Sizzler ASM in Iranian Navy!

[PERSPOLIS]

I heard iran has sizzler. SSN 29 ..

it comes in 4 different version. if so then what is the best defence ?

[Ayyash]

Whats a sizzler?

[JEskandari]

Whats a sizzler?

sizzler can be many thing as
http://www.sizzler.com (http://www.sizzler.com/)
http://www.solarsizzler.com (http://www.solarsizzler.com/)
http://www.linkssizzler.com (http://www.linkssizzler.com/)
but i think what you want is this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizzler_%28missile%29
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/navalmissile/3m54.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Klub



3M-54 Klub
SS-N-27

The Novator Design Bureau developed the Club anti-sub/ship cruise missile system [sometimes referred to as the Klub, Biryuza and Alpha/Alfa]. There is some confusion as to whether the SS-N-27 designation applies to this missile, or to the P-900 Alfa [industrial code 3M-51 ] (http://anon.user.khoshseda.com/cipher:IIW8QkfpsgiCeqjJuZwzmqbtuKf9i5EA6uIx7oJxS2FKpUrSS5+r6 amWbiWhuqC4YIfoSdq42j8VpnIjR2KEBDeVRlLCcj0L:), although the best evidence suggests that the 3M-54 Alfa is the SS-N-27, rather than the 3M-51 Alfa.
The Club missile system is designed to destroy submarine and surface vessels and also engage static/slow-moving targets, whose co-ordinates are known in advance, even if these targets are protected by active defences and electronic countermeasures.
There are two 'known' modifications of the system; Club-S (for submarines) and Club-N (for surface vessels). The Club-N can be installed in vertical launch cells or in angled missile boxes. Both systems are based on common hardware, the only difference being the design of the missile launchers and missile transport-launching containers.
Five types of missiles - 3M-54E, 3M-54E1, 3M-14E, 91RE1 and 91RE2 - have been developed for the Club ASCM. The Club-S can be armed with a 3M-54E or 3M-54E1 anti-ship missile, 3M-14E submarine-to-coast missile or a 91RE1 anti-submarine torpedo. The Club-N can be armed with a 3M-54E or 3M-54E1 anti-ship missile, 3M-14E submarine-to-coast missile or a 91RE2 anti-submarine torpedo.
The missile is 6.2 meters long, which is the same as the length of the standard torpedo tubes used by Western navies. It is designed according to the double-stage cruise scheme. The first solid-fuel stage ensures the missile's launch from a universal vertical launcher of a surface craft or from a submarine torpedo tube with a diameter of 0.533 meters.
The 3M-54E missile has a range of 300 km. For the majority of its trajectory it flies at a high subsonic speed. The first stage drops off when the missile reaches the prescribed altitude and its second stage sustainer engine goes into action. This is the time when the missile's wing and tail assembly unfold. The altitude of its flight goes down to 10-15 metres above the sea surface and the missile heads towards the target in accordance with the target designations, fed before the start into the memory of its board guidance system. The targeting on the cruise sector of the trajectory is effected by an inertia navigation system. The end sector of the missile's flight with the homing head active proceeds only five metres above the water surface. At 60 km from its target the third, solid-fuel stage separates from the missile, accelerates to supersonic speed and overcomes the defence zone of the target vessel.
In spite of its relatively small launch weight of 1,570 kilograms, the missile has a range of 300 kilometres and a powerful 450-kilogram warhead, which can blow up very large surface craft. The missile's moderate weight allows even warships with a small displacement to take aboard quite a few of such deadly weapons.
India is making substantial purchases of the Novator 3M-54 Alfa missile to equip Kilo class submarines and its new frigates. The first two Indian 877YeKM submarines (Kilo class, according to NATO classification) will be armed with the latest Russian 3M-54E antiship cruise missiles. These missiles will also be fitted onto three frigates which are being built to order for the Indian navy at the Baltic shipyard in St Petersburg. Each of the frigates will carry eight antiship missiles which will be launched from vertical launch containers on the bow of the ship.
It is believed that an air-launched variant will be purchased to arm the Tu-142s currently in service and the six to eight additional aircraft being sought by the Navy. If an air-launched version of the Alfa is procured, it is anticipated that India's Tu-22M3s will eventually be equipped to fire them.

[Ayyash]

with delicious tasting steaks in their inventory (link #1), iran will be unstoppable, they'll jsut throw the meat in front of the americans, and unable to resist their natural gluttony, they'll have to eat them:biggrin1:

Or they could aim the giant disks (link #2) at the ships and they would catch on fire, like archimedes said at the battle for sicily against the romans.

But with all seriousness, this missle could present a big theat to the "glass jaw" of the american 5th fleet, that is often hypothisized about. These present a serious threat to americas air-craft carriers. One has only to look to falkland wars for empirical evidence on missle v.s. carrier battles and they're results.

[lulldapull]

Yeah Ayyash its a dead give away now as far as the vulnerability of the USN in the PG. With Iran now in possession of possibly thousands of Anti-ship missiles including these Alfa's and Klubs, not to mention Sun-burns, Kh-55's and the C-801/802's.........Its not even a fight anymore. Unless the USN decides to stay outside the PG and just deploy in a defensive blockade....far out in the Indian Ocean.

They come close, and they will take some serious hits.:)

[Ayyash]

While i know the USN has numerous defenses that can destroy incoming missles with a hail of bullets, they cannot knock out all of them. I anticipate iran would have a joint effort by the missles and a massive wave of small PT boats that would swarm the carriers and battlehips. I found a really good article a way back that said how the IRGC were practicing swarming raids, this then allows iran to block the straits, preventing oil cruisers to pass through, hamstringing the world economy.

[lulldapull]

Ayyash, I know about that IRGC one too, and it makes sense. Swarming has worked before for Iran while dealing with Iraq, and the iranian Navy reigned supreme against the Iraqi navy. Even against bigger and much more capable Iraqi naval units with Frigates and Corvette's which were surrounded and then pounded with long range shore launched Anti-ship missiles, while these hundreds of pesky little IRGC boats created the best possible diversion.:laugh4:

But all that aside, this article that someone has posted here before talks about in detail on the capabilities of these newer Generation and extremely dangerous Russian supersonic anti-ship missiles. These Sunburns , Alfa's and Klubs were designed to destroy the USN, and the Russians have a tradition of designing deadly anti-ship missiles that literally take out an entire ship with just one hit. Case in Point being the N-2 attacks by the Egyptian OSA-1 class on the Eilat, and the total and utter destruction of the Pakistani Navy by 2 x OSA-1's of the Indian navy in their attck on Karachi port where the Paki's didn't even know what the hell hit them. Or a better one where these joker aass Israeli's (conveniently) claim that the 'Sooper Dvora' had its defensive ECM and decoy CM's shut down......:laugh4: ........Where we now know for a fact that it was a very well coordinated attack by Hezbollah last year with 2 x C-801's, with the first one launched as a sighter/ decoy, while the second one destroyed it.

http://www.ausairpower.net/ascms.pdf

[Ayyash]

I cant find the article again, dang it.

Here is an article from http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Regional-PGM.html
Novator 3M-54 Club

The Novator 3M-54 Club (SS-N-27 Sizzler) comprises a complete family of ship (Club N), submarine (Club S) and air launched weapons. Unlike warship launched Moskit and Yakont variants, the Club is designed for launch from a 533 mm torpedo tube, or a vertical launch tube( Refer Military Parade, 2000-1 Exclusives Issue, Kamnev P., 'The Club Missile System').

Five distinct variants of this weapon exist. The basic 3M-54E1 and 3M-14E most closely resemble the US Navy's anti-ship and land attack Tomahawk missile. This weapon has a range of 160 nautical miles and is subsonic. The 3M-54E1 uses an ARGS-54 active radar seeker and Glonass satellite and inertial guidance, the 3M-14E Glonass satellite and inertial guidance alone. The more advanced 3M-54E combines the subsonic cruise airframe of the 3M-54E1/3M-14E with a Mach 2.9 rocket propelled guided payload.

Like its subsonic sibling, it approaches from under the radar horizon using the same radar seeker to detect its target. Once locked on, it discards the cruise airframe, fires its rocket motor, and accelerates to Mach 2.9 at a sea skimming altitude of 15 feet. Novator claim the missile follows a zig-zag flightpath to defeat defences. Both the 3M-54E1 and 3M-54E are small weapons which are difficult to detect on radar, especially should even basic radar signature reduction techniques be applied to them. The 91RE1 and 91RE2 are rocket boosted homing torpedoes, most closely resembling the US ASROC and Sea Lance weapons. All five weapons in this family share a common launch system and thus any ship, submarine or aircraft equipped for these weapons can carry an arbitrary mix.

Press reports indicate that India has fielded this weapon, and there are claims China also ordered in a 'tit-for-tat' deal for planned Kilo SSKs. The air launched variant has been marketed on the Su-32FN/34 but there are no reports as yet of hard sales.



Anyway here is a pic about the sizzler from the same article
http://www.ausairpower.net/Club-N-S-3M-54E-Overview-ES.jpg

[lulldapull]

Ayyash, check out the size of the god-damn Klub:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/Severodvinsk/KlubloadinginanIndianKilo.jpg

This long-dong is being loaded via the fore torp tube in the Indian Kilo.:)

Even if it fails to detonate...which I doubt it will, the masive impact of such a god-damn massive and bulky missile would be enough to rip apart the ship......specially if it hits it at Mach-2.5..........:)

[Ayyash]

I never realized how small the kilo is, how many missiles can the kilo carry?

[Khaybar]

I never realized how small the kilo is, how many missiles can the kilo carry?


Here's a few information about the Kylo class submarine.

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1758&catid=307

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام

[Kiaar]

I wonder how many Iran actually has though. I doubt very many.

State of the art weapons tech. is not cheap, and any missile with those capabilities probably costs tens of millions each.

[PERSPOLIS]

this is the first time i hear about iran going supersonic for ASh .

they had mastered the subsonic and got to the 360 km range with Raad

and now they are going supersonic . I checked some russian weapons

Russians are making supersonic ASh since 1960s , I haven't seen anything

in US arsenal. This definitely asymetric. I checked the kirov Class Cruiser

on the wikipedia , check the armament section , they carry 20 Granite

96 S300 missiles some over 100 Tor missiles etc. They had fielded this Kirov

in 1980 , that is 27 years ago. That Granite has a range of 600 km at M 2.5

and weights 7000 kg. They can also be launched in wolvepack.

How about this one , can you launch it in wolvepack ?

[PERSPOLIS]

my other guess is perhaps iran wants to use this with Su 24 27 ? since it is smaller than othe russian supersonic ASh.

[jawwal]

I wonder how many Iran actually has though. I doubt very many.

State of the art weapons tech. is not cheap, and any missile with those capabilities probably costs tens of millions each.

The price of these missiles goes around a million dollar each..

[Kiaar]

The price of these missiles goes around a million dollar each..

Really? That seems really inexpensive.

[rabs]

I haven't seen anything

in US arsenal.

The US has the capability to make supersonic ASMs and does, even ones that perform defensive maneuvers, they use them for testing and practice of our defensive systems since they are the primary threat. There just not deployed for logistical reasons.

[JEskandari]

The US has the capability to make supersonic ASMs and does, even ones that perform defensive maneuvers, they use them for testing and practice of our defensive systems since they are the primary threat. There just not deployed for logistical reasons.
i wont think anybody has the ability to make supersonic cruise missiles yet
the russians made missiles are also supersonic at the attack phase of their flight they are not supersonic in the course of their flight.
and nobody deny that us can make supersonic cruise missiles but they are different category and as you see they cancelled all of them may be because the supersonic cruise missile have a short range nevertheless modern cruise missiles usually fly at high subsonic speed.

[rabs]

and nobody deny that us can make supersonic cruise missiles but they are different category and as you see they cancelled all of them may be because the supersonic cruise missile have a short range nevertheless modern cruise missiles usually fly at high subsonic speed.

The US doesnt make the missiles for possible deployment, there strictly for training purposes, there essentially clones of russian missiles.

[Bosnian]

Just take MIG-21, or any other, install C-802 guidance inside and fill it with explosive and you will have supersonic cruise missile.

[jawwal]

Really? That seems really inexpensive.

Yes, it is relatively cheap when compared with the price of sunken destroyers or battleships.
That is why iran mass stock them, it is inventory of Anti-ship missiles is huge and growing, it is the logical and best defence against superior navy or sea invasion..

[Ayyash]

they're still more then i can afford:(

[SuperSixOne]

With these missles I doubt the U.S. Navy's surface fleet will enter the PG until the Airforce nocks out the missle sites with B2's and Tomahawks launched from those newly converted SSGN's out of the older Ohio Sub's, they carry 154 tomahawks a piece, that's a world of hurt.

Just take MIG-21, or any other, install C-802 guidance inside and fill it with explosive and you will have supersonic cruise missile.

with a very short range, I doubt you could reach out much furth than 300-500 miles with those. I think Iran would be looking for somthing alittle better to reach out into the Indian ocean.

Yes, it is relatively cheap when compared with the price of sunken destroyers or battleships.


Destroyers? I doubt it. They do 40+mph and are quite small. Getting a supersonic missle to hit one of those would be pure luck and it would have to be very close. Not to mention Destroyers are a pretty low priorty target, it would be somwhat of a waste to try and take one out. We don't operate battleships, so I don't see any problem there.


Then again I think Iran is just wasting cash right now, the Bush admin is comming to a close. The American people no longer support let alone trust him and wouldn't approve of another war reguardless of the B.S. reasons he can think up. The Entire U.S. - Iran political situation is cooling down and improving every day.

[PERSPOLIS]

Just take MIG-21, or any other, install C-802 guidance inside and fill it with explosive and you will have supersonic cruise missile.

then u need an aircraft carrier or an airfield for take off ???

a carrier weapon such as fighter and ship is better served as a carrier .

a strike weapon such a missile can be carried to the theather of battle by

a carrier .

[JEskandari]

With these missles I doubt the U.S. Navy's surface fleet will enter the PG until the Airforce nocks out the missle sites with B2's and Tomahawks launched from those newly converted SSGN's out of the older Ohio Sub's, they carry 154 tomahawks a piece, that's a world of hurt.



with a very short range, I doubt you could reach out much furth than 300-500 miles with those. I think Iran would be looking for somthing alittle better to reach out into the Indian ocean.



Destroyers? I doubt it. They do 40+mph and are quite small. Getting a supersonic missle to hit one of those would be pure luck and it would have to be very close. Not to mention Destroyers are a pretty low priorty target, it would be somwhat of a waste to try and take one out. We don't operate battleships, so I don't see any problem there.


Then again I think Iran is just wasting cash right now, the Bush admin is comming to a close. The American people no longer support let alone trust him and wouldn't approve of another war reguardless of the B.S. reasons he can think up. The Entire U.S. - Iran political situation is cooling down and improving every day.


those missiles are far more faster than 40 mile + and they are guided and they are supersonic at the attack phase when the ship use its defense not its evasion maneuver..
300 to 500 mile with airplane and them 300 mile with the missile would be 600 to 800 mile i think its good but the missile need guidance so something must be sent there to guide it

[Bosnian]

then u need an aircraft carrier or an airfield for take off ???

a carrier weapon such as fighter and ship is better served as a carrier .

a strike weapon such a missile can be carried to the theather of battle by

a carrier .

You can use rocket assisted take-off from ramp. With full engine power and two under wings rockets it will take-off vertically if needed, not to mention from 30m of rails 30 degrees raised. If you move massive landing gears, ejection seat, etc. you will get few hundred kilos less then original version. When it is in the air, it will be very fast cruise missile. Off course it already has its own radar which can be used for terminal phase.

[PERSPOLIS]

You can use rocket assisted take-off from ramp. With full engine power and two under wings rockets it will take-off vertically if needed, not to mention from 30m of rails 30 degrees raised. If you move massive landing gears, ejection seat, etc. you will get few hundred kilos less then original version. When it is in the air, it will be very fast cruise missile. Off course it already has its own radar which can be used for terminal phase.

By the time u do all that and get rid off the dead wights u don't need such wings and etc , u have got yourself a missile !!!

[SuperSixOne]

those missiles are far more faster than 40 mile + and they are guided and they are supersonic at the attack phase when the ship use its defense not its evasion maneuver..
300 to 500 mile with airplane and them 300 mile with the missile would be 600 to 800 mile i think its good but the missile need guidance so something must be sent there to guide it

Just becuase it has "a guidance system" dosn't mean it's accurate, Iran couldn't take out the Arleigh Burke's if they wanted to. You give far to much credit to your inferior out dated reverse engineered russan technology. You couldn't defeat the Aegis, Phalenx or new SAM's mounted on our ships.

[Ayyash]

Just becuase it has "a guidance system" dosn't mean it's accurate, Iran couldn't take out the Arleigh Burke's if they wanted to. You give far to much credit to your inferior out dated reverse engineered russan technology. You couldn't defeat the Aegis, Phalenx or new SAM's mounted on our ships.
Just send a bunch of cheap mig's with pilots that have minimal training and throw them at the ships, at least a few would get through, many would get shot out of the sky, but some would make it through and do considerable damage to america's fifth fleet.
I think you are the one who overestimates your capabilities

[Kiaar]

Just send a bunch of cheap mig's with pilots that have minimal training and throw them at the ships, at least a few would get through, many would get shot out of the sky, but some would make it through and do considerable damage to america's fifth fleet.
I think you are the one who overestimates your capabilities

I'd say not. This isn't WWII. Aircraft can't just run into ships with only flak guns firing at them.

Not only would those fighters be facing america fighters, you said it yourself, they're not trained. American pilots are very well trained, on the other hand, and would make very fast work of those out dated Mig's.

Not to mention AA missiles from the carriers and escorts that can fire from hundreds of miles out. But of crouse things like this ruin your visions, so they must not exist.

Oh, just to add...you're also assuming those fighters can take off. I can assure you that if a war broke out, the airfields would be one of the first things to be destroyed.

[Ayyash]

I'd say not. This isn't WWII. Aircraft can't just run into ships with only flak guns firing at them.

Not only would those fighters be facing america fighters, you said it yourself, they're not trained. American pilots are very well trained, on the other hand, and would make very fast work of those out dated Mig's.

Not to mention AA missiles from the carriers and escorts that can fire from hundreds of miles out. But of crouse things like this ruin your visions, so they must not exist.

Oh, just to add...you're also assuming those fighters can take off. I can assure you that if a war broke out, the airfields would be one of the first things to be destroyed.
Well yes, but i took that into account in my prev. post. At least SOME would get in and those that did would cause imense damage.

[Kiaar]

Well yes, but i took that into account in my prev. post. At least SOME would get in and those that did would cause imense damage.

It also depends how many you send.

It's not that easy to launch massive amounts of aircraft at once, in the same place, without them being shot down before they get off the runway or near their target.

As soon as ANY take off the US would know, and is probably tracking Iranian aircraft now. Any gathered numbers would raise a lot of attention very quickly.

[Ayyash]

And even if you cant do it with aircraft, it would be very easy to do it with mini-subs launched from hormuz or a larger sub. Or many missles that just rain upon the ships, the countermeasures cant deal with them all.

[JEskandari]

I'd say not. This isn't WWII. Aircraft can't just run into ships with only flak guns firing at them.

Not only would those fighters be facing america fighters, you said it yourself, they're not trained. American pilots are very well trained, on the other hand, and would make very fast work of those out dated Mig's.

Not to mention AA missiles from the carriers and escorts that can fire from hundreds of miles out. But of crouse things like this ruin your visions, so they must not exist.

Oh, just to add...you're also assuming those fighters can take off. I can assure you that if a war broke out, the airfields would be one of the first things to be destroyed.
lets say tens of miles its more realistic the best you have is amraam which the latest model of them have about 70 miles of range and i,m not sure your navy is equipped with that

[dannytoro]

.....Since July 2006 AMRAAM C7 has been in USN service with a range that is greater then the old Phoneix missle........(said to be 210km)

[JEskandari]

.....Since July 2006 AMRAAM C7 has been in USN service with a range that is greater then the old Phoneix missle........(said to be 210km)
sweat dream if you mean AIM-120D its 180 km and its not as much as phoenix
and its in test phase AIM-120c7 which is used by Usa has 120 km and not all the plane equipped with.
and there is still problem with it
http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123019277

[Kiaar]

No one's yet answered my question about how all these untrained pilots are going to get close enough to the carrier fleets without being intercepted by American fighters or by swarms of AA missiles.

For some reason I highly doubt Iran can launch 100 obsolete fighters at the same time without being noticed, and in an organized way, assuming they even have that many to begin with.

[SuperSixOne]

Ultimatly their aircraft won't get off the ground, and very few missles will get launched, most will be destroyed in the first few pre-emptive strikes.

Iran has a tough time understanding they simply can't win in a stand up duke it out fight in a war with the united states. You guys sink a carrier, we nuke your country back to the stone age.

We don't play fair, get used to it.

[JEskandari]

No one's yet answered my question about how all these untrained pilots are going to get close enough to the carrier fleets without being intercepted by American fighters or by swarms of AA missiles.

For some reason I highly doubt Iran can launch 100 obsolete fighters at the same time without being noticed, and in an organized way, assuming they even have that many to begin with.
i wont think you find untrained pilot in iran ,its a rough way to become a pilot in iran and it get rougher to became a military pilot.
and for trained pilot its easy Zagross will help them.

[Kiaar]

i wont think you find untrained pilot in iran ,its a rough way to become a pilot in iran and it get rougher to became a military pilot.
and for trained pilot its easy Zagross will help them.

Yeah, but the other poster said they would be untrained.

What's Zagross? if it's a computer system, it's no substitute for good training.

[jawwal]

Ultimatly their aircraft won't get off the ground, and very few missles will get launched, most will be destroyed in the first few pre-emptive strikes.

Iran has a tough time understanding they simply can't win in a stand up duke it out fight in a war with the united states. You guys sink a carrier, we nuke your country back to the stone age.

We don't play fair, get used to it.

NIce strategy, hitler would be proud of u.
Once nuclear weapons start flying, say good bye to israel and 200,000 U.S soldiers in the area.

[Kiaar]

NIce strategy, hitler would be proud of u.
Once nuclear weapons start flying, say good bye to israel and 200,000 U.S soldiers in the area.

While I don't agree with the use of nukes, I think it's safe to say the US would pull it's soldiers out of the danger zone in the event of nuclear strikes.

And it wouldn't just be the loss of Israel, it would be the loss of a giant chunk of that region, depending on the size of the nukes and where they hit.

[dannytoro]

"sweat dream if you mean AIM-120D its 180 km and its not as much as phoenix"

...Nope, that's a USAF Folding fin model for the F-22 and F-35....

[JEskandari]

Yeah, but the other poster said they would be untrained.

What's Zagross? if it's a computer system, it's no substitute for good training.
Zagros is a mountain in south of iran which allow the pilots come to the shore of persian gulf without being detected.
A trained pilot can use earth to hide from radar if it fly in mountainous terrain till the last minutes and then fire missile and back to mountain .

[mustavaris]

Zagros is a mountain in south of iran which allow the pilots come to the shore of persian gulf without being detected.
A trained pilot can use earth to hide from radar if it fly in mountainous terrain till the last minutes and then fire missile and back to mountain .

Serbs did this in 1990s and managed to fly combat missions with their Oraos even though NATO told them to stop. But there is a big BUT when attacking a marine target.. as the AEGIS et al will be alert and awaiting for targets. In any case, Iranian aerial threat cannot be neglected.

[mustavaris]

NIce strategy, hitler would be proud of u.
Once nuclear weapons start flying, say good bye to israel and 200,000 U.S soldiers in the area.

Empty words. They aint got anything to destroy Israel, hurt them and get a lot more back in change. Nuking (like they got nukes..) US soldiers would not cause 200K casualties, many, but not that many and that would be the end of the Persian civilization as we know it.

Iranians have ability to sink a carrier if Americans allow them to attack whilke they are standing with their pants on their knees, but if that happened with nukes.. *goodbye*.

[azrael]

Thank god finish civilization ended in 1945.

[mustavaris]

Thank god finish civilization ended in 1945.

What do you smo.. mean?

Put the facts on the table, and then weīll have a conversation.

[mustavaris]

Just send a bunch of cheap mig's with pilots that have minimal training and throw them at the ships, at least a few would get through, many would get shot out of the sky, but some would make it through and do considerable damage to america's fifth fleet.
I think you are the one who overestimates your capabilities

I think that it would be kinda scary idea to think about an MiG-25 loaded with fuel and napalm/whatever flying 3.2M towards the ship... Unlikely to succeed, but still pretty scary. No need for complex guidance, just one pilot whoīs sick in the head.

[JEskandari]

I think that it would be kinda scary idea to think about an MiG-25 loaded with fuel and napalm/whatever flying 3.2M towards the ship... Unlikely to succeed, but still pretty scary. No need for complex guidance, just one pilot whoīs sick in the head.
But its a great waste of the resources those mig 25 can fire 1 or 2 advanced missiles from 150 km away and no one can reach them , as best as they try.

[mustavaris]

But its a great waste of the resources those mig 25 can fire 1 or 2 advanced missiles from 150 km away and no one can reach them , as best as they try.

Yes indeed.. but still, think about it;)

Besides that MiG-25 doesnt have much air to ground capabilities to speak of.

[JEskandari]

Yes indeed.. but still, think about it;)

Besides that MiG-25 doesnt have much air to ground capabilities to speak of.
They can fire missiles and thats i think enough when the missile gets near the target it will find its way itself.
and its waste to use such plasne for this use

[mustavaris]

They can fire missiles and thats i think enough when the missile gets near the target it will find its way itself.
and its waste to use such plasne for this use

Definately its waste of resources in most cases, do not take my tongue in cheek comments too seriously. But you should know that it requires more than just that to have a real maritime attack aircraft. Missile launched from 150 km is pretty much blind unless the carrier was flying at high altitude and then it would have been far more vulnerable to attack.

[JEskandari]

Definately its waste of resources in most cases, do not take my tongue in cheek comments too seriously. But you should know that it requires more than just that to have a real maritime attack aircraft. Missile launched from 150 km is pretty much blind unless the carrier was flying at high altitude and then it would have been far more vulnerable to attack.
it would be detected but there is no defence against it until it reach 30 to 40 km from the ship and then its at see level and no one can detect it until its some mere km away and flying with the speed of 2.5 mach and there is no defence against it again.
and it can be directed by boat miles away from the career.

[mustavaris]

it would be detected but there is no defence against it until it reach 30 to 40 km from the ship and then its at see level and no one can detect it until its some mere km away and flying with the speed of 2.5 mach and there is no defence against it again.
and it can be directed by boat miles away from the career.

Boats are quite bad for guidance, thats one reason why even rather small boats are carrying a helicopter with them. The problem for MiG-25 is that it can go low and blind, or high and vulnerable. And that aircraft ainīt made for low level flights... But but.. we could go on about this for ages.. My imagination just got wild when I thought about some suicidal Iranian pilot ramming a 20t+ aircraft with 3.2M into a carrier/whatever. It ainīt a serious scenario.

ASMs are dangerous but Americans have been working on countermeasures for a loong time.. And I wouldnt be surprised if they had one or two surprises in their pockets. In any case, so far the ASMs have proven their capabilities.

[dannytoro]

"My imagination just got wild when I thought about some suicidal Iranian pilot ramming a 20t+ aircraft with 3.2M into a carrier/whatever. It ainīt a serious scenario."

..Sounds like an easy kill for a Standard ER......at 140km....

[mustavaris]

"My imagination just got wild when I thought about some suicidal Iranian pilot ramming a 20t+ aircraft with 3.2M into a carrier/whatever. It ainīt a serious scenario."

..Sounds like an easy kill for a Standard ER......at 140km....

Well.. I wouldnt be 100% sure as the combination of radar horizon (low level flight) and 3.2M doesnt give so much time to react... Esp. if the suicide attack is combined with ASM attack(s). In any case, waste of resources, but hitting something with speed of 3.2M and 20+ tons of weight is messy.

And standard aint gonna kill it at 140 km, no way.. due to pure physics. But within shorter range.. then yes.

[Ayyash]

"My imagination just got wild when I thought about some suicidal Iranian pilot ramming a 20t+ aircraft with 3.2M into a carrier/whatever. It ainīt a serious scenario."

..Sounds like an easy kill for a Standard ER......at 140km....
Not when the planes are packed with high explosives and there are a multitude of them. Your same logic could be applied to beirut-> "who could have though a truck could do THAT to a barrax", or to 9-11, "who could have thought a plane could have done that to 2 buildings"

[Kiaar]

Not when the planes are packed with high explosives and there are a multitude of them. Your same logic could be applied to beirut-> "who could have though a truck could do THAT to a barrax", or to 9-11, "who could have thought a plane could have done that to 2 buildings"

But whereas no one had crashed a plane into buildings or bombed a building to test out that scenario, these carriers (or at least replica's) HAVE been bombed and blown to pieces to test how strong they are.

[mustavaris]

But whereas no one had crashed a plane into buildings or bombed a building to test out that scenario, these carriers (or at least replica's) HAVE been bombed and blown to pieces to test how strong they are.

And as far as I know Americans are pretty familiar with anti-ASM tactics.. didnt they buy some Russian missiles for practising..? Or at least they thought about doing so some years ago.

[SuperSixOne]

People forget that America has been under threat from the ASM all through the cold war, it was the soviets number 1 arm at sea. This is nothing new.

[mustavaris]

People forget that America has been under threat from the ASM all through the cold war, it was the soviets number 1 arm at sea. This is nothing new.

Yes I know, I was referring to alleged Kh-55(?) buying. If my memory serves...

[dannytoro]

..Yes the Navy finally took delivery of them, altough the russians apparently never figured out the safety issue of them firing off before the lanyard activated them. Hence they sit while we run out of Talos targets. Thankfuly Coyote targets just completed testing and the first batch of ninty are due out soon.......Good old russian engineering, I wonder if the Iranian kilos will blow up like that Oscar did, killed by it's own weapons going off on their own......

[mustavaris]

..Yes the Navy finally took delivery of them, altough the russians apparently never figured out the safety issue of them firing off before the lanyard activated them. Hence they sit while we run out of Talos targets. Thankfuly Coyote targets just completed testing and the first batch of ninty are due out soon.......

What safety issue... curious to hear.

[dannytoro]

...The USN turned down the KH-55/AS-17 target clone because they have a nasty habit of going off(igniting) before they are activated by the lanyard....

[dannytoro]

From Worldnet Daily:

Another crucial design improvement given to Russia involved "Ground Jettison Testing" done by the U.S. defense contractor with the Russian missile. According to the 1995 program review document, the Russian-built AKY-58M missile launcher for the MA-31 was fatally flawed and could destroy the airplane, killing the pilot. This flaw was discovered and the Russian contractor was informed to make specific design changes to the missile launcher to correct the fatal flaw.

"An anomaly was encountered during testing of the emergency jettison sequence," states the 1995 review document. "In three emergency jettison tests, the lanyard stayed with the launch rail instead of with the target. In all cases, the booster would have been armed, and ignition could have occurred for any of several reasons. MDAC (McDonnell Douglas) has determined that use of a longer lanyard and slower separation velocity would allow proper operation of the emergency jettison sequence. The problem has been turned over to the Russians for resolution."


....Nice huh? BTW the Congressional GAO figured out this missle cost twice what an American weapon would have, and we had to give the Russians at least three technical processes to make it work at all.....Scandalous!!!!

[mustavaris]

Thank you for the information:) I knew about some problems, but didnt know anything about the details.

I do not question this thing, but it reminds me of different safety standards... I guess that the probability of the serious accident is still low, but the Americans are a lot more concerned about safety issues due to various reasons.

A few years ago my friends father was high ranking officer in Finnish military.. and when they held a big war games in the north, involving thousands of men, tanks, helos and all the crap there were some Russian officers with them. After some weeks of wargaming there was a debrief.. and one of the things the Russians asked was - how many soldiers died? Our guys were taken by a suprise and told the truth, none, usually no one dies but of course with heavy equipment and weapons there are accidents and some people get killed each year... The Russians were really surprised and told that during similar wargames in Russia at least something like a dozen die in one similar excercise...

[Ayyash]

Here is the article i was talking about a few pages back with regards to the american 'glass jaw'

Iranian threat defined
Sun. 18 Jun 2006
The Washington Times

Commentary

By William L. Stearman

A largely overlooked article in the Sunday Telegraph (London), datelined Washington April 12, 2006, should have been a wake-up call for our top policymakers. This piece convincingly described Iran's alarming potential for seizing control of the Persian Gulf. The probable Iranian conviction they have this ability must no doubt be perceived by them as greatly strengthening their position on nuclear development.

There are, however, measures, noted below, we could and should quickly take to counter this Iranian threat. As the Sunday Telegraph notes,

"The [Iranian] regime is... reviewing its contingency plans to attack tankers and American naval forces in the Persian Gulf and to mine the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 15 million barrels of oil (about 20 percent of world production) passes every day. Any action in the Gulf would send oil prices soaring -- a weapon that Iran has threatened to wield. [Control of the Persian Gulf also would enable Iran to cut vital sea support links to our troops in Iraq and elsewhere in the region.]

"The naval wing of the Revolutionary Guard has in recent years practiced 'swarming' raids, using its flotilla of small rapid-attack boats to simulate assaults on commercial vessels and United States warships. ... The Pentagon is particularly sensitive to the dangers of such attacks after al Qaeda hit [and nearly sank] the USS Cole off the Yemen with a suicide boat in [Oct. 12] 2000, killing 17 American sailors [and wounding 42]."

The Telegraph goes on to quote "U.S. intelligence sources" that believe "if Iranian nuclear facilities were attacked by either America or Israel, Tehran would respond by trying to close the Strait of Hormuz with naval forces, mines and antiship missiles." One should add that such measures also could well be triggered just by sanctions.

The Telegraph says Lt. Gen. Michael Maple, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, in March 2006 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee stated: "When these systems become fully operational, they will significantly enhance Iran's defensive capabilities for the Strait and ability to deny access to the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz." In this context, another American intelligence officer warned that the "U.S. Navy would be able to reopen the Strait, but that it would be militarily costly." A former Iranian intelligence officer was quoted as saying, "Iranian navy's Strategic Studies Center has produced an updated battle plan for the Strait."

On March 31 and April 2, Iran announced it has powerful new weapons for naval use. In any case, the presence of large numbers of highly effective Sunburn and other antiship missiles present a major threat to our vulnerable ships, including large carriers. In short, our fleet has a "glass jaw" and has to avoid danger. This vulnerability was well demonstrated by Navy reaction to the USS Cole attack, when, on June 22, 2001, the U.S. 5th Fleet hurriedly put out to sea from Bahrain in the face of just an al Qaeda threat. What would the 5th Fleet do when faced with Sunburns?

In an August 2002 Pentagon Joint Forces war game, Millennium Challenge 2002 (Persian Gulf area), the "Red [Iranian] Team", headed by ace war-gamer Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper USMC (Ret.), launched a salvo of cruise missiles, including Sunburns, from aircraft, small ships and shore batteries which overwhelmed the Aegis cruiser defense and sank 16 "Blue Team" (U.S.) ships including an aircraft carrier, Aegis cruisers and six amphibious ships. (Gen. Van Riper's far too realistic scenario was disallowed and remains closely-held by the Pentagon.)

The Solution: During the 1980s "Tanker War," the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in fast vessels equipped with missiles were steaming around and shooting at ships. Then, in the words of its captain, when USS Iowa entered the Gulf, "all southern Iran would go quiet." He added that "in regional conflicts where a deterrent is needed," battleships can "influence events ashore."

Today, only the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin, the world's most survivable ships, massively armored and otherwise extensively protected, can risk effectively challenging the current Iranian naval threat. Also by controlling the Strait, they could block Iranian oil exports and gasoline imports, thus creating a major economic hardship for Iran. For a show of force, short of conflict, these two ships would also have an enormous psychological impact that could support our diplomatic moves and head off hostile Iranian actions in the Gulf. Indeed, the very fact that we were bringing these ships back could have a sobering effect on the Iranians.

Unfortunately, a persistent, totally groundless bias against battleships has long plagued the Navy which finally maneuvered Congress into donating these ships as museums. However, Congress stipulated these ships could be returned to service in a "national emergency." They could be reactivated within a year.

William L. Stearman, is a former U.S. Navy officer with combat experience and served on the White House National Security Council Staff under four president. He is the senior (flag rank) U.S. Foreign Service officer (retired) and a former adjunct professor of international Affairs at Georgetown University.

[dannytoro]

...I'm rather curious why Iran thinks "Swarms" of FPB's can strike a CVBG. Do they not realize "Swarms" of Hornets and Seahawks will reign down harpoons and penguin II's long before the FPB's reach launch range?.....

[mustavaris]

...I'm rather curious why Iran thinks "Swarms" of FPB's can strike a CVBG. Do they not realize "Swarms" of Hornets and Seahawks will reign down harpoons and penguin II's long before the FPB's reach launch range?.....

The problem is that the Persian Gulf is pretty small, the reaction time aint so long and if Iranians resort to suicide attacks, they could cause some damage in quite a short time though such would greatly decrease their ability to continue the war.. In any case, if the Iranian military takes the initiative they have the potential to cause significant damage to any fleet in the region. For a short period time they can muster pretty big force, aircraft, boats, submarines and coastal missiles.. That ain´t a small threat. If Americans decide to strike, they must keep the intentions in secret as otherwise Iranians are tempted (maybe even foced) to strike first.

[Ayyash]

...I'm rather curious why Iran thinks "Swarms" of FPB's can strike a CVBG. Do they not realize "Swarms" of Hornets and Seahawks will reign down harpoons and penguin II's long before the FPB's reach launch range?.....

Where were the hornets and seahawks when the cole was attacked?

[mustavaris]

Where were the hornets and seahawks when the cole was attacked?

Cole was attacked while it was in a friendly port, and there was just one attack on one ship. If the US-Iranian relations degrade into a war, the US ships wont be sitting in "friendly" ports without being very alert. Besides that, you cannot shoot at every boat that approaches or seems to approach you in a friendly port, while during the war time you can sink anything you see and think that isnt friendly..

[mustavaris]

Quote from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

Rules of engagement

The destroyer's rules of engagement, as approved by the Pentagon, kept its guards from firing upon the small boat loaded with explosives as it neared them without first obtaining permission from the Cole's captain or another officer. Petty Officer John Washak said that right after the blast, a senior chief petty officer ordered him to turn an M-60 machine gun on the Cole's fantail away from a second small boat approaching. "With blood still on my face," he said, he was told: "That's the rules of engagement: no shooting unless we're shot at." He added, "In the military, it's like we're trained to hesitate now. If somebody had seen something wrong and shot, he probably would have been court-martialed." Petty Officer Jennifer Kudrick said that if the sentries had fired on the suicide craft "we would have gotten in more trouble for shooting two foreigners than losing seventeen American sailors."

[Ayyash]

Whats to stop the IRGC disquising boats as civilian boats and then do the same thing?
And i'll insist on my earlier point, the defensive measures deployed by the USN cant get all of them.

[Ayyash]

And whats to stop the IRGC from attacking ships in friendly ports, like you mentioned, in kuwait or the UAE, for iran it is "total war", and consequently anything goes b/c it is a war for survival.

[mustavaris]

And whats to stop the IRGC from attacking ships in friendly ports, like you mentioned, in kuwait or the UAE, for iran it is "total war", and consequently anything goes b/c it is a war for survival.

This window of opportunity is real, but it closes as the war starts. If Iran takes the initiative, this could be used to some extend (I have no idea how they have adapted since attack on Cole), but after hostilities start and they have the reason to be ready and trigger happy, this kind of successses will become hard to achieve... Eg in the quote I posted it is obvious that they could have fired on the boat, had they had the right to do so.

[Oriellien]

The first strike by either side in a war will always have the advantage, after the first strike victories will be harder for both sides. The cole was a single explosion, it was a surprise explosion and it had the advantage.

[Ayyash]

This window of opportunity is real, but it closes as the war starts. If Iran takes the initiative, this could be used to some extend (I have no idea how they have adapted since attack on Cole), but after hostilities start and they have the reason to be ready and trigger happy, this kind of successses will become hard to achieve... Eg in the quote I posted it is obvious that they could have fired on the boat, had they had the right to do so.
The window you speak of will be very small in the straights of hormuz themselves, but what about in abu dubai, or in the red sea and suez canal, there are many men there loyal to the brotherghood that would be more the ready to aid the IRGC?

[Kiaar]

The window you speak of will be very small in the straights of hormuz themselves, but what about in abu dubai, or in the red sea and suez canal, there are many men there loyal to the brotherghood that would be more the ready to aid the IRGC?

The ships will be alert. Any unknown ship approarching, regardless of where it's docked, will be shot at if its seen as a potential threat.

[mustavaris]

The window you speak of will be very small in the straights of hormuz themselves, but what about in abu dubai, or in the red sea and suez canal, there are many men there loyal to the brotherghood that would be more the ready to aid the IRGC?

Kiaar said what Iīd say, but I have one thing to add: I would not count on Muslim solidarity on this. Some isolated incidents could occur, but nothing in scale large enough to have effect on the outcome of a war.