Iran Mass-Producing Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles

[Cheetah786]

So in your world, missiles are the ultimate weapon. Missiles will always get through, always function, cannot be stopped. ECM/IRCM is useless, ABMs deployed since the 1960's and improved for decades are worthless...

Let's scrap everything except ballistic missiles. They are like flying terminators. Nothing can stop them.

If they could stop them you would not be spending billions on missile defense system no where i said to scrap any thing if u wanna twist my words more power to you.

i am not a military person but i am pretty sure most nations working on missiles no about the ecm and probably will built in a system to protect it from ecm about IRCM what you are going to start firing flares in the air hopping missile takes the bite and in the mean time move a big naval ship out of Missiles way .

during the last Israel Lebanon war a Israeli boat took a missile and had to be towed reason givin its defense systems were of really so during war war ships defense systems were off Really.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Congrats to Iran , of course Saudia is our eternal friend but in these times we must all forget differences and unit

But fantastic missile fancy words on the thing as well

Iranain missile program and its peaceful nuclear program is a beacon of democracy in whole region and really very impressive

One iranian colleague posted his iranian pictures of their cities beautiful culture and cities just wonderful

If Iran did not had all the sanctions they would be SUPER POWER RIGHT NOW in my opinion they are same level as Turkey in term of innovation and hunger for learning

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Last year they launched a Rocket in Space capable of travelling up in altitude above all known human defences - ehm .. ehm

 

[applesauce]

Last year they launched a Rocket in Space capable of travelling up in altitude above all known human defences - ehm .. ehm

that would means higher than 531 miles at least(height at which the 2007 chinese test took place) given that its Iran what meaningful payload(warheads) can they send up there. the best that we know of so far is they plan(as in not finish development yet) to have in service a rocket which can carry a 130lb load into a 310 mile orbit.

 

[Jigs]

but they are not 100% effective so.............................................

RIM-116 is more for point defense so it could have a lesser probably of interception however i very much doubt the SM-3 (Which has shot satellites out of space) Having trouble stopping a short distance ballistic missile. Especially since they work off the AEGIS system.

YouTube - US Navy SM-3 Missile Intercept a damaged spy satellite

Ticonderoga class also has tomahawk cruise missiles. Not only can it intercept incoming missiles(with the SM-3) but it can launch tomahawks at targets over 2,500km (1550 mi) away.

Oh and it doesn't have 5 or 10 of these. Each ship can carry a mix of over 122 missiles through its VLS system. Tell me does Iran have the capability to even launch that many at ships let alone the capability to have to intercept it. Also these battle groups don't just sit around they are operating while on the move.

 

[500]

- The barge seemed stationary. Its coordinates could simply have been alimented into the guidance. Still this means, tremendously low CEP.

Yeah most prolly GPS guidance.

- Signs of support infrastructure for such a capability was not evident from the video. Of course, it could simply have been not shown. But the radar that detects ships out to 1000km, does it also guide the missile to it? Can it? China uses satellites as well as other over-the-horizon sensors for theirs, can Iran do without?

Cant.

- The rocket's payload doesn't separate from the body, so this kind of accuracy might not be achievable outside this kind of controlled environment. Also, 300km seems an exaggeration for the rocket's range, they used to say it was 250km, and it should decrease with all the add-on guidance.

200 km at most.

Again, the payload has to be quite small if it fits in that nosecone, would it suffice for a carrier?

Not enough to sink but can easily take it out of action.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

Hey jack A.s.s name the last country Iran attacked.

Using proxies, since 1979:
Lebanon
Syria
Jordan
Iraq (post 2003)
Pakistan
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Afghanistan.

They are alleged to have employed subversive groups against the interests of the above, and for their interest in many other countries, from Europe e.g. Turkey and Bosnia down till Africa e.g. Sudan.

They don't have to engage in active war when they are adept at a less risky alternative.

I'm not bringing the one major war into the equation - the Iran-Iraq War, since Iraq was the apparent initial aggressor, but we can't discount the fact that Iran was instigating things against the new Saddam regime. They do have massive, massive influence in that country and can marshal the population against its govt. today if they wanted.

 

[lonelyone]

double post, see below.

 

[lonelyone]

Using proxies, since 1979:
Syria
Jordan
Iraq (post 2003)
Pakistan
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Afghanistan.

They are alleged to have employed subversive groups against the interests of the above, and for their interest in many other countries, from Europe e.g. Turkey and Bosnia down till Africa e.g. Sudan.

They don't have to engage in active war when they are adept at a less risky alternative.

I'm not bringing the one major war into the equation - the Iran-Iraq War, since Iraq was the apparent initial aggressor, but we can't discount the fact that Iran was instigating things against the new Saddam regime. They do have massive, massive influence in that country and can marshal the population against its govt. today if they wanted.

Why not also include Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and The Amazonian tribal people of the U'zumboto also to your fictional list of countries Iran attacks using proxies?

And tell me, if you blame Iran for using proxies why don't you also blame the West, which has proxy groups (some hostile, some non-hostile but will turn hostile if needed) in every single country in the world?

 

[below_freezing]

So in your world, missiles are the ultimate weapon. Missiles will always get through, always function, cannot be stopped. ECM/IRCM is useless, ABMs deployed since the 1960's and improved for decades are worthless...

Let's scrap everything except ballistic missiles. They are like flying terminators. Nothing can stop them.

ABM systems are truly not reliable especially against numerous ballistic missiles flying on shallow trajectories or that are maneuverable. In fact, wouldn't shallow trajectory missiles be flying below the radar horizon of far away ships until there was very small reaction time to shoot it down?

The reliability part is present in all manufactured products, just increase the number. Again it's not saying countermeasures are useless, it's saying that the countermeasures may not provide enough protection if the efficiency is too low and the unit cost of the missile is low. And of course any country's defense is multidimensional, the missiles form only part of an integrated defense system consisting of SAMs, AAA, fighters, ground based anti-ship missiles, subs and surface boats.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

Why not also include Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and The Amazonian tribal people of the U'zumboto also to your fictional list of countries Iran attacks using proxies?

And tell me, if you blame Iran for using proxies why don't you also blame the West, which has proxy groups (some hostile, some non-hostile but will turn hostile if needed) in every single country in the world?

Because we were talking about Iran, not the USA. If we did we could easily include every inhabitant of the planet.

 

[Chogy]

I'm not denying the dangers posed by ballistic missiles. I am denying the notion that ABM technology will never be able to work. ABM research is proceeding strongly because it is beginning to bear fruit.

Like armor on a tank, vs. anti-tank weapons. The two progress hand in hand over the decades. If you could take a modern battle tank back in time, it could roam a WW2 battlefield at will and remain totally unscathed, and likewise, a modern (and cheap) RPG could totally trash any WW2 tank.

In the same way, missiles/anti-missile technology progress together. High-speed digital electronics and AESA radars are making what would normally be a hopeless task (intercepting a warhead) possible.

 

[casual]

I'm not denying the dangers posed by ballistic missiles. I am denying the notion that ABM technology will never be able to work. ABM research is proceeding strongly because it is beginning to bear fruit.

Like armor on a tank, vs. anti-tank weapons. The two progress hand in hand over the decades. If you could take a modern battle tank back in time, it could roam a WW2 battlefield at will and remain totally unscathed, and likewise, a modern (and cheap) RPG could totally trash any WW2 tank.

In the same way, missiles/anti-missile technology progress together. High-speed digital electronics and AESA radars are making what would normally be a hopeless task (intercepting a warhead) possible.

i understand what you are saying, but you have to consider cost effectiveness. let's just say that the ballistic missile is 60% effective and your ABM system is 90% effective. meaning the ballistic missile has a 6% chance to hit. which means it'll cost you 16-17 missiles to take out a ship.

now let us consider how much a ship cost compared to a missile...

you get the point right?

 

[Chogy]

i understand what you are saying, but you have to consider cost effectiveness. let's just say that the ballistic missile is 60% effective and your ABM system is 90% effective. meaning the ballistic missile has a 6% chance to hit. which means it'll cost you 16-17 missiles to take out a ship.

now let us consider how much a ship cost compared to a missile...

you get the point right?

Of course. A 10 cent bullet can kill a priceless human being with thousands of dollars worth of training behind him. That's why we spray cheap bullets at soldiers. And that's why soldiers wear body armor, kevlar helmets, and take cover. Simplistic, I know, but wars should never be fought with economic thought behind the ordnance selection. For example, I've heard of people saying "Why waste a $100,000 maverick missile into a $5,000 pickup truck?" or "Why shoot down a $10,000 drone with a $400,000 AMRAAM?" But the cost of NOT doing so might be lives lost, a battle lost, a war lost, because we don't know what those assets would do if we spare them from destruction.

I'm getting sidetracked a bit. Will missiles destroy the objects they are aimed at? Yes. Will missiles alone win a war? No, unless they are nuclear. Will one missile like the one shown send a carrier to the bottom? No, not a chance. They are simply one more weapon among dozens that a ship faces. They are neither invincible, nor game-changing. But they are a threat.

I also believe people are vastly underestimating the difficulty in hitting a moving warship far out at sea.

 

[casual]

Of course. A 10 cent bullet can kill a priceless human being with thousands of dollars worth of training behind him. That's why we spray cheap bullets at soldiers. And that's why soldiers wear body armor, kevlar helmets, and take cover. Simplistic, I know, but wars should never be fought with economic thought behind the ordnance selection. For example, I've heard of people saying "Why waste a $100,000 maverick missile into a $5,000 pickup truck?" or "Why shoot down a $10,000 drone with a $400,000 AMRAAM?" But the cost of NOT doing so might be lives lost, a battle lost, a war lost, because we don't know what those assets would do if we spare them from destruction.

I'm getting sidetracked a bit. Will missiles destroy the objects they are aimed at? Yes. Will missiles alone win a war? No, unless they are nuclear. Will one missile like the one shown send a carrier to the bottom? No, not a chance. They are simply one more weapon among dozens that a ship faces. They are neither invincible, nor game-changing. But they are a threat.

I also believe people are vastly underestimating the difficulty in hitting a moving warship far out at sea.

instead of thinking in yes/no, you should think in terms of probability.