Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[Philosopher]

Well the Kh 31 is much smaller than the P 270 and the YJ 12, but yea, they all follow a general form to achieve such supersonic speeds.

Such a shame we do not have a closer up of that mockup. To my eyes it is different to the KH-31. The Iranian system appears to be of an overall sleeker design.

Some interesting points from the above Fars article:

1) 3rd generation of supersonic missiles: I will await to hear the words directly from the commander before making full judgement. He may meant these supersonic systems are the 3rd generation of Iranian cruise missiles rather than the 3rd generation of supersonic systems.
2) He is emphasising mainly on the turbofan, I wonder if they possible they are working on a purely turbofan supersonic system. I am still going for a 2 stage air-breathing/solid fuelled system for now.
3) He is talking about the range of next generation missile being "bedazzling". This is obviously linked the design of a much more efficient turbofan engine.

 

[Hack-Hook]

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

 

[Mithridates]

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

the missile looks for commanding bridge.

 

[Hack-Hook]

the missile looks for commanding bridge.

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 .

 

[Shawnee]

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 .

Iranian target ships rarely sink because they have multiple inside floating chambers to make them multiple-use targets. I heard it in like 2012 in a question back then.
........

 

[hussainb72]

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 .

I think that disabling a ship is better tgank sinking it. You can later capture the ship and maybe even use the equipment on it for research, or even rebuild the super structure and equip it with Iranian made equipment and bring it to service, but I am not sure if the latter is feasible or not.

Also 1 more thing that I forgot to mention is that it's easier to disable a ship than to sink it. You would need less missiles to disable a large destroyers compared to the amount needed to sink one. And it wouldn't really make a difference because in both cases, it will no longer act as a threat.

 

[Hack-Hook]

I think that disabling a ship is better tgank sinking it. You can later capture the ship and maybe even use the equipment on it for research, or even rebuild the super structure and equip it with Iranian made equipment and bring it to service, but I am not sure if the latter is feasible or not.

Israeli ship didn't vet disabled

I think that disabling a ship is better tgank sinking it. You can later capture the ship and maybe even use the equipment on it for research, or even rebuild the super structure and equip it with Iranian made equipment and bring it to service, but I am not sure if the latter is feasible or not.

Also 1 more thing that I forgot to mention is that it's easier to disable a ship than to sink it. You would need less missiles to disable a large destroyers compared to the amount needed to sink one. And it wouldn't really make a difference because in both cases, it will no longer act as a threat.

My examples was against real ships

 

[hussainb72]

Israeli ship didn't vet disabled

Well that was 1 missile only and it hit relatively low. If they had launches 2 or 3 and those missiles had hit the superstructure, the ship would be disabled.

 

[TheImmortal]

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

Destroyers are built to survive hits below waterline. Hitting lower to disable a ship is a fallacy.

Only way you will sink a destroyer if you penetrate to ammo bay and cause a chain reaction.

Going for command and control center is head of the snake. Ship will finished.

 

[sahureka2]

As written above, a missile rarely sinks a military ship directly, but manages to seriously disable it and put it out of action, even to sink the Israeli destroyer Eilat, 3 gigantic SS-N 2 Styx missiles were needed that had an explosive charge of 450 kg.
Although they are old weapons, 533 mm torpedoes are the most devastating weapons if they hit a ship, the South Koreans have been the most recent witnesses.

 

[skyshadow]

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

its 2 meter above the sea how much low a missile should go to get recognized around here? ahhhhh

 

[Aramagedon]

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

You should find an icecream shop for your needs ... You cannot find it in " Iranian Missiles " thread ...

 

[Sina-1]

its 2 meter above the sea how much low a missile should go to get recognized around here? ahhhhh

Some analysts put it well below 2m even.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1273563418474229760

 

[Dariush the Great]

its 2 meter above the sea how much low a missile should go to get recognized around here? ahhhhh

he means he wanted the missile to hit exactly the side

 

[Aramagedon]

he means he wanted the missile to hit exactly the side

Something that is impossible.