Surveying Iranian Anti-ship ballistic missile capability

[LeGenD]

The 'stationary target' was 1/10th of the size of a US carrier, so you do the math.

Bro, no one is questioning the accuracy of this missile. We have seen its footage.

However, my point is about the complexity of hitting 'moving' targets.

ASBM is a new concept and requires extensive testing to prove its worth.

I am sure it gonna have a longer range than the combat radius of the US aircrafts.

Depends upon what kind of aircraft you are talking about.

And range is not an issue for US.

 

[SOHEIL]

 

[LeGenD]

No need to mind. My point is valid and endorsed officially.

Pakistan Navy uses Harpoon Block II cruise missiles for anti-ship purposes. It has also acquired Chinese C602 cruise missiles for the same purpose. Cruise missile is a combat proven platform for engaging mobile targets.

ASBM sounds like a gimmick until proven.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

ASBM is a new concept and requires extensive testing to prove its worth.

Besides a 650kg - 1 ton conventional warhead sufficient to sink an American aircraft carrier?

 

[LeGenD]

Besides a 650kg - 1 ton conventional warhead sufficient to sink an American aircraft carrier?

Modern Aircraft Carriers are not so easy to sink. They are compartmentalized and have their own defensive capabilities. They can also move fast.

In addition, are you comparing ASBM with cruise missile? Why so much fuss about ASBM when more mature platforms exist to engage mobile targets?

ASBM seems like a desperate attempt to make-up for lack of long range cruise missiles.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

ASBM sounds like a desperate attempt to make-up for lack of long range cruise missiles.

True! ASBM never made sense to me, its like using long range artillery to hit a mobile target capable of moving 3 dimensionally. However assuming in a volley ASBM one of them hits the target, 1 ton of conventional warhead seems sufficient to affect the operational capabilities of the AC.

Take the instance of 1967 USS Forrestal fire

1967_USS_Forrestal_fire

The damage does look extensive

 

[Hack-Hook]

Modern Aircraft Carriers are not so easy to sink. They are compartmentalized and have their own defensive capabilities. They can also move fast.

In addition, are you comparing ASBM with cruise missile? Why so much fuss about ASBM when more mature platforms exist to engage mobile targets?

ASBM seems like a desperate attempt to make-up for lack of long range cruise missiles.

Well ,we have cruise missile with the range of this ballistic missile and its not a desperate act ,its far harder to intercept a ballistic missile
and here the problem is not sinking an aircraft carrier ,after all nobody like to sank a nuclear reactor near its shore , specially in places like persian gulf which its water turnover is about 50 year . You want harm it enough that it cant be used as a platform to lzunch any more airplane and for that Anti ship ballistic missiles are ideal they simply penetfate the hull from upside and detonate inside the target and made it impossible for the ship to operate normally while the ship still can go away to its mother port for repair and maintenance .
Also don't forget that this missiles usually carry 2-3 time explossives compared to missiles like harpoon .

If you look at missiles like harpoon they explode outside the ship and the explosion damage external hull and do little dammages inside the ship so a carrier that have been hit by several harpoon still can launch its aircrafts .

 

[Arian]

Besides a 650kg - 1 ton conventional warhead sufficient to sink an American aircraft carrier?

If it travels at supersonic speeds when it's coming down on the target, why not? a 650 kilogram warhead is huge.

Modern Aircraft Carriers are not so easy to sink. They are compartmentalized and have their own defensive capabilities. They can also move fast.

In addition, are you comparing ASBM with cruise missile? Why so much fuss about ASBM when more mature platforms exist to engage mobile targets?

ASBM seems like a desperate attempt to make-up for lack of long range cruise missiles.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong please, but a quasi-ballistic missile like Persian Gulf would strike the carrier vertically and with a very high speed, as wikipedia suggests the missile travels at 3 machs, if that speed is for the final phase, then it's very lethal. Imagine a 650 kg projectile coming at you almost vertically at 3 machs. That's more lethal than a conventional cruise missile that usually travels at subsonic speeds and hits with a lower angle measured horizontally. Moreover, a quasi-ballistic missile is less vulnerable to electronic warfare because it could get programmed for the target before it's launched and it doesn't need to have continual connection to correct its trajectory by the operator.

Iran produces short-range cruise missiles, but why does it need a long-range cruise missile to hit US aircraft carriers? Moreover, we don't wanna sink them, we just wanna hit them and leave them crippled so they can't be used as 'moving airports' for the USAF to bomb us to the stone age, for that purpose, the PG is very effective I think.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

If it travels at supersonic speeds when it's coming down on the target, why not? a 650 kilogram warhead is huge.

Sinking USS Oriskany in controlled explosions seemed difficult. Wondering 1 ton explosives can achieve the same.

 

[Hack-Hook]

True! ASBM never made sense to me, its like using long range artillery to hit a mobile target capable of moving 3 dimensionally. However assuming in a volley ASBM one of them hits the target, 1 ton of conventional warhead seems sufficient to affect the operational capabilities of the AC.

Take the instance of 1967 USS Forrestal fire

1967_USS_Forrestal_fire

The damage does look extensive

the problem is you compare an AShBM with a missile like scud , a modern ballistic missile is far more advanced and can have both midcourse and terminal flight path correction , a missile like fateh-110 can even change its flight pattern from ballistic mode to glide mode and again enter into ballistic flight pattern

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Well ,we have cruise missile with the range of this ballistic missile and its not a desperate act ,its far harder to intercept a ballistic missile

This is misconception , in the Gulf war , Patriot batteries were capable of intercepting the TBMs, but failed when it came to cruise missiles.

Cruise Missile Challenge

While US and Kuwaiti
Patriot theater ballistic missile defense (TBMD) batteries intercepted and destroyed all nine Iraqi ballistic missiles launched at military targets, they failed to detect or intercept any of the five HY-2/CSSC-3 Seersucker cruise missiles launched against Kuwait. One came close to hitting Camp Commando, the US Marine Corps headquarters in Kuwait, on the first day of the war. Another landed just outside a shopping mall in Kuwait City. The missiles also contributed to fratricide, causing the loss of two coalition aircraft and the death of three crewmembers.1

 

[LeGenD]

Well ,we have cruise missile with the range of this ballistic missile and its not a desperate act ,its far harder to intercept a ballistic missile

Bro, truth is opposite. Cruise missiles are harder to detect and defeat.

and here the problem is not sinking an aircraft carrier ,after all nobody like to sank a nuclear reactor near its shore , specially in places like persian gulf which its water turnover is about 50 year . You want harm it enough that it cant be used as a platform to lzunch any more airplane and for that Anti ship ballistic missiles are ideal they simply penetfate the hull from upside and detonate inside the target and made it impossible for the ship to operate normally while the ship still can go away to its mother port for repair and maintenance .

This is interesting.

Also don't forget that this missiles usually carry 2-3 time explossives compared to missiles like harpoon.

Yes.

But cruise missiles of various sizes are also developed. Their payload capacity varies accordingly.

If you look at missiles like harpoon they explode outside the ship and the explosion damage external hull and do little dammages inside the ship so a carrier that have been hit by several harpoon still can launch its aircrafts .

Solution: do not aim at hulls.

Look at this:

True! ASBM never made sense to me, its like using long range artillery to hit a mobile target capable of moving 3 dimensionally. However assuming in a volley ASBM one of them hits the target, 1 ton of conventional warhead seems sufficient to affect the operational capabilities of the AC.

Take the instance of 1967 USS Forrestal fire

1967_USS_Forrestal_fire

The damage does look extensive

It would be important to learn about the safety systems implemented in existing US aircraft carriers.

Compartmentalization like below increases the survivability and damage control capability in a large aircraft carrier:

Furthermore, US will soon field aircraft that will not require runways.

 

[ihealugo]

even if the ship don't sink , all of the workers will die because of the explosion!

 

[Hack-Hook]

cruise missile are not harder to detect in the sea , its harder to get a lock on it as the radio wave tend to go crazy near water , one ti e radar show the missile 30m under water and one time it show it 50m about it , by the way it wont change the fact that it is harder to intercept a ballistic missile compared to a cruise missile .

About the size of the warhead yes its possible to make the warhead bigger ,but by doing so you had to make a very big cruise missile that is slower and have less mobility ,for example loo, at silkworm missile

About not aiming at the hull , well i dont think you usually tell ghese missiles to hit an specific point of the ship , its by chance if they hit huke , bridge or any other places .

About the pictures ,i'm using my mobile so i cant see them , later when iwent home i'll comment on them

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

First of all anyone who says cruise missile are harder to stop is a moron and obviously has no Idea what they are talking about.
the only advantage is a cruise missile has over a ballistic missile is that is flies under the radar.

having said that this Persian gulf missile is NOT a ballistic missile, it is what is called a quasi ballistic missile,
.
here is definition of a quasi missile:A quasi ballistic missile (also called a semi ballistic missile) is a category of missile that has a low trajectory and/or is largely ballistic but can perform maneuvers in flight or make unexpected changes in direction and range.[citation needed.
At a lower trajectory than a ballistic missile, a quasi ballistic missile can maintain higher speed, thus allowing its target less time to react to the attack, at the cost of reduced range.


America SM-3 cannot be uses against this as this missile flies too low, however the SM-2 probably could be uses but I am still not sure how effective it would be, anyway even assuming all the SM-2 can hit this missile then question is how long can USA keep it up for? I mean Iran will have so many so this missile that USA will have no chance of defeating it.