Surveying Iranian Anti-ship ballistic missile capability

[Arian]

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,
.

That is exactly what I said, a quasi-ballistic missile isn't the same thing as a ballistic missile.

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

That is exactly what I said, a quasi-ballistic missile isn't the same thing as a ballistic missile.

That is because they are retards, I mean how retarded do you have to be to say a cruise missile is harder to stop than a ballistic missile?

 

[twilight]

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

Is more than enough ..... this missile can make a hole in Aircraft carrier even if you exchange its warhead with Iron !!!

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

Is more than enough ..... this missile can make a hole in Aircraft carrier even if you exchange its warhead with Iron !!!

it will not be just one hitting this ship.

 

[SOHEIL]

it will not be just one hitting this ship.

+ **** !!!

it will not be just one hitting this ship.

+ **** !!!

 

[Aspahbod]

@PERSIAN GOD KING:
فعلا بزار منطقی باهاشون گفتوگو کنیم. اگه اصرار کردن اون وقت میزنیم تو دهنشون

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.

The point is that there is no need to sink the carrier. It is enough to damage the deck so that it's aircraft can't be used.

ASBMs are not just about range. There are only ~60 ABM capable ships in the world while there are many ships that are protected by CIWS and point defense missiles. Also, long range cruise missiles must use turbine engines which makes them both expensive and complex.

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 agree that the missile needs extensive testings. But hitting a moving or stationary target won't be much different if the missile uses an EO/IR seeker in the terminal phase. The only difference is that you need a shore based radar to predict the location of the target ship in the time your missile reaches it. Something similar to the approach that is used in today's anti ballistic missile systems.

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

The opposite is true for naval ships. You can only protect a small area from incoming cruise missiles. This is enough for warships, but not enough for large military bases. While your ABM capability in the ships is much more limited. And don't forget that a short range missile like Khalij Fars is simpler and less expensive than a cruise missile.
And cruise missiles loose their most important advantage in the sea. Their ability to fly at low altitudes to decrease the chance of being detected by radars is useless in the sea for obvious reasons.

 

[SOHEIL]

@PERSIAN GOD KING:
فعلا بزار منطقی باهاشون گفتوگو کنیم. اگه اصرار کردن اون وقت میزنیم تو دهنشون



The point is that there is no need to sink the carrier. It is enough to damage the deck so that it's aircraft can't be used.

ASBMs are not just about range. There are only ~60 ABM capable ships in the world while there are many ships that are protected by CIWS and point defense missiles. Also, long range cruise missiles must use turbine engines which makes them both expensive and complex.



I agree that the missile needs extensive testings. But hitting a moving or stationary target won't be much different if the missile uses an EO/IR seeker in the terminal phase. The only difference is that you need a shore based radar to predict the location of the target ship in the time your missile reaches it. Something similar to the approach that is used in today's anti ballistic missile systems.



The opposite is true for naval ships. You can only protect a small area from incoming cruise missiles. This is enough for warships, but not enough for large military bases. While your ABM capability in the ships is much more limited. And don't forget that a short range missile like Khalij Fars is simpler and less expensive than a cruise missile.
And cruise missiles loose their most important advantage in the sea. Their ability to fly at low altitudes to decrease the chance of being detected by radars is useless in the sea for obvious reasons.

مطمئنی جواب میده !!! فکر نکنم

 

[LeGenD]

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

Bro, read about cruise missiles here; http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Cruise-Missiles.html

Very informative.

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 .

Depends upon how advanced the cruise missile is.

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

I seriously doubt this. Do some digging on benefits of compartmentalization.

That is because they are retards, I mean how retarded do you have to be to say a cruise missile is harder to stop than a ballistic missile?

Try locking on to it.

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.

You will be surprised by SM-3 capabilities.

"This next-generation variant of the SM-3 is critical to the ballistic missile defense of the U.S. and our allies, because it can defeat the more sophisticated threats emerging around the world today," said Dr. Taylor Lawrence, Raytheon Missile Systems president.

Is more than enough ..... this missile can make a hole in Aircraft carrier even if you exchange its warhead with Iron !!!

One missile will not be enough.

Look at the size of this thing;

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_CVN-71_Theodore_Roosevelt_Cutaway_lg.jpg

 

[Major Shaitan Singh]

If the missile do hit the runway of the carrier it will be very difficult to operate it.

 

[LeGenD]

If the missile do hit the runway of the carrier it will be very difficult to operate it.

Modern US aircraft carriers are lot more well defended and stronger then these old ones.

Just read this article: Can China Sink A U.S. Aircraft Carrier? - Forbes

And of course, US aircraft carriers are equipped with long range cruise missiles and their is no need to bring them close to shores during major combat situations.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Bro, read about cruise missiles here; Defeating Cruise Missiles

Very informative.


Depends upon how advanced the cruise missile is.

informative but still don't change the fact ,the problem with detecting cruise missiles that hug water is not detecting it as according to your article there are many devices for the job , the problem is getting the exact location to counter it .
and by the way defeating a cruse missile after detecting it still is far easier than destroying a ballistic missile .

and the only way i knew that allow you tell a cruise missile to hit which part of ship is using EO and manual control in the final phase of the attack which is a little outdated , a modern missile is usually fire and forget to make it more resistant against jamming .

by the way i wonder how come you scratch out the possibility of ASBM because they are not proven concepts in actual war but when it come to SM3 then it wont be any problem

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

Try locking on to it.

Is that seriously your only answer to my point that ballistic missile are MUCH harder to defeat than cruise missile?

You will be surprised by SM-3 capabilities.

"This next-generation variant of the SM-3 is critical to the ballistic missile defense of the U.S. and our allies, because it can defeat the more sophisticated threats emerging around the world today," said Dr. Taylor Lawrence, Raytheon Missile Systems president.

Do you not read what people comment? SM-3 cannot defeat a QUASI ballistic missile because it flies too low.
wtf, dude read the what people write then maybe you will learn something.

 

[Wet Shirt Contest]

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.


Depends upon what kind of aircraft you are talking about.

And range is not an issue for US.

No Not a new concept! Some countries tried but failed,
maneuver a warhead to hit moving target (60km) required tons of complex calculations and near real time information in short ASBM is waste of time and resources.

A ramjet powered hyper-sonic cruise missile sounds more real to me!
Goodday

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

No Not a new concept! Some countries tried but failed,
maneuver a warhead to hit moving target (60km) required tons of complex calculations and near real time information in short ASBM is waste of time and resources.

A ramjet powered hyper-sonic cruise missile sounds more real to me!
Goodday

This is not a warhead, this missile and the warhead do not separate in this case.
what us wrong with you people? you are on a military forum and you try and talk but you are clueless.

a QUASI ballistic missile is not a tradition BALLISTIC missile.
this missile can easy make changes in it's direction provided the change it not too big, so assuming the OTH radar send it close to the target initially then if they target is moving then this missile will have no problem hitting it.

 

[Wet Shirt Contest]

This is not a warhead you fool, this missile and the warhead do not separate in this case.
what us wrong with you people? you are on a military forum and you try and talk but you are clueless.

a QUASI ballistic missile is not a tradition BALLISTIC missile.
this missile can easy make changes in it's direction provided the change it not too big, so assuming the OTH radar send it close to the target initially then if they target is moving then this missile will have no problem hitting it.

Learn To debate 1st, respect forum members,
You are an complete idiot who thinks a quasi can hit moving targets, Iranian physics at it's best....
they are accurate No Doubt, but hitting a moving target is a different ball game. (even Indian K series cant)

post a CREDIBLE video which shows some Iranian ASBM hitting a moving target till than keep dreaming fanboy!

posting some useless articles don't make you smarter or credible...
in my ignore list