where they will sink.
It is advisable to not assume about what I grasp and don't grasp. I'll see your education and raise you mine.
The Gulf is not longer than 1000km. Iran's best coastal antiship missile has a range of 200km, maybe 300km. Cruise missile equipped surface ships and submarines can sit well outside that range and strike with impunity. So can carriers.
Operational range s
Tomahawk Block II TLAM-A – 1,350 nmi (1,550 mi; 2,500 km)
Tomahawk Block III TLAM-C, Block IV TLAM-E - 900 nmi (1,000 mi; 1,700 km) Block III TLAM-D - 700 nmi (810 mi; 1,300 km)
Missile de Croisière Naval (MdCN) / Naval Cruise Missile "well over 1000km"
Storm Shadow over 250 kilometres (155 mi)
For example F/A-18E has a range of 722 km for interdiction mission, excluding the range of any stand-off weapon carried. E.g. AGM-158 JASSM: about 230 miles or 370 km (JASSM-ER is intended to have a range of over 575 miles or 925 km). AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon operational range for low altitude launch is 22 kilometres (12 nmi) and high altitude launch is 130 kilometres (70 nmi). AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER (Standoff Land Attack Missile Expanded Response) has a range of 150 miles or 240 km.
Add in landlaunched cruise missile, landbased aviation assets (bombers from Diego Garcia) and do consider your land borders (NATO includes e.g. Turkey). You don't send in ships first or blindly. You can safely assume any serious op would start from with an aircampagne.
Close down Hormuz and see how many friends you will be left with in the world. Most of your own oil (your nr1 export item) goes to Asia, by sea. Keep in mind that at least 1/3 of China's oil imports passes the Strait of Hormuz.... Not to mention Japan, South Korea, India. All of which countries with growing sophisticated naval assets. China is a strategic partner of Iran, supporting its weapons industry and nuclear programs (and the oil is one of the reasons for that). Iran's major commercial partners are China, India, Germany, South Korea, Japan, France, Russia and Italy, so you'ld mostly be hurting your own interests. Asia and Europe are the main investors in Iran, so on that front too you'ld just be shooting yourself in the foot.
Economy of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_113392.pdf
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Also noteworthy is that US is far less dependent on Middle Eastern oil than any these Asian countries. And well situated around the globe
![]()
Check this map of US basing around the world
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol/globalmilitarism58_14.jpg
War IS economics. Shut down Hormuz, really, go ahead. It is a hollow threat.You seem to understand the economics part of it, but not that the war is related to the economics; will those countries you mentioned will allow their economies to sink, what would they do to prevent the war from happening, and in the case of war what would they do?
It means you don't have to send in ships first, which was the point of the discussion.The US has about 1000 bases around the world, but there are bases and there are bases, a base with a few hundred or even a thousand soldiers is not necessarily a base from where to wage a war and that is the case of the majority of the US bases , they are mostly to insure a US presence in case it has to evacuate some of its citizens from those countries, because those friendships are conditional and shaky at best.
Uhm, perhaps take out your command structure, severly limiting Iran's ability to mount a defence against further actions that may be necessary. Incidentally, we were talking NATO and not just US so add in any additional bases owned by Brits and assets belonging to NATO countries neighbouring Iran (that is more than US bases). Point here is that Iran is pretty much surrounded.What the US can achieve by sending cruise missiles or other missiles on Iran, nothing really, apart from having its own bases in the area come under attack which will endanger US allies in the region and the oil flux to NATO itself and the ball will be in NATO's court again, so anyhow the US or NATO will have to send their ships and soldiers to the gulf to face destruction one way or another.
Just like Iran is (mass)producing Qaher-313...?One little fact you seems to miss, Iran has 3000+ km range cruise missiles mass produced locally and are some of the best in the world.
War IS economics. Shut down Hormuz, really, go ahead. It is a hollow threat.
It means you don't have to send in ships first, which was the point of the discussion.
Uhm, perhaps take out your command structure, severly limiting Iran's ability to mount a defence against further actions that may be necessary. Incidentally, we were talking NATO and not just US so add in any additional bases owned by Brits and assets belonging to NATO countries neighbouring Iran (that is more than US bases). Point here is that Iran is pretty much surrounded.
Just like Iran is (mass)producing Qaher-313? Somtime 2001-2005 Ukraine exported 6-12 Kh-55SM to Iran for the purpose of reverse engineering. These have a range of 3,000 km. It is RUMORED Iran has started producing the missiles locally and is working on a longer range version. However, Iran's capacity to indigenously reverse engineer the Kh-55 is open to question. To date much of Iran's experience has been confined to component reverse engineering, rather than complete systems engineering. There is a large gap between reverse engineering individual components, or licence assembling proven designs, in comparison with tearing down a design and re-engineering it from the ground up. If Iran can massproduce a development of KH-55 (Meskat?) then why is it still messing around with a e.g. the armed long range UCAV Karrar (which is clearly inferiour to the KH-55 as strike weapon, being derived from an South African Skua aerial target drone )?
Kh-55 (missile family) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Meshkat (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Karrar (UCAV) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bypassing the NMD - the Cruise Missile Proliferation Problem
Denel deny link with new Iranian drone. | sUAS News
Just the case of Syria now shows that you have to send in ships first, so your arguments that follow that are not to be considered.
Barack Obama’s logic for bombing Syria: The United States will seek to put an end to Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons. - Slate MagazinePresident Obama will likely bomb Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria.
Most telling perhaps is a story in the New York Times, noting that Obama’s national-security aides are studying the 1999 air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for action in Syria.
Russia warns U.S., other nations against Syria action | abc7chicago.comRep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the most likely option appeared to be the U.S. and NATO partners deploying airstrikes against Syrian missile sites, aircraft and other infrastructure that may be used to deploy chemical weapons.
Nato countries 'plan Syria action' | London Evening Standard"The Syrian situation continues to become worse and worse and worse," Admiral James Stavridis, the commander of US European Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "No end is in sight to a vicious civil war."
He said a number of Nato nations are looking at a variety of military operations to end the deadlock and assist the opposition forces, including using aircraft to impose a no-fly zone, providing military assistance to the rebels and imposing arms embargoes.
Missile strikes on Syria likely response to chemical attack - CNN.comMissile strikes on Syria likely response to chemical attack
Earlier Monday, a White House official ruled out sending ground troops to Syria or implementing a no-fly zone to blunt al-Assad's aerial superiority over rebels fighting to oust his regime. The official insisted that all other options were under consideration by Obama but put no time frame on a decision.
Meanwhile, a senior Defense Department official told CNN's Chris Lawrence Monday that four U.S. Navy destroyers "maintain readiness and, if required, could execute a mission within hours" of being ordered to do so.
According to U.S. officials, updated options offered the president in recent days included:
• Cruise missiles fired from one of four Navy destroyers deployed in the Mediterranean Sea. The missiles would be used to strike "command and control" facilities such as command bunkers, or the Syrian regime's means of delivering chemical weapons: artillery batteries and launchers. There is no indication that the missiles would strike at actual chemical weapons stockpiles.
• Military jets firings weapons from outside Syrian airspace. This option carries additional risks and is considered less likely.
Fearing a U.S. strike, Syria warns of global "chaos" - CBS NewsThe kind of international response that might occur is still being debated, but some senior U.S. lawmakers have called for actions similar to the ones NATO and other allies undertook in Libya in 2011: Enforcing a no-fly zone as well as the possibility of missile strikes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...vy-ready-to-launch-first-strike-on-Syria.htmlNavy ready to launch first strike on Syria
Royal Navy vessels are being readied to take part in a possible series of cruise missile strikes, alongside the United States, as military commanders finalise a list of potential targets.
America’s Sixth Fleet currently has four guided missile destroyers in the area, each of which could join the attack.
http://smarkos.blogspot.nl/Western options include strikes by Tornado jets equipped with £500,000-a-shot Storm Shadow long-range cruise missiles which can be fired 150 miles from the target, allowing pilots to avoid the need to come within range of Syrian air defences. The US warships in the region are carrying Tomahawk cruise missiles and Washington has F-16 fighter jets and Patriot missile batteries in Jordan.
If strikes were ordered, they would not be against chemical facilities as they are too mobile and present a risk of widespread contamination. Air defences would be hit first, perhaps initially those close to the Turkish border, as a warning shot. Long-range weapons would be used to avoid western casualties.