Surveying Iranian Anti-ship ballistic missile capability

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

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!
in my ignore list

The K series are ballistic missile lol NOT QUASI BALLISTIC MISSILE.

a quasi BM does not separate from it's warhead, read my previous comment and learn something .

 

[Tracy]

The K series are ballistic missile lol NOT QUASI BALLISTIC MISSILE.
India cannot even make a cruise missile without russia so I am not surprised about you lack of capability in this matter.
a quasi BM does not separate from it's warhead, read my previous comment and learn something .

hello
K series and Agni are different people linked K4 with Agni VI development, there are no concrete proof which says 'K series' are ballistic missile. did you posted this from wikipedia or actually did some research ?

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

hello
K series and Agni are different people linked K4 with Agni VI development, there are no concrete proof which says 'K series' are ballistic missile. did you posted this from wikipedia or actually did some research ?

My point is, a quasi missile flies lower than a tradition BM and it's warhead does not separate.
so while it is very difficult for a warhead to hit a moving a target, a quassi BM does not have that problem since the missile itself can go toward the Target. in the cause of PG missile it can use it's fins, the fins will allow it to make a change in it's direction provided the change is not that much, so when Iran get it's OTH radar and that send the missile in close proximity to the ship than if the ship if moving then the PG missile will have no problem hitting it.

as for your K series, common sense will also tell me it is a ballistics missile. why the fck would you want a submarine launched quasi BM, I did get my initial course from wiki and so what? wiki can be a good source. Iran deliberately made a quasi ASBM so it was harder to defeat...

 

[Wet Shirt Contest]

hello
K series and Agni are different people linked K4 with Agni VI development, there are no concrete proof which says 'K series' are ballistic missile. did you posted this from wikipedia or actually did some research ?

^^^ hey , Thanks for quoting his comment.

Some defence expert wannabe

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

I never said I am expert, I at least have the common sense to know the difference between a quasi BM and a tradition BM.

 

[Tracy]

My point is, a quasi missile flies lower than a tradition BM and it's warhead does not separate.
so while it is very difficult for a warhead to hit a moving a target, a quassi BM does not have that problem since the missile itself can go toward the Target. in the cause of PG missile it can use it's fins, the fins will allow it to make a change in it's direction provided the change is not that much, so when Iran get it's OTH radar and that send the missile in close proximity to the ship than if the ship if moving then the PG missile will have no problem hitting it.

as for your K series, common sense will also tell me it is a ballistics missile. why the fck would you want a submarine launched quasi BM, I did get my initial course from wiki and so what? wiki can be a good source. Iran deliberately made a quasi ASBM so it was harder to defeat...

I guess his point is "Quasi Can't hit a moving target" effectively which sounds pretty right to me. do you have any video which shows Iranian new anti-ship missile hitting a dummy ship or a moving target ? good development thankyou

 

[longbrained]

Wonderful analysis. But I guess Iranians should develop something like Iskandar missile with a range of 700 km. That would be the best.

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

I guess his point is "Quasi Can't hit a moving target" effectively which sounds pretty right to me. do you have any video which shows Iranian new anti-ship missile hitting a dummy ship or a moving target ?

good development thankyou

No he is wrong, the reson we don't have a video showing it hit a moving taget is because why I think they are still working on their OTH radar. however we have signs that we may we completing it, this is after we saw this.

This one uses a radar seeker instead of the IR seeker from the normal PG missile which could imply that the OTH might be working now as aspashbod pointed out.

anyway we have a Video of it hitting a static ship but we need to see if they show a video of it hitting a moving ship.which could be in the near future.
but it is 100% possible for the reason I said to you.

here is a video

Wonderful analysis. But I guess Iranians should develop something like Iskandar missile with a range of 700 km. That would be the best.

we already have QIAM-1, and I heard rumours about making a solid fuelled anti ship version of that.

 

[Hack-Hook]

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

why you think a ramjet powered hypersonic cruise missile need any less data calculation than a ASBM for hitting a target in real time? both of them fly in a 3d plane and both of them use some sort of terminal guidance system and both of them usually need to hit a specific point that move on a line that cross their flight path

 

[Tracy]

No he is wrong, the reson we don't have a video showing it hit a moving taget is because why I think they are still working on their OTH radar. however we have signs that we may we completing it, this is after we saw this.

This one uses a radar seeker instead of the IR seeker from the normal PG missile which could imply that the OTH might be working now as aspashbod pointed out.

anyway we have a Video of it hitting a static ship but we need to see if they show a video of it hitting a moving ship.which could be in the near future.
but it is 100% possible for the reason I said to you.

here is a video

we already have QIAM-1, and I heard rumours about making a solid fuelled anti ship version of that.

I read all comments in this thread i think he was pointing out other countries unsuccessful ASBM projects not Iranian test's. he's right in his own way. by the way good video i noticed fins no doubt it's maneuverable but the question is how much ? can it hit a moving target ?

@JEskandari you answered your own question, everything comes down to missile "flight trajectory " ,Range , defensive maneuvers taken by enemy, It really needs to go all of the way up before it comes back down. It would require a re-write of the guidance software, not to mention a change in fuel levels. throw a stone straight upward and try hitting a moving object,

unless there is a test video which shows missile hitting a ship moving at 50 to 60kmph, we should avoid posting and contribute later

thankyou

 

[Hack-Hook]

I read all comments in this thread i think he was pointing out other countries unsuccessful ASBM projects not Iranian test's. he's right in his own way. by the way good video i noticed fins no doubt it's maneuverable but the question is how much ? can it hit a moving target ?

@jeskandari you answered your own question, everything comes down to missile "flight trajectory " ,Range , defensive maneuvers taken by enemy, It really needs to go all of the way up before it comes back down. It would require a re-write of the guidance software, not to mention a change in fuel levels. throw a stone straight upward and try hitting a moving object,

unless there is a test video which shows missile hitting a ship moving at 50 to 60kmph, we should avoid posting and contribute later

thankyou

come on its is quasi ballistic not a cruise missile . it spent all its fuel in the first seconds of the flight and after that use gained speed to reach its target , honestly its not strange many of anti aircraft missiles also use their fuels in the first stages of their flight and after that use gained energy for the rest of the flight for example AIM-54 use its fuel and speed up to 5 mach and gain altitude and go up to 100000 feet then about 11-18 km away from the target use the battery that is inside it to turn up its RADAR and dive on the target airplane and interesting part is that all the calculation and data processing in that missile is done by 70s tech . by the way I assure you hitting a moving aircraft is far harder than hitting a moving aircraft carrier (don't forget we used that missile to hit various targets from Iraqi helicopter to Iraqi Mig-25 (that had a speed of 2.5 times the speed of the sound)

and why re-write the guidance software ? that software is designed for how this missile is supposed to work ,we didn't take the guidance software from a cruise missile and put there ,it was designed for this special missile .

about throw a stone and then try to hit a moving target , well the stone have terminal guidance system and by the way have you ever gone hunting ,don't forget for thousands of years sling shot was what human used to gain its food.

it seems your denial also is the denial of awe and by your standard unless there is a video that show s-400 can hit an incoming missile or airplane or arrow and thaad intercept areal incoming Iranian missile you must doubt their effectiveness .

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

^^

It seems the word quasi BM is not understood by everyone.

 

[gambit]

Here are the aircraft carriers Hiryu and the Soryu evading bombs in WW II at the Battle of Midway...

Now here is an example between 'precision' and 'accuracy'...

Here is what I would like someone with better graphics skills than I to do:

- Research the deck dimensions of each ship.

- Expand each of the 'accuracy versus precision' 4 examples to match, either English or metric, regarding the ballistic missile's circular error probability.

- Superimpose each example over each ship.

- Now imagine each ship moving as violently as possible to evade either a missile or a bomb.

Japanese aircraft carrier Hiry

While preparing to launch a third strike, Hiryū was attacked at 5:03 pm by 13 SBD Dauntless dive bombers from Enterprise and hit with four 1000 lb (453.6 kg) bombs, three on the forward flight deck and one on or near the forward elevator. The explosions started fires among the aircraft on the hangar deck. The forward half of the flight deck collapsed into the hangar bay while part of the elevator was hurled against the ship's bridge.

...Hiryū was scuttled at 5:10 am by torpedoes from Makigumo.

Why/how did the Hiryu succeeded in evading the B-17's bombs but not the bombs delivered by the dive bombers? The modes of attacks in delivering those bombs differed.

See if anyone can figure out and explain why. Hint: The Exocet, or the cruise missile, or the SBD dive bombers are two dimensional attackers while a ballistic missile or gravity bombs are three dimensional attackers.

See if it is still so 'easy' for a ballistic missile to hit a moving ship, even one as large as an aircraft carrier.

 

[LeGenD]

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 .

Ballistic missiles are easy to detect. Measures taken to defeat them are not in their infancy any more.

Cruise missiles can evade detection from a large number of radar systems. And some move very fast.

Getting the hint now?

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 .

You mean? Modern Cruise Missile or Ballistic Missile?

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

We have been through this before.

Most of the modern US ABM systems are based on Battle Tested concepts. Also, US have the luxury to test its weapon systems against Non-US weapon systems to accurately analyse their developments. Iran does not.

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

See above

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.

QUASI ballistic missile flies too low? Are you stupid?

This is how an ASBM behaves:

This is how a cruise missile behaves:

ASBM does not behaves like a terrain hugging cruise missile, genius.

Now here are some Aegis related hints:

-> Aegis BMD ships on Ballistic Missile Defense patrol, detect and track ballistic missiles of all ranges – including Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and report track data to the missile defense system.

-> Defeats short- to intermediate-range, unitary and separating, midcourse-phase, ballistic missile threats with the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), as well as short-range ballistic missiles in the terminal phase with the SM-2.

 

[Hack-Hook]

here again Legend and his belief in westrn supermacy ,honnestly have a little more faith in yourself .you remaind me of Gloom in the gulliver animation (any body remember I knew we are doomed they gonna catch us)

Ballistic missiles are easy to detect but not as easy to intercept on the other hand cruise missiles acclrding to you are hard to detect but accordig to any body easy to intercept , by the way do you knew one of the roles of AWAX is to detect cruise missiles ,even if you read about F-14 you see one of the duty of 40 year old doppler x-band awg-9 radar on it is detecting and engaging cruise missiles .

Also no cruise missile move fast ,so e of them move fast in their attack phase which mean the ramjet only activate 15-20 k away from the target

By the way about your question about EO on ballistic missile or cruise missile ,do you think any operator is fast enough to control a ballistic missile or supersonic cruise missile tnrough its attack phase through monitor and a joystic no operator controlled EO only apllicable on old short range subsoni cruise missiles