Iran to launch home made destroyers

[admin]

Iran to launch home made destroyers


Rasht, north Iran, Oct 2 - Iran will launch three warships in the Persian Gulf and Caspian sea regions by 2005, commander of the Navy Rear Admiral Kouchaki said Sunday.

The navigation fleet comprises one destroyer and two missile launcher-boats, the high ranking military official said.

Iran's navy has taken a huge stride in building maritime defensive and agressive vessels, including ships and submarines.

"Iran expects to launch Mowj (meaning wave) destroyers in the Persian Gulf and two Sina I & II ships, all designed and constructed at home", Admiral Kouchaki said.

[Tbagger]

Thread bumped.

[tonahtiu]

did Iran begin the construction?

[Reticula]

Yeah. It was suppose to of have been finished. Atleast by the year's end.

[Capricorn Edge]

What is it armed with?

[IBSP]

I guess the US will shake in its boots now. :rolleyes:

[Kaveh]

inteligent comment IBSP ....

is the thread called ? " iran to launch home made destroyer to attack usa " or something ?

[GER_Mark]

iran clearly cant build modern destroyers, early 70's standard at best

[Kaveh]

lol ...... stop trolling around ger_mark frustated lil man .......

dont forget i read your uboot and i saw the girls you wrote with ...

you must be lonely lil fat guy

[GER_Mark]

lol ...... stop trolling around ger_mark frustated lil man .......

dont forget i read your uboot and i saw the girls you wrote with ...

you must be lonely lil fat guy

lol

these messages are from the year 2000 smartass

[Kaveh]

lol

and please dont post this time pictures of you and your brother naked driving ONE bike ! muahhahahahah ( he realy did that ) .....

insane boy ...

[IBSP]

Whats an Iranian Flying Carpet go for these days? :p

[f14-fan]

Whats an Iranian Flying Carpet go for these days? :p

Dont worry you can't afford it.

[Reticula]

What is it armed with?All kinds of things.

[masterfx]

is very unlikely to happen with now sitution.......

[Rufus86]

You know if the production of the ships is finished?

[arteshi]

I must agree on the fact that Iran cannot manufacture modern combat platforms yet, they are making an attempt though and that a lot more that can be said about their neighbors. Until they get some assistance from Russians and Chinese, they won't really make a difference.
come vanno le cose in Italia? L'ultima volta che sono stato li' era quando ho' fatto il servizio militare.

[Rufus86]

come vanno le cose in Italia? L'ultima volta che sono stato li' era quando ho' fatto il servizio militare.

Premesso che sono di Destra, meglio di prima, grazie al cambio di Governo (ora, come penso saprai, c'è Prodi e la Sinistra). Berlusconi aveva ridotto le spese per la Difesa allo 0,86% e quasi rovinato l'Economia.

Da quanti anni sei negli Stati Uniti?

[tonahtiu]

Premesso che sono di Destra, meglio di prima, grazie al cambio di Governo (ora, come penso saprai, c'è Prodi e la Sinistra). Berlusconi aveva ridotto le spese per la Difesa allo 0,86% e quasi rovinato l'Economia.

Da quanti anni sei negli Stati Uniti?

Premised that they are of Right, best before, thanks to the change of Government (hour, like task you will know, there is Prodi and the Left). Berlusconi had reduced expenses for the Defense to 0.86% and nearly ruined the Economy. From how many years six in the United States?

[Rufus86]

Premised that they are of Right, best before, thanks to the change of Government (hour, like task you will know, there is Prodi and the Left). Berlusconi had reduced expenses for the Defense to 0.86% and nearly ruined the Economy. From how many years six in the United States?

You translate what i say? :teacher3:

P.S. You speaks Italian?

[Reticula]

It's already completed as it was started on like a year or 2 ago. It's merely awaiting commisioning

[masterfx]

any photos? or models?

[PersianChico]

USS Kidd was the lead ship of the Kidd class of guided missile destroyers. These ships were a modified version of the SPRUANCE class destroyers. Originally built for the Shah of Iran, the ship was first named KOUROUSH, but after the destroyer's takeover by the U.S. Navy the ship was renamed KIDD. For this reason, they are often referred to as the "Ayatollah Class". The USS Kidd was the second ship in the Navy named after Rear Admiral Isaac Campbell Kidd.

# Built for action in the Persian Gulf, these ships are oriented for general purpose operations rather than specialized anti-submarine war. The most formidable warship of her size ever to patrol the world's oceans, blending the best features of the SPRUANCE Class destroyers with the combat system of the VIRGINIA Class nuclear cruisers to produce a ship with unique characteristics:- A ship so quiet, and an ASW system so capable, that she operates offensively against submarines.
# The most sophisticated medium-range AAW systems in the Fleet, quick-reacting and highly accurate, with the capability for today's air defense environment and the growth potential for tomorrow's.
# An exceptionally reliable and responsive engineering plant.
# A deadly surface-to-surface weapons capability.

These characteristics make Kidd a triple-threat, one of the few truly multi-mission ships, able to operate offensively, to deal with simultaneous air, surface, and sub-surface attacks. After over 16 years of service with the U.S. Navy, this ship was decommissioned on March 12th 1998.

The Kidd is currently situated at the Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility (NISMF), Philadelphia, PA.

About the Model
20 inch, detailed superstructure, display base and stand, detailed helos and conning tower, optional markings USS Kid, Callaghan, Scott and Chandler, over 250 parts.
http://navysite.de/dd/ddg993_2.jpg
http://navysite.de/dd/ddg993_3.jpg
http://navysite.de/dd/ddg993_6.jpg
http://navysite.de/dd/ddg993_7.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0599309.jpg
http://www.granddadshobbyshop.com/DML1014.JPG

[arteshi]

Premesso che sono di Destra, meglio di prima, grazie al cambio di Governo (ora, come penso saprai, c'è Prodi e la Sinistra). Berlusconi aveva ridotto le spese per la Difesa allo 0,86% e quasi rovinato l'Economia.

Da quanti anni sei negli Stati Uniti?

Premesso che pure io sono di destra (viva il duce), e che tutta la mia famiglia e' destrosa, io mi sono trasferito negli USA nel '90, sono ritornato per fare l'AUC a Cesano ed ho prestato servizio a cassino e cesano. Sono ritornato negli USA nel '98 e sono nelle FFAA Americane. Ma sai quanto mi mancano i suppli di via trastevere? Mangia qualcosa di buono per me!
Ciao'

[arteshi]

Premised that they are of Right, best before, thanks to the change of Government (hour, like task you will know, there is Prodi and the Left). Berlusconi had reduced expenses for the Defense to 0.86% and nearly ruined the Economy. From how many years six in the United States?

Nice try, however you take some letters litterally, good try. For example Sei Means Six but also present tense of verb to be in Italian which is Essere: io sono, tu sei etc.........

[masterfx]

rite now kidd ddg ended up in taiwan..... but dont worry coz ur pal PLAN is gona crash tat thieve!

[javid khan]

Any pictures if this destroyer

[masterfx]

Any pictures if this destroyer
y? it has been sold to other country already........ is not for iran anymore.....

[Ahsan911]

y? it has been sold to other country already........ is not for iran anymore.....

I think he meant the picture of "home made" destroyer which Iran has developed.

[javid khan]

I think he meant the picture of "home made" destroyer which Iran has developed.

this thread is so old, can someone post pictures and give a accurate update

[indian_sukhoi]

Can Anyone tell me what Kind of Ships are Those and whats kind of Weapons will it carry it.

[Native]

In reference to the U.S. made Spruance that was originally intended for Iran.

For example, the shah's government had ordered six Spruance-class destroyers equipped for antiaircraft operations and three diesel-powered Tang-class submarines from the United States. Washington canceled the sale of these vessels, selling the submarines to Turkey and absorbing the destroyers into the United States Navy.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/navy.htm

[arteshi]

Any pictures if this destroyer

I think the iranians tried to make a copy of the Combattente I class missile boats and for some reason called it a destroyer to add importance to it.
I doubt Iranian can develope the technologies without foreign assistance. At this point the only navy in the Persian gulf weaker than Iran is irak and that's because they have no navy. Iran needs to completely modernize their navy. It used to be the strongest in the region but war and progress within other navies and American presence have reduced Iran's navy greatly.:)

[arteshi]

In reference to the U.S. made Spruance that was originally intended for Iran.

For example, the shah's government had ordered six Spruance-class destroyers equipped for antiaircraft operations and three diesel-powered Tang-class submarines from the United States. Washington canceled the sale of these vessels, selling the submarines to Turkey and absorbing the destroyers into the United States Navy.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/navy.htm

I believe that the tang class was just for interim solution, Iran would have received up to 22 U 209's from Germany, first 6 to be built in Germany and later on production would have started in Iran. That program though smaller was passed on Turkey after Iranian Revolution.:)

[elle]

Why do you need all these ships?

[RH53D_AMCM]

Under the February 3, 1979 Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Iran and the USA, one of the programs that was cancelled was the acquisition of the DDG-993 warships. The program had been reduced from six ships to four prior to the signing of the MOU.

The specialized features of the design of the DDG-993 units are still at issue, but contractually the responsibility of the initial buyer.

[Nationstates]

Why do you need all these ships?

The same reason any nation builds warships.

[elle]

Other nations build warships to assert their authority on the High Seas. So that must be Iran's reason as well? Is it for some kind of future attack on some other warships?

[Kermanshah1]

Other nations build warships to assert their authority on the High Seas. So that must be Iran's reason as well? Is it for some kind of future attack on some other warships?

Right now Iran is under constant threat of a US attack, we can do with a few more warships as a matter of fact we can do with more of everything, the more you have the better...

[elle]

Sometimes you have to decide whether it is better to have butter or to have guns. Guns tend to go off unexpectedly.

[Kermanshah1]

Sometimes you have to decide whether it is better to have butter or to have guns. Guns tend to go off unexpectedly.

Better be safe than sorry, right now it is better to have gunns.

[British Lion]

Nothing Iran can do is going to give them the ability to defeat the USN, it's a bit pointless to even try. This is really just showmanship, for the benefit of the western media and other regional powers.

[Sokuy30]

USS Kidd was the lead ship of the Kidd class of guided missile destroyers. These ships were a modified version of the SPRUANCE class destroyers. Originally built for the Shah of Iran, the ship was first named KOUROUSH, but after the destroyer's takeover by the U.S. Navythe ship was renamed KIDD. For this reason, they are often referred to as the "Ayatollah Class". The USS Kidd was the second ship in the Navy named after Rear Admiral Isaac Campbell Kidd.
I didn't like the words take over,. Right words could have been contracts canceled by Iranian Government!

Here is what was said.
USS KIDD (DDG-993)


Though the U.S. Navy rarely names new ships by the same name as an older vessel still afloat, USS KIDD (DD-661) was honored by having her name bestowed upon a modern guided-missile destroyer: USS KIDD (DDG-993). The first of a new class of DDGs built on the modified plans of the Spruance-class, the second KIDD was built at Ingalls Shipbuilding Division of Litton Industries in Pascagoula, Mississippi. Her keel was laid on June 26, 1978. Mrs. Angelique Kidd Smith, the granddaughter of RADM Isaac C. Kidd, Sr., served as the ship's sponsor during her launching on August 11, 1979. KIDD was placed into commission on June 27, 1981.







The second ship to bear the name KIDD

prepares to enter the fleet.
KIDD was one of four guided missile destroyers contracted for by Iran in the late 1970s. When Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was forced into exile by revolutionary forces in January of 1979, the United States grew concerned that these four vessels could be delivered to a potentially hostile government. The return of Shi'ite Muslim leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini from exile in France and his seizure of power just one month later, confirmed American fears. The Khomeini regime promptly cancelled the contract with Ingalls and the new destroyers were purchased by the U.S. Navy and commissioned into the fleet. As the first of her class, DDG-993 gave her name to the new Kidd-class guided missile destroyers.




Following her shakedown cruise, KIDD deployed to the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean on December 08, 1982, under the command of Cdr. William J. Flanagan. While in the Mediterranean, KIDD visited the ports of Palma, Spain; Beirut, Lebanon; and Catania, Italy. She put in at the ports of Trincomalee, Sri Lanka, and Mombasa, Kenya, while on station in the Indian Ocean before returning to the Mediterranean and calling on Benidorm, Spain. The deployment ended with her return to Norfolk on June 02, 1983. In September of 1983, KIDD was awarded the Battle Efficiency "E".



On February 16, 1984, KIDD left Norfolk to participate in battle-readiness maneuvers as part of Operation United Effort. She returned home to Norfolk on April 29.




On March 12, 1985, KIDD once again got underway as part of READEX 1-85, Cdr. F.P. Moosally in command. She conducted Caribbean operations from March 28 to April 06, before anchoring at Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico. Following a transit of the Atlantic Ocean, she passed through the Straits of Gibraltar on April 17. While in the Mediterranean, KIDD called on the ports of Taormina, Sicily, and Gaeta and Naples, Italy. She


USS KIDD (DDG-993) in the midst of sea trials.

passed through the Turkish Straits on May 30, 1985 and participated with the Sixth Fleet in operations in the Black Sea through June 03. KIDD cut short a port visit to Haifa, Israel, on June 16 in response to the hijacking of TWA Flight 847. She returned to Haifa on July 15 before visiting Alexandria, Egypt, and Constanta, Romania. Black Sea operations continued with the Sixth Fleet in August. KIDD called on Istanbul, Turkey, before returning to Naples, Italy. She conducted operations in the Western Mediterranean with NIMITZ (CVN-68) through September. Calling on Benidorm, Spain, she then passed through the Straits of Gibraltar again on September 20. After visiting Rota, Spain, KIDD crossed the Atlantic, arriving in Norfolk and ending her deployment on October 02, 1985.




KIDD deployed for the Northern Atlantic on two weeks notice as part of the NIMITZ Battle Group on August 17, 1986, filling in for a nuclear cruiser delayed by Hurricane Charlie. She served as Anti-Air Warfare Commander throughout the transit to Scotland, coordinating battle group response to Soviet reconnaissance flights as well as "exercise" adversaries. Once north of Scotland, KIDD detached from NIMITZ and continued north for "Silent Sam" operations as part of Operation Northern Wedding, crossing the Arctic Circle on August 28. During Northern Wedding, she provided early warning to the Battle Group of all aircraft over flying the Northern Cape, conducted simulated engagements against all "hostile" NATO exercise adversaries, and coordinated the air defense of a major amphibious landing exercise at Melangen fjord in northern Norway.



Moving to Vestfjord on September 03, lookouts aboard KIDD sighted the periscope of a Norwegian Ula-class submarine which had suffered a steering casualty and remained in company until relieved by a Norwegian relief vessel. She was then ordered to shadow IOWA (BB-61), which simulated a Soviet battle cruiser. IOWA attempted to shake KIDD with a precarious nighttime run of the fjords through narrow passages to no avail.




During amphibious landings at Larvik, Norway, KIDD simultaneously controlled flights of F-14 Tomcats, F-18 Hornets, and Marine Corps Harriers making intercepts on simulated "hostiles". She also conducted anti-submarine warfare exercises against Norwegian diesel submarines in concert with three Canadian frigates and provided fire support of the Marines on the beach along with IOWA. With the conclusion of the exercise, Amphibious Task Force Commander RADM Fogarty noted "If asked which cruiser I would like to have as our Anti-Air Warfare Commander, my answer would be USS KIDD!" KIDD was awarded the Battle Efficiency "E" for her excellent performance in Northern Wedding.


USS KIDD (DDG-993) on station in the fjords of

Norway during Operation Northern Wedding.




Following Northern Wedding, KIDD called upon Oslo, Norway, on September 20, and Rotterdam, the Netherlands, on September 27. She returned to Naval Station Norfolk on October 17, 1986.






DDG-993 refueling at sea following

a year-long overhaul.
KIDD was awarded her third Battle Efficiency "E" in September, 1987. At the time, she was deployed as part of the Middle East Force 3-87. She departed Norfolk on June 19, 1987, returning to port on December 04 of that same year.



On August 15, 1988, KIDD began a year-long overhaul at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyards. Completing her refit and overhaul, she then proceeded to Norfolk for weapons load-out. She then sailed for the waters off of Puerto Rico to conduct refresher training for her crew and Combat Systems Ship Qualification Trials (CCSQT). Following

completion of her post-overhaul shakedown, KIDD made port visits to Mayport Naval Station in Florida; Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; Boston, Massachusetts; and Booth Bay, Georgia. KIDD was awarded her fourth Battle Efficiency "E" in December, 1989. Upon her return to Norfolk, a change of command took place on July 13, 1990, with Cdr. David R. Ellison relieving Cdr. Phillip M. Balisle as Commanding Officer.




In August, 1990, hostilities erupted in the Middle East as Iraq invaded and conquered neighboring Kuwait. The United Nations immediately placed economic sanctions and a trade embargo on Iraq, threatening military action should Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein not pull out of Kuwait. Saudi Arabia—which bordered Kuwait on the south—requested assistance against the threat of a military incursion. A massive build-up of military forces by U.N. members began, code-named Desert Shield.



On January 09, 1991, in the final days prior to the United Nations deadline for Hussein to pull out of Kuwait, KIDD departed Norfolk, bound for the Persian Gulf along with USS McINERNEY(FFG-8). On January 16, less than twenty-four hours after the deadline had passed, forces under the command of Supreme Allied Commander Norman Schwartzkoff began an aerial bombardment of Iraqi forces, not only in Kuwait, but also in Baghdad. War had begun, code-named Desert Storm. After making a brief landfall in the Azores, KIDD continued onward into the Mediterranean. She arrived at Port Said on January 31 and began her southern transit of the Suez Canal.




KIDD faced several roles while operating in the Gulf, among them the location and destruction of mines and maritime interdiction force (MIF) operations. To assist in these duties, a detachment from Anti-Submarine Light Helicopter Squadron 34 (HSL-34) was embarked. The "Green Checkers" came aboard with two SH-2 helicopters which were used early on in SSSC missions—flying out beyond the visual horizon of the ship to reconnoiter all surface radar contacts. In early April, two U.S. Army OH-58 AHIPS helos were embarked, bringing the total to four aircraft embarked aboard KIDD at one time. Not only were the helicopters used in scouting surface contacts, but they also played


Two Army OH-58 AHIPS helicopters on KIDD's

flight deck during Desert Storm.

a major role in the location and destruction of floating mines which the Iraqis had sown through the Gulf. By the end of her deployment, KIDD was credited with fifteen mine kills






DDG-993 arrives home in Norfolk with a

not-so-subtle paint scheme in the form of a

U.S. flag on the superstructure.
In early June, KIDD was ordered back to Norfolk. Along the way, she participated in several MIF operations in the Red Sea in support of the United Nations embargo against Iraq. HSL-34 provided aerial cover for the destroyer's Visit-Boarding-Search-Seizure (VBSS) team whenever investigating intercepted, suspect merchant vessels. KIDD entered Port Suez for the northern-bound journey up the Canal on June 17.




During the trip home, the crew began work painting an American flag on the ship's forward superstructure. KIDD made landfall at Norfolk on July 03, 1991, ending her deployment in Operation Desert Storm. In December of 1991, she was awarded the Battle Efficiency "E" for excellence during Desert Shield and Desert Storm.




KIDD departed from Norfolk in for the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific late in October of 1992, to participate in counter narcotics operations off the South American coast. She transited the Panama Canal on November 08. During this deployment, she patrolled Latin American waters as a deterrent to smugglers. A detachment from Anti-Submarine Light Helicopter Squadron 34 (HSL-34) was embarked for this cruise and "Green Checker 232" reconnoitered all unknown surface radar contacts, flying cover for the Visit-Boarding-Search-Seizure (VBSS) team whenever a suspect vessel was intercepted. KIDD called upon Panama City, Panama, and Acapulco, Mexico, before returning to the Caribbean via the Canal. After a brief port visit to Charlotte Amalie Harbor on the island of St. Thomas, she returned to her homeport of Norfolk, Virginia.



At the end of this cruise, KIDD was awarded her sixth Battle Efficiency "E" in December of 1992. This was the destroyer's fifth consecutive such award; a first among ships of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet. Attending the ceremony was retired Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, Jr.—son of RADM Kidd, Sr. after whom the destroyer took her name—who presented the crew with the Gold Meatball Pennant which signified five consecutive Battle "E" awards.



Late in 1994, KIDD was assigned to Carrier Task Force 60 (CTF-60) forming around USS EISENHOWER (CVN-69). Departing Norfolk on October 20, KIDD and the other vessels of CTF-60 headed south for a port visit at St. Croix prior to participating in fleet exercises. Crossing the Atlantic, the task force arrived on station in the Adriatic Sea where they remained for sixty-nine days. During this time, the task force provided support of the naval embargo of the war-torn republics of the former Yugoslavia (Operation Sharpguard), the enforced no-fly zone over the area (Operation Deny Flight), and the air drop of humanitarian aid to the residents of the city of Sarajevo (Operation Provide Promise). During this time, KIDD called upon Corfu and Naples, Italy; Rhodes, Greece; Trieste, Italy; Haifa, Israel; and Antalya and Izmir, Turkey. CTF-60 also participated in exercises with the Sixth Fleet off the coast of Israel and Egypt. With the arrival of USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71) and her accompanying task force, the EISENHOWER battle group departed the Mediterranean for Norfolk, ending their deployment.




KIDD returned to the Caribbean on counter narcotics patrol in 1996, under the command of Cdr. John J. Decavage, who had taken command in September of the previous year. During this deployment, the crew painted a pirate on the ship's aft mack (combined mast/stack) in homage to their predecessor of the same name: USS KIDD (DD-661). The ship finished up her cruise with a port visit to New Orleans, Louisiana, as part of the Mardi Gras celebrations, arriving on February


A harbor tug comes out to meet USS KIDD (DDG-993) as she

returns to port from a lengthy cruise.

05, 1997, in company with USS SHREVEPORT (LPD-12). While in New Orleans, over forty-five of her off-duty crew journeyed upriver to Baton Rouge to visit DD-661 and participate in a work detail, assisting in the elder destroyer's upkeep and restoration. Upon departing New Orleans, KIDD returned home to Norfolk.




Following inspections, DDG-993 was awarded her second consecutive CNO Safety Award, as well as the Engineering Battle "E", and the CIC Battle "E". She set sail on April 16, 1997, for a three-day port visit to Boston, Massachusetts, to coincide with the 100th running of the Boston Marathon. From there, she moved southward to Port Au Prince, Haiti for a community relations project before assuming drug





USS KIDD (DDG-993)—now ROC TZUO-YING

(DDG-1803)—is seen pierside at Suao Naval Base

in Taiwan in November of 2006. Sistership USS

CHANDLER (DDG-996)—now ROC MA-KONG

(DDG-1805) is tied up outboard of KIDD.

Photo courtesy of NavSource.

Photo contributed to NavSource by John Donnelly.


interdiction duties in the Carribean. She transitted the Panama Canal to the Eastern Pacific on April 30. Following another transit of the Canal and a brief stop in Charleston, South Carolina, KIDD ended her deployment in Norfolk on June 10, 1997. A change of command took place on August 08, 1997, with Cdr. Thomas Andress coming aboard as the new CO.



USS KIDD (DDG-993) was decommissioned on March 12, 1998, and placed into the Reserve Fleet at Norfolk Naval Station. She was sold to the Republic of China (Taiwan) in 2004 and was commissioned into the Taiwanese Navy on November 03, 2006, as ROC TZUO-YING (DDG-1803) Suao Naval Base in northeastern Taiwan. She remains active with the Taiwanese Navy.

[TeamAmerica]

The Iranians cannot produce the naval power needed to take on the USN however it could do some damage. The USN has a powerful fleet it has 13 supercarriers commissioned at the moment and 2 more than can be brought out of Reserves. It is very unlikely (notice I did not say impossible) that the Iranian Navy could hope to sink one of these monsters however they might be able to do enough damage to one to send it back to the dry dock for repair. And I can tell you right now that any carrier that sets sail on the warpath is bound to have a number of crusiers, destroyers and frigates protecting it. those fast boats may be able to sink a destroyer or two but it would not be enough to even slow the USN.

[arri]

The Iranians cannot produce the naval power needed to take on the USN however it could do some damage. The USN has a powerful fleet it has 13 supercarriers commissioned at the moment and 2 more than can be brought out of Reserves. It is very unlikely (notice I did not say impossible) that the Iranian Navy could hope to sink one of these monsters however they might be able to do enough damage to one to send it back to the dry dock for repair. And I can tell you right now that any carrier that sets sail on the warpath is bound to have a number of crusiers, destroyers and frigates protecting it. those fast boats may be able to sink a destroyer or two but it would not be enough to even slow the USN.

US NAVY is unbeatable in open seas, no question there, but in the waters of Persian Gulf, it's a different field and a different ball game.

[Kermanshah1]

The Iranians cannot produce the naval power needed to take on the USN however it could do some damage. The USN has a powerful fleet it has 13 supercarriers commissioned at the moment and 2 more than can be brought out of Reserves. It is very unlikely (notice I did not say impossible) that the Iranian Navy could hope to sink one of these monsters however they might be able to do enough damage to one to send it back to the dry dock for repair. And I can tell you right now that any carrier that sets sail on the warpath is bound to have a number of crusiers, destroyers and frigates protecting it. those fast boats may be able to sink a destroyer or two but it would not be enough to even slow the USN.

1.Iran won't be up against the whole USN, only the 5th fleet.

2.The USN has been designed for the open seas, the Iranian Navy and IRGC Navy for the Persian Gulf.

[Iranian Guards]

The Iranians cannot produce the naval power needed to take on the USN however it could do some damage. The USN has a powerful fleet it has 13 supercarriers commissioned at the moment and 2 more than can be brought out of Reserves. It is very unlikely (notice I did not say impossible) that the Iranian Navy could hope to sink one of these monsters however they might be able to do enough damage to one to send it back to the dry dock for repair. And I can tell you right now that any carrier that sets sail on the warpath is bound to have a number of crusiers, destroyers and frigates protecting it. those fast boats may be able to sink a destroyer or two but it would not be enough to even slow the USN.
We will fight the 5th fleet in the Persian gulf and NOT YOUR ENTIRE NAVY... . this will happen in our home in the PERSIAN gulf.

if america could they would attack iran long time ago

[British Lion]

This "destroyer" would be a corvette or a fast attack craft in most navies.

Iran's handful of small combatants that were current technology in the 60s/70s would not stand a chance against the 5th fleet.

[Korosh'eKabir]

This "destroyer" would be a corvette or a fast attack craft in most navies.

Iran's handful of small combatants that were current technology in the 60s/70s would not stand a chance against the 5th fleet.

You know nothing about Iran's defence doctrine.

You think sym. warfare...... Iran has developed and spesilized in asym. warfare.... that will give them the edge.

[British Lion]

Could you explain how Iran's asymmetrical warfare will allow them to engage a carrier hundreds of miles out to sea, that can destroy their defenceless ships (Iran does not appear to possess a single ship-borne SAM) with aircraft from that distance?

There is a difference between asymmetrical warfare and just being hopelessly outmatched and backward. The Vietcong was the former, Mahdist Sudan at the Battle of Omdurman, or the Iranian Navy here, are the latter.

[Sokuy30]

Could you explain how Iran's asymmetrical warfare will allow them to engage a carrier hundreds of miles out to sea, that can destroy their defenceless ships (Iran does not appear to possess a single ship-borne SAM) with aircraft from that distance?

There is a difference between asymmetrical warfare and just being hopelessly outmatched and backward. The Vietcong was the former, Mahdist Sudan at the Battle of Omdurman, or the Iranian Navy here, are the latter.
no one really knows what Iran has, just don't run around here and act you know something! they have things that most American generals are saying let's not engage Iran militarily.
from what I have heard from my family back in Iran, they have pretty nasty things. that has been sold to Iran or developed by Iranians. You can't Google them yet, but if war happens you can read it in news or watch burning 5th fleet.:teacher3:

[Korosh'eKabir]

Could you explain how Iran's asymmetrical warfare will allow them to engage a carrier hundreds of miles out to sea, that can destroy their defenceless ships (Iran does not appear to possess a single ship-borne SAM) with aircraft from that distance?

There is a difference between asymmetrical warfare and just being hopelessly outmatched and backward. The Vietcong was the former, Mahdist Sudan at the Battle of Omdurman, or the Iranian Navy here, are the latter.

Ships that are hundreds of miles away, will not help US in a war with Iran. Only with the carriers near Iran, USA can reach air supremacy.

Without supremacy, US attack will not work and US aircraft can be engaged by Iranian fighters.

But, your generals know this. That is why there has not been any action on US part against Iran.

[arri]

Could you explain how Iran's asymmetrical warfare will allow them to engage a carrier hundreds of miles out to sea, that can destroy their defenceless ships (Iran does not appear to possess a single ship-borne SAM) with aircraft from that distance?

There is a difference between asymmetrical warfare and just being hopelessly outmatched and backward. The Vietcong was the former, Mahdist Sudan at the Battle of Omdurman, or the Iranian Navy here, are the latter.

32 Su-24s each with 4 Noor missiles, possibly SS-N-22s
35 F-4s each with 2 Noor Missiles
3 Kilo class subs armed with torpedoes and Thaqeb sub launched missiles, possibly SS-N-26 missiles

I don't foresee Iranian navy challenging US ships directly in sea of Oman.

In the Persian Gulf, US Navy ships have no chance against small Iranian torpedo missile/torpedo boats, missile boats, mini subs, and land launched ASMs.

[British Lion]

no one really knows what Iran has, just don't run around here and act you know something! they have things that most American generals are saying let's not engage Iran militarily.
from what I have heard from my family back in Iran, they have pretty nasty things. that has been sold to Iran or developed by Iranians. You can't Google them yet, but if war happens you can read it in news or watch burning 5th fleet.:teacher3:
So you have no evidence that I'm wrong, and you don't dispute the evidence that I am right, but I am wrong because it's possible that at some point in the future there might be some evidence? No, sorry, logic doesn't work like that.

Ships that are hundreds of miles away, will not help US in a war with Iran. Only with the carriers near Iran, USA can reach air supremacy.

Without supremacy, US attack will not work and US aircraft can be engaged by Iranian fighters.

But, your generals know this. That is why there has not been any action on US part against Iran.
The whole point of carrier warfare is that you can engage the enemy from hundreds of miles away. Naval warfare isn't like Jutland anymore. Of course Iran has fighters (not part of the navy, so it doesn't actually help your argument, but ok for a wider consideration of a US-Iranian war), but so do the US carriers and the US bases in Iraq. The US has more fighters, better fighters and better missiles, as well as better intelligence gathering and mobile bases (carriers).

32 Su-24s each with 4 Noor missiles, possibly SS-N-22s
35 F-4s each with 2 Noor Missiles
3 Kilo class subs armed with torpedoes and Thaqeb sub launched missiles, possibly SS-N-26 missiles

I don't foresee Iranian navy challenging US ships directly in sea of Oman.

In the Persian Gulf, US Navy ships have no chance against small Iranian torpedo missile/torpedo boats, missile boats, mini subs, and land launched ASMs.
The US navy ships don't have to enter the Persian Gulf to destroy these things. The surface ships are impossible to hide and defenceless against carrier attack. The SSKs have a better chance, but they still have to snorkel every couple of days and then will be detected on radar. The US has no need to actually enter the Gulf where they could come under attack from Iran's fast attack craft and subs.

[arri]

The US navy ships don't have to enter the Persian Gulf to destroy these things. The surface ships are impossible to hide and defenceless against carrier attack. The SSKs have a better chance, but they still have to snorkel every couple of days and then will be detected on radar. The US has no need to actually enter the Gulf where they could come under attack from Iran's fast attack craft and subs.

First of all, I listed iranian air assets capable of attacking US fleet in the Sea of Oman, not naval ships because they would be easy pray. SSKs also have no need to come up. They will take their shot and retreat slowly back to their under sea shelters to rearm. Naval ships will probably stay close to iranian coast to benefit from land based air defences or retreat to Persian Gulf.

Besides, what is the point of ruling over Sea of Oman? Persian Gulf is where it's at. Where the supplies to US forces in iraq and bases, as well as 40% of world oil has to travel through.

[British Lion]

First of all, I listed iranian air assets capable of attacking US fleet in the Sea of Oman, not naval ships because they would be easy pray.
Oh I see. They wouldnt stand a chance against the US carrier's CAP and the destroyers' SAMs.

SSKs also have no need to come up. They will take their shot and retreat slowly back to their under sea shelters to rearm.
SSKs are diesel powered. Their engines require air to work, so underwater they need to use batteries. These only last a couple of days. So yes, they do need to come to snorkelling depth.

Naval ships will probably stay close to iranian coast to benefit from land based air defences or retreat to Persian Gulf.
I agree here, actually. They will be forced to hide under the Iranian SAM umbrella, as they have none of their own. They are not a credible threat to a blue-water navy except as a suicide weapon.

Besides, what is the point of ruling over Sea of Oman? Persian Gulf is where it's at. Where the supplies to US forces in iraq and bases, as well as 40% of world oil has to travel through.
I didn't say the US wouldn't rule the Persian Gulf, just that it could do so while keeping its surface asssets in the Sea of Oman.

[arri]

Oh I see. They wouldnt stand a chance against the US carrier's CAP and the destroyers' SAMs.

This is your responce? How pethatic :roflmao3:

noors have a range of 200km with inertial guidance and monopulse radar for final homing. They don't even have to come close to the fleet.

SSKs are diesel powered. Their engines require air to work, so underwater they need to use batteries. These only last a couple of days. So yes, they do need to come to snorkelling depth.

They have a range of 700km under battery power. Where were you planning on keeping the US fleet? in the Indian Ocean?

I agree here, actually. They will be forced to hide under the Iranian SAM umbrella, as they have none of their own. They are not a credible threat to a blue-water navy except as a suicide weapon.

Moudge class is armed with SM-1s, locally produced. Sina and Kaman are armed with Shahab Taghib (HQ-7). But you are right, they would be easy pray for US aircraft. Then again. they weren't built for that.

I didn't say the US wouldn't rule the Persian Gulf, just that it could do so while keeping its surface asssets in the Sea of Oman.

Then what? Once US is out of Persian Gulf, what are you going to do? No fuel and supply would come and go. Also, a carrier, at most can launch 100 sorties per day and not indefinitely, and they still have protect the fleet.

[British Lion]

This is your responce? How pethatic :roflmao3:

noors have a range of 200km with inertial guidance and monopulse radar for final homing. They don't even have to come close to the fleet.
The US CAP will have a range of >500km, and the missile can only be launched from 200km if the firing plane already knows where the US fleet is. How will it attain this information?

They have a range of 700km under battery power. Where were you planning on keeping the US fleet? in the Indian Ocean?
Real warfare isn't an RTS; the Iranian subs will not know where the US fleet is and will have to search for it. 700km is a lot if you're just moving in a straight line to a known destination, but not a lot if you're having to run search patterns, dodge enemy subs and ASW escorts and enemy ASW helicopters with dipping sonar.

Moudge class is armed with SM-1s, locally produced.
According to wiki it has no SAM armament, which would be consistent with its tonnage - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moudge_class_frigate I'd be interested to see your source.

Also, what do you mean when you say "SM-1s"? Because Iran certainly does not have Standard.

Sina and Kaman are armed with Shahab Taghib (HQ-7). But you are right, they would be easy pray for US aircraft. Then again. they weren't built for that.
That only has a range of ~8km, the US would be launching weapons with a greater range than that. But sure - I'm not saying Iran's navy is useless; against other regional powers it would be quite effective. But, against a proper blue water navy like the US 5th Fleet or a future Royal Navy battlegroup based around a Queen Elizabeth-class carrier, not a chance.

Then what? Once US is out of Persian Gulf, what are you going to do? No fuel and supply would come and go. Also, a carrier, at most can launch 100 sorties per day and not indefinitely, and they still have protect the fleet.
100 sorties per day is a bloody huge amount. Iran would only have a matter of days before her surface fleet was sunk and her airfields put out of action, which would not cause major disruption to fuel supply. The subs might last a few weeks; much less if they actively go after oil tankers.

[JEskandari]

British lion have you forgot we have something that is called sina.
it's not as sophisticated as us ones but still i believe it's capable of finding a career or destroyer.

[British Lion]

Sina-1 only has a resolution of 250m so I don't know how useful it would be, but the US has already demonstrated the ability to shoot down these types of satellites.

[arri]

The US CAP will have a range of >500km, and the missile can only be launched from 200km if the firing plane already knows where the US fleet is. How will it attain this information?

at least, 500km out? that would put Persian Gulf at over a 1000km away. How many times do you want those F-18s to refuel? and since you can't take tankers of AWACs too close to Iranian coast, that would only give them a few hundred kms deep into Iranian space, at most.

Anyway, Iranian aircraft can deliver 200 noor missiles in one go. Iran can also use its F-6s to old Iraqi junk to keep the CAP busy. This is no small threat. How will they gain this information? US fleet would be in the middle of commercial lanes and always establishes an exclusion zone. Everyone would know where the american are.

Real warfare isn't an RTS; the Iranian subs will not know where the US fleet is and will have to search for it. 700km is a lot if you're just moving in a straight line to a known destination, but not a lot if you're having to run search patterns, dodge enemy subs and ASW escorts and enemy ASW helicopters with dipping sonar.

As I explained, being too far out would hinder the effectiveness of US fleet. Iran is big. Iranians would also know the where abouts of US fleet since it has to operate in confined area, and redirect traffic. Kilos are quiet and at crawl speed very difficult to detect. Also, Iran test fired a sub launched missile during one of the military exercises. That would extend the combat range of kilo.

According to wiki it has no SAM armament, which would be consistent with its tonnage - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moudge_class_frigate I'd be interested to see your source.

Also, what do you mean when you say "SM-1s"? Because Iran certainly does not have Standard.

Reverse engineered SM-1 manufactured domestically in large numbers. Used as land based SAMs too in 8 missile launcher mated to Hawk radar.

Here is a source I just googled.

February-March 2000

Iran test-fires two rounds of a missile, said to be an improved version of the RIM-66 Standard SM-1 surface-to-air missile. According to Iranian spokesman Rear Admiral Abdullah Manavi, the development of the missile—assigned the name Fajr—took almost four years. Some of the parts of the modified missile had been built by the Iranian Navy experts. The missile's electronics have been digitized, permitting the use of a frequency-agile receiver for the semi-active command guidance system. This affords greater resistance to jamming measures. The solid-fueled motors, warhead, and power cells are now being manufactured indigenously. Manavi also says that an air-launched anti-ship missile (ASM) identified as the "Fajr-e Darya," a locally assembled version of the Chinese C802 ASM, is successfully tested during the Vahdat-78 military exercises. Rear Admiral Abbas Mohtaj, commander of the Navy, says that an "upgraded fire-control system" is employed during the test-firings. Manavi says that all the systems, projects and equipment used in the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), Army, and Navy exercises are designed by research staff of the Iranian Navy in cooperation with other scientific and industrial centers of the armed forces.
—Doug Richardson, "Iran-Upgraded Standard test-fired," Jane's Defence Upgrades, 16 April 2000, in Lexis-Nexis, <http://www.lexis-nexis.com/>.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Missile/1788_1816.html




That only has a range of ~8km, the US would be launching weapons with a greater range than that. But sure - I'm not saying Iran's navy is useless; against other regional powers it would be quite effective. But, against a proper blue water navy like the US 5th Fleet or a future Royal Navy battlegroup based around a Queen Elizabeth-class carrier, not a chance.

Why are you arguing with me? I told you that Iranian ships are no match for US and probably will be sunk.

100 sorties per day is a bloody huge amount. Iran would only have a matter of days before her surface fleet was sunk and her airfields put out of action, which would not cause major disruption to fuel supply. The subs might last a few weeks; much less if they actively go after oil tankers.

Not against a country the size of England, France, Germany and Spain. In addition, all missile launchers are mobile, most of the air defence is also mobile. US has next to no intelligence aside from what they can see from sats which iranians know when they are over head. Needless to say, half the fixed SAM sites are fake and probably only 20% of them are located. According to sats, all iranian kilo subs have been parked for the past 2 years.

[Sokuy30]

One more to add to discussion, Falkland war was a good example of similar war scenario in Persian Gulf.
No one knows what really Iran has, if it goes to war i am guestimating that most of the advance Chinese and Russian weapons will be in front lines. Not because those countries are in love with Iran, no. they just want to sell their weapons in the market like rest of the world! since Arab world really embarrassed the military world."Do we want to really find out?".

[arri]

One more to add to discussion, Falkland war was a good example of similar war scenario in Persian Gulf.
No one knows what really Iran has, if it goes to war i am guestimating that most of the advance Chinese and Russian weapons will be in front lines. Not because those countries are in love with Iran, no. they just want to sell their weapons in the market like rest of the world! since Arab world really embarrassed the military world."Do we want to really find out?".

it's bigger than that. If US is successful at regime change in Iran, that would put the entire persian gulf and 70% of world oil reserves under US control.

Then US will be able to dictate what economy gets the energy it needs to grow. This will not effect the Russians all that much, but seriously jeopardises Chinese security. that's why, they help Iran and not in the open with brand new planes, but through transfer of technology and components.

[Sokuy30]

it's bigger than that. If US is successful at regime change in Iran, that would put the entire persian gulf and 70% of world oil reserves under US control.

Then US will be able to dictate what economy gets the energy it needs to grow. This will not effect the Russians all that much, but seriously jeopardises Chinese security. that's why, they help Iran and not in the open with brand new planes, but through transfer of technology and components.
Last I heard, there are 35000 American soldiers are watching only pipe lines in Iraq, America doesn't have complete control in Iraq. green zone is Pathetic!:roflmao3:
Now this is against the country that held his hand up and gave in, i don't see such a scenario happening in Iran!
Imagine one of those said countries give worthy weapons to those people, U.S. will be out of middle east As fast as they went in.:teacher3:

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Last I heard, there are 35000 American soldiers are watching only pipe lines in Iraq, America doesn't have complete control in Iraq. green zone is Pathetic!:roflmao3:
Now this is against the country that held his hand up and gave in, i don't see such a scenario happening in Iran!
Imagine one of those said countries give worthy weapons to those people, U.S. will be out of middle east As fast as they went in.:teacher3:

FYI, Green zone is only about 4 square miles out of 167400. What about the rest? ;)

[Sokuy30]

FYI, Green zone is only about 4 square miles out of 167400. What about the rest? ;)
That country has become madman's land. no one can control that country anymore and 150000, young soldiers that are there, are trying to stay alive!
I remember a song from Bee Gee, staying alive... it seems disco days are over!

[RH53D_AMCM]

where did the destroyer discussion thread go?

Looks like the "bubble" was lost on this one...

[JEskandari]

Sina-1 only has a resolution of 250m so I don't know how useful it would be, but the US has already demonstrated the ability to shoot down these types of satellites.
the resolution depend on how wide the picture be 250m is if the picture be 250km*250km by reducing it the resolution improve.
American proved they can shut down a satellite with size of a bus not a satellite that only weight 160kg

[Cedric]

Last I heard, there are 35000 American soldiers are watching only pipe lines in Iraq,

To control Iran's oil the US does not need to guard it's oil pipelines. If insurgents destroy them, that will be even better, Chinese growth will further be stunted.


American proved they can shut down a satellite with size of a bus not a satellite that only weight 160kg

So you want another demonstration? The intercept missile not only hit the satellite, it specifically hit the intended part of the satellite. Anyway, we could also use a laser to take out that satellite and you guys will think that it just malfunctioned.LOL

.

[Sokuy30]

To control Iran's oil the US does not need to guard it's oil pipelines. If insurgents destroy them, that will be even better, Chinese growth will further be stunted.

.
I hope you wake up from your wet dream!
If you consider Green zone control, the yes we do control Iraq.
In US, Iraq war you all saw video games! Over 4000 dead , over 50000 injured. just wait, new wave of plastic coffins are coming near you.
The world hates us.. just for what one unwise Idiot did!

[RH53D_AMCM]

CEDRIC:

The other aspect of the US ASAT "shot" is that the SM-3 is designed to climb above its intended target and then dive to kill it. What happened post-impact was that the debis was pushed into more rapidly decaying orbits that caused the debris to re-enter the atmosphere and burn up.

The PRC intercept was a direct-ascent path to imapct on a dying weather satellite. What happened post-impact on the PRC ASAT "shot" was that the debris was hurled upwards into the orbital planes occupied by other satellites operated by other nations.

[JEskandari]

To control Iran's oil the US does not need to guard it's oil pipelines. If insurgents destroy them, that will be even better, Chinese growth will further be stunted.



So you want another demonstration? The intercept missile not only hit the satellite, it specifically hit the intended part of the satellite. Anyway, we could also use a laser to take out that satellite and you guys will think that it just malfunctioned.LOL

.
then do it.but strangely and incidentally the us have to buy each barrel of oil for more than 300$
and who said it hit the intended part of the satellite.?

[JEskandari]

CEDRIC:



The PRC intercept was a direct-ascent path to imapct on a dying weather satellite. What happened post-impact on the PRC ASAT "shot" was that the debris was hurled upwards into the orbital planes occupied by other satellites operated by other nations.
still the satellite the Chinese hit was far smaller than the one US hit and if the Chinese hit a dying weather sat ,What us hit was hitting a crashing sat.

[The Vengeance]

Satellites aren't particularly durable or armored, with the relative exception of certain Soviet designs, and as such merely causing shock damage to a satellite would be enough to put it out of action.

The real problem is preventing debris from the satellite from being thrown into the orbital paths of other satellites, as the Chi-Com anti-satellite weapon did.

[Draftroom]

I hope you wake up from your wet dream!
If you consider Green zone control, the yes we do control Iraq.
In US, Iraq war you all saw video games! Over 4000 dead , over 50000 injured. just wait, new wave of plastic coffins are coming near you.
The world hates us.. just for what one unwise Idiot did!

You do realize that in the grand scheme of things, especially considering past wars America has fought, 4000 deaths is a very small number?

[Sokuy30]

You do realize that in the grand scheme of things, especially considering past wars America has fought, 4000 deaths is a very small number?
Even One is too much for the reasons he wanted to invade another (Lousy) but nation!
I have seen children's of first Persian gulf Soldiers, Not a good sight to see.

[The Vengeance]

Even One is too much for the reasons he wanted to invade another (Lousy) but nation!
I have seen children's of first Persian gulf Soldiers, Not a good sight to see.

I know a Operational Detachment Alpha Special Forces veteran of the First Gulf War, and his kids turned out fine, just goes to show you that anecdotal evidence never works.

[RH53D_AMCM]

What would be key features of any future "destroyer" design fir IRIN?

1. Helicopter hangar and flight deck for support and refuelling of two helicopters.

2. Surface-to-air missile defenses against ASCMs and TASMs, close-in weapon systems.

3. Hull-mounted and towed sonar systems.

4. Long-range antiship cruise missiles.

5. Bunker fuel capacity to refuel smaller surface combatants operating in concert with the larger unit.


Each of these points will drive up the size, complexity, and cost of an indigenous IRIN DD.

[arri]

Sina-1 only has a resolution of 250m so I don't know how useful it would be, but the US has already demonstrated the ability to shoot down these types of satellites.

Sorry pal, US demonstrated that it can hit a sat the size of a bus at 200km, not one that is half the size of a VW bug, orbiting at 800km.

[RH53D_AMCM]

ARRI:

Other test shots with SM-3s have successfully intercepted RV targets with smaller RCS values. Not quite sure what a VW "Bug" has to do with the discussion.

[arri]

ARRI:

Other test shots with SM-3s have successfully intercepted RV targets with smaller RCS values. Not quite sure what a VW "Bug" has to do with the discussion.

Just comparing sizes, since my friend used the shooting down of that spy sat as proof that US can do it to any sat. That is possible, however, the spy sat US shot down was reportedly the size of a bus and it was hit at around 200km. Sinna 1, Iranian earth observation satellite is roughly about a meter in diameter parked on a 58 degree inclination at about 1000km. Much further out and much smaller.

[RH53D_AMCM]

ARRI:

Sounds like SINNA 1 is at too high of an orbital altitude to engage.

Went back over the thread and spotted the reference on "target size". The SM-3 Hit-To-Kill Vehicle (in itself a small part of the SM-3) that was targeted on the hydrazine tank which was a small section of the reconsat. It is good to know that the most hazardous sections of an orbital vehicle once it is in a decaying orbit can be intercepted and broken up. Since many of the satellites in orbit are at higher orbital altitudes than the SM-3 can engage, it seems that there was a lot of fuss over nothing.

[arri]

ARRI:

Sounds like SINNA 1 is at too high of an orbital altitude to engage.

Went back over the thread and spotted the reference on "target size". The SM-3 Hit-To-Kill Vehicle (in itself a small part of the SM-3) that was targeted on the hydrazine tank which was a small section of the reconsat. It is good to know that the most hazardous sections of an orbital vehicle once it is in a decaying orbit can be intercepted and broken up. Since many of the satellites in orbit are at higher orbital altitudes than the SM-3 can engage, it seems that there was a lot of fuss over nothing.

To be honest, I don't buy the Hydrazine story. Most likely, It was smashed because it was a very large satellite in a decaying orbit, and therefore, parts of it would have survived reentry. We also know that the PR department would milk these kinds of events for as much as they can.

[RH53D_AMCM]

ARRI:

"That's above my pay grade..."

However, it makes sense to break up a satellite doomed to re-enter the atmosphere once that is evident.

At least, IMHO.

[Cedric]

Sinna 1, Iranian earth observation satellite is roughly about a meter in diameter parked on a 58 degree inclination at about 1000km. Much further out and much smaller.

You also forgot to mention that it is useless (militarily). No need to destroy it, or even worry about it.

.

[arri]

You also forgot to mention that it is useless (militarily). No need to destroy it, or even worry about it.

.

Could you elaborate?

I can argue this with you, but first I want to know if you know what you are talking about. or just passing gas.

[Cedric]

Could you elaborate?

I can argue this with you, but first I want to know if you know what you are talking about. or just passing gas.

You elaborate. I don't see any useful capability for this SINNA other than a publicity stunt to show Iranian people.

.

[arri]

You elaborate. I don't see any useful capability for this SINNA other than a publicity stunt to show Iranian people.

.

Russians launched it but please indulge us ignorant people; what is an earth observation satellite?

[Cedric]

Russians launched it but please indulge us ignorant people; what is an earth observation satellite?

OK, Russians launched it. I asked you to elaborate, Earth observation satellite is militarily useless.

.

[arri]

OK, Russians launched it. I asked you to elaborate, I don't what this one meter wide satellite is used for and don't see this as anything more than communications.

.

It's got a camera and passes over every point on earth between 58 degree north and 58 degree south. It can't pick up a license plate number off a car from orbit, but it can see an air craft carrier in the sea of oman.