The weapon that could defeat the US in the Gulf

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

It really has become tough for the muslims to differentiate between defeat, humiliating defeat and total anihhilation. At other time they have a difficulty amongst differentiating between a battle and a war.

So here it is---40 times more lebanese are killed----10 to 15 billion dollars in damages----israel strikes at will where it wants to when it wants to----you see winning is a frame of mind-----and the definition in the dictionary does not really justify unless you research the ethnic structure of the foes.

So, here it is what it really comes down to. Previously----under similiar circumstances----2000 to 2500 muslims would have been killed as compared to some 30 odd israelis----the damage would have been there-----no israeli tanks would have been damaged------some israeli trucks would have been destroyed. But now with newer game plan, the loss in life was lesser, property damage was there, israel could fly un-obstructed, but the loss of merkavas was shocking. Well, if you look at it that way, indeed the victory was for the muslims.

What a terrifying price to pay----but indeed we are getting closer in numbers aren't we!

 

[Mercenary]

Relying on the Sunburn Missile to defeat the US Navy is ridiculous.

USA can take out the launch sites well before those missiles are launched.

This reminds me of the Muslims rallying behind Saddam Hussein and his Scud missiles to defeat the US forces in the Gulf

 

[Bull]

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. .

The new exocet has a range of 180 Km and USN would also be armed with harpoon which is stated to have a range of max 315 km

 

[Bull]

One missile - a untested sunburn..thats all what the author could come out after writing a 10,000 word thesis.

Thats plain bullshit, anybody who thinks that US is going to send the navy first to tackle Iran could be wrong.

USN might keep a safe distance and use the AWACS operating from Carriers and nuke subs to take out the average IRN.

While the USAF is busy target practising.

And the assumption of Iran would attack troops in Qatar,Bahrain and Saudi would be the best option for US.Remember what happened during Gulf War-1,US overplayed the threat posed by Iraq to other middle eastern countries and used it to their end.

 

[Contrarian]

I believe the Brahmos is superior to the Sunburn??

 

[Bull]

I believe the Brahmos is superior to the Sunburn??

Tht write up ws another pice of rubbish.Saddam called the gulf war the mother of all wars, and then what happened even before the goddadmn TV crew could make it the war was over and saddam was found hiding in some shithole.

They all do this chest thumping before war,once the war starts and they start getting whipped they start whinning and crying,and when the war stops they celebrate victory.

 

[Contrarian]

Yes, but im talking from a technical POV.

Is the BrahMos superior to the Sunburn?


And yeah your point is taken, in lebanon, the lebnedse forces declared victory? Pure Bullsh*t. They got whopped. Lobbing some stupid grenades or rockets inside israel makes them think they won! Bloody propaganda and whats weird is that some people take it as a victory.

But lets stick to a comparison b/w BrahMos and Sunburn.

 

[Bull]

Yes, but im talking from a technical POV.
Is the BrahMos superior to the Sunburn?

But lets stick to a comparison b/w BrahMos and Sunburn.

Brahmos has a speed of Mach 2.8,a range of 290 km and can carry a conventional warhead of 200 kg.
Sunburn has a speed of Mach 2.5, a range of 90 miles(140 km) and can carry a nuke warhead of 200 kiloton.

The area where Sunburn has an edge is bcoz its clear it can carry a nuke,and i havnt seen anybody confirming the same for Brahmos.

In range and speed Brahmos looks better.

 

[niaz]

There is no way any nation today can defeat the US in a straight shoot out.
US can sit back and annihilate any weapon or weapon systems you name with cruise missiles or daisy cutters dropped from 50,000 feet by B-52's. One has to think beyond normal parameters to counter such an overwhelmingly superior force as the US.

In my book;war is undertaken to achieve an objective. Since Isreal didn't achieve their objectives in Lebenon. Israelis were not victors. Whether Hizbollah can claim victory is debatable.

Carrying this argument further, what to do if you cannot defeat the adversary in a conventional war?? The answer is simple; fight an unconventional war, where superiority of the enemy's weapons has little or no effect. Main aim being to bleed the enemy to such an extent that the victory becomes too expensive and thus not worth the effort.

No single weapon is going to defeat US. It has to be a long drawn grinding battle. Afghans have been masters of it; thats why Great Britain, super power of the ninteenth century, was never quite able to vanquish Afghanistan. Regrettably, this is the only way and it involves tremendous human sacrifice from the weak, but what else a weak opponent has if not manpower.

Vietnamese have already demonstrated that US can be defeated. Now Arabs have to do the same. Nuclear weapons achieve the same purpose, make it to costly to attack. Energy/laser weapons are already under deveoplment in the US which will be able to neutralize/ destroy ICMBs at the point of launch. Thus there is no getting away from the fact that ordinary man on the street has to pick up what he can and get help from whereever it comes and must be willing to lay down his life. You may call it terrorism or fight for freedom, you are not going to defeat 'Brute Force' with a single weapon, it has to be a people's war.

 

[Bull]

There is no way any nation today can defeat the US in a straight shoot out.
US can sit back and annihilate any weapon or weapon systems you name with cruise missiles or daisy cutters dropped from 50,000 feet by B-52's. One has to think beyond normal parameters to counter such an overwhelmingly superior force as the US.

In my book;war is undertaken to achieve an objective. Since Isreal didn't achieve their objectives in Lebenon. Israelis were not victors. Whether Hizbollah can claim victory is debatable.

Carrying this argument further, what to do if you cannot defeat the adversary in a conventional war?? The answer is simple; fight an unconventional war, where superiority of the enemy's weapons has little or no effect. Main aim being to bleed the enemy to such an extent that the victory becomes too expensive and thus not worth the effort.

No single weapon is going to defeat US. It has to be a long drawn grinding battle. Afghans have been masters of it; thats why Great Britain, super power of the ninteenth century, was never quite able to vanquish Afghanistan. Regrettably, this is the only way and it involves tremendous human sacrifice from the weak, but what else a weak opponent has if not manpower.

Vietnamese have already demonstrated that US can be defeated. Now Arabs have to do the same. Nuclear weapons achieve the same purpose, make it to costly to attack. Energy/laser weapons are already under deveoplment in the US which will be able to neutralize/ destroy ICMBs at the point of launch. Thus there is no getting away from the fact that ordinary man on the street has to pick up what he can and get help from whereever it comes and must be willing to lay down his life. You may call it terrorism or fight for freedom, you are not going to defeat 'Brute Force' with a single weapon, it has to be a people's war.

Agree.the only way to get US is to bog it down,US public and policy makers have everything but patience.You bog down their infantry and they will start feeling restless.

Talking abt sunburn now is like the talk of scuds and silkworm during pre fulfwar -1 time.

 

[Contrarian]

Yeah i agree, Sunburn is old now. BrahMos is new
I love that missile. Its the best !

 

[sigatoka]

1. At least Iran has US forces with oin strikin range and possily in a confiend space. China not matter how impressive its perceived ability to strike at US carriers still only leaves port at the forebearanc eof the US navy. In the wider deeper waters off China's coast the US Sub fleet are the masters of thier domain.

2.The US can literally sink the linchpin ships the PLAN depends with in 5 minutes of deciding to do so.

3. The same vulnerability also appies to China's airfeilds, rail links, highway bridges, electrical and communications grid, and pipelines.

4. The US can conduct Hyperwar, a very realo and devestating type of attack that can cripple a modern nation in minutes.

1. A chinese u.s. confrontation will only occur in a scenario where China invades Taiwain, not at Midway island.

2. I think 5 minutes is quite an exaggeration, PLAN ships operate close to Chinese mainland where it can rely on airsupport and ground launched anti-ship missiles and anti air cover.

3. U.S. planes won't be waved past by Chinese aircrafts and ground based defences on their way to their targets.


4. Then maybe US should conduct a hyperwar on the sunni insurgents in Iraq against whom it is struggling.

 

[sigatoka]

1. Going after a US carrier with of w/o a declaration of war bring withit a total American commitment to winning or dying trying. Going after a carrier is a totally different ball of wax from funding insurgetns in Iraq, its total war.

2 There are many other aspects that will impose thier own twist on events if either Iran or China decides to commit national suicide. Sure the US might lose a carrier but its foes will lose so much more.

1. The U.S. is struggling to call up another 30,000 troops for Iraq, where will it get the extra 80,000 troops it needs to take on Iran?

2. You might be correct about Iran but certainly not about China. China does have the capacity to fight a brutal war with the U.S. on roughly the same terms, something that Iraqi insurgents do not have but have still managed to inflict 3,000 deaths and 4,000 or so crippled soldiers.

 

[Bull]

1. The U.S. is struggling to call up another 30,000 troops for Iraq, where will it get the extra 80,000 troops it needs to take on Iran?

And you believe them,right.It was America's decision to go to war in Iraq and throw out Saddam they achieved that.Now their troops are bogged down by insurgents,US is making Bush the scapegoat,wha is in his last term an has nothing to lose.The democrats have stepped in as the savious and are saying Bush wont have things his way.Bush will be the scape goat and US will get its majority of troops out or just do the training part for iraqi army and stop all the patrolling.

And then you see you will find more troops available for the next mission.

2. You might be correct about Iran but certainly not about China. China does have the capacity to fight a brutal war with the U.S. on roughly the same terms, something that Iraqi insurgents do not have but have still managed to inflict 3,000 deaths and 4,000 or so crippled soldiers.

Well anybody can bogg down US in a infantry war,US is more focussed on its shock and awe campaign.

 

[sigatoka]

1- Those 140,000 troops are not demoralized, last year the army beat its re-enlistment goal of 60%. I don't care how motivated the Pasadran is, it is completely outclassed in experiance, technology, and doctrine.

2- The Irainian army and airforce are jokes as is thier navy. Thier power projection rests soley on missiles anhd terrorists. There is nothing in Iran's arsenal capable of providing even a modest amount of resistence to the USAF.

3. The Ayatollahs and the zealots that follow them are the minority in Iran and barely in power. The presidetns party lost seats because of his wacko belligerancy. If he pushes his country into ruin by taking on the US, the theocratic state may well fall to internal revolt.

4- China and Russia will protest loudly, and not lift a finger or shed one ounce of blood. They know the rules of the game as well as anyone. Nuclear powers do not engage in direct confrontation over proxies, the stakes are to high. During the Cold War only the US and UK proved willing to bet thier national survival on direct confrontation. The USSR and to a lesser extent PRC always backed down. The US lead in strategic assets right now is such that the US has an unlimited and unchecked first strike capability and at least (in the case of the PRC) limited ABM capability.

5- There is only 1 superpower, The US of A. Do not delude yourself into thinking we have once again re-entered a multi-polar world. That day is still 30-50 years in the future. As Mao said power come sform the bareel of a gun and the US has the biggest guns around, as well as the biggest economy, and being the worlds market. That trifecta of power makes the US legitmate no mater who is in charge.

6 Remember Iran is training insurgents vs both the IDF and vs the USA/UK and in Iraq the Irainian tactics have not been able to ressist a single US assault, and have been forced to use IED's and snipers instead of feild forces like what defeated the IDF in Lebanon. Israel got complacent and got smacked. It won't happen again. Meanwhile the US has been engaged in active fighting for years now and has an army that is almost entirely combat vets.

1. by lowering its intake standards in terms of i.q. The Pasdaran is outclassed in technology and that is about it. In terms of doctrine, if anything it is Iranian doctrine that is superior given it was so effective against a technologically superior Isreali force. It is U.S. warfighting doctrine that has been so ineffective in Iraq. In terms of experience, yes U.S. military personell have learnt many lessons, but with Iranian agents operating throughtout Iraq and Lebanon, I am sure they have learnt as many lessons as the U.S. without losing so much in blood and treasure.

2. To underestimate so much is a mistake, Sunni Iraqi insurgents operate with Kalashnikovs and RPG's and they have a "superpower" on the run.

3. Just like U.S. soldiers were greeted with flowers in Iraq?

4. Russia has and is playing a spoiler role in Iran, supplying advanced weapons, technology and wait for it......a nuclear reactor.


5. U.S. is not a paper tiger but nor is it able to stamp its authority as one would expect of a sole superpower. In fact the world already is "multipolar lite".

6. Its not like the Iranians can freely train Iraqi insurgents, and nor are they freely training them.