Iran bought nuclear-capable cruise missiles.

Ukraine has sold nuclear-capable cruise missiles to both China and Iran, it is reported that 12 were sold to Iran and 6 to China. Does this latest news make an Israeli attack more likely since if Iran ahs Nukes they can put them on these cruise missiles and launch them toward Israel.
Here is the Link.

Sorry Westpoint you've missed the boat on this one. There are several threads over the lsat few weeks which have dealt with this.

It doesn't change the strategic situation because Iran already has the Shahab 3 missile that can carry a nuke anywhere in Israel

Maybe but that shahab was a ICBM, these are cruise missile's. I think cruise missiles fly low and the shahabs fly in from near orbit.

But you cant expect to have a country's entire arsenal posted on the internet. Maybe this is old news.

Figure Iraq fought off Iran (Or they had a stalemate). US invaded Iraq. Hopefully if there ever comes a time to dealing with Iran, it goes down like Iraq went down. And hopefully it goes better with lessons learned.

I think that if Iran launches these Cruise Missiles toward Israel they have to pass over Iraq which the U.S. controls, so we could help shoot them down. If they launch them from the ocean it which would be hard to do so as they don't have any suitable ship, we again could intercept them with our navy.

Folks,

Do you realise how hard it is to shoot down a cruise missile?

They are designed to fly at ultra low, aka around the 5 Feet AGL up to a staggering 20 feet, depending on the terrain, aka in the wide open flats of Iraq, would mean around the 5 feet mark, I am unsure of the over sea abilities of the missiles but I don't see why they would not have the same ability over the water as they have over the land.

Ask any fighter pilot how close they like to get to the ground without their undercarriage down, they will tell you just how unlikely it would be, that they could manage to first, find it, then get into position, and then finally if they do all that, attempt to drop to the same alt and then attempt to put a missile or 50 mike mike, without converting their aircraft into a permentant landmark on the Iraqi desert.

You know what they say,

All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War

I wonder what other goodies these folks have.

- Phil

[edit on 25-3-2005 by gooseuk]

They do not fly 5 feet off the ground, the U.S. tomahawk cruise missile doesn't even fly that low. They usually have a flying range of 50-100 feet. And the U.S. F-14 can shoot at targets from 50-60.000+FT.

And the most common way to shoot down Cruise Missiles is with ant missile batteries not with jets.

LOL

Westpoint I apologise at laughing at you, but to be honest, for some one which appears to have some military knowledge, based on your nick and other posts you have made. I just can't help but laugh.

Cruise missiles were designed for low level peneration of enemy airspace and plant a nice tactical nuclear warhead, in such a way to prevent them from being intercepted by either enemy aircraft or enemy SAMs. At 50-100ft a granny with a stinger missile could shoot one down, ok maybe not a granny, but at 50ft to 100ft the missile would be observable to enemy radar detection systems, in simple words the missile could be tracked and intercepted by either hostile sams or aircraft. I would love to see where you have been told that they fly normally at 50-100 feet. You ever heard of a B1 going to COLA? The means Computer Generated Lowest Attitude, aka any thing from 10ft to 50ft, for a aircraft that size, with that ability, what makes you think the US could not use the same system or imput heights based off detailed satielle images or maps, so that missiles could fly that low, Harpoons do it, exocets do it, are you saying that the US isn't far enough ahead to do it ::grins:: Just kidding lad, but 50-100 ft is not low level in my mind.

As for F-14s, their radar was never designed to attack sea skimming aircraft, never mind a small missile. Oh please don't send praise to the Phoenix missile, as it wouldn't have a hope [Due to the fact that they were designed to attack BOMBER sized targets], nor would an AMRAM in my opinion, a AIM9 might have a chance, oh there aren't any F-14s operation any more to my knownledge as they are all phased out in favour of the F-18, super hornet.

As for the standard procedure in attacking cruise missiles, I believe they are not SAMs, there are a few reasons for that, there are very few systems with the capabilities to track and then attack a low flying object. Cruise missiles are set in with waypoints that bypass military strongpoints which include SAM sites, also never mind to mention that these missiles are designed to fly under SAM Radar systems.

Cruise missiles are designed to sneek in and blow the crap out of their target without appearing on anyones scopes.

- Philip

So the cruise missile would have cleared path all the ay to the target with nothing higher than 5 ft according to you?

And The F-14 is still in operation, the F-14 makes about half the jets on an Air Craft Carrier. Its radar was not designed to shot down bomber sized targets, it was designed to shoot down targets as small as missiles or drones.

Hmm,

I stand corrected, the F-14, is at present being removed in favour of the F/A-18 Super Hornet, rather than being removed already.

As for the F-14's radar, It was designed to attack Soviet Naval Attack aircraft and their payload at long ranges using the Phoenix missile. That is what the radar system was designed for.

As for 5ft, Yes in some cases that is the prefect alt for the missile, in other areas they will fly at higher altitudes, I stated what the missiles where designed to do, not what they do on EVERY situation, Naval attack variants do fly at that alt until programmed to do a pop up maneover, depending on terrain land attack missiles can do the same, if flying over the desert or over plains of the western soviet union. Just because it was designed to fly ultra low level doesn't mean it can't fly higher, but in those situations it may have to fly higher due to buildings etc, but that also means that it would still have a harder job tracking it.

Again you miss the points that I stated, and rather choose to nitpick.

- Philip

[edit on 25-3-2005 by gooseuk]

Well then when they are force to fly higher due to obstacles in the way advanced SAM's and other Anti missile batteries have ample opportunity to track and fire.

The F-14 is far form being removed from service, I believe the F-14 will be taken out of service completely when the newer and more advanced F-35 comes into service.

I will post the military.com link once I find it.

www.f-16.net...
www.findarticles.com...
www.aerospaceweb.org...

2006... thats less than a year.

Westpoint your chutching at straws, are you saying that the Iranian Airforce/Army will not have the common sense to keep the missiles below US and UK radar systems? Come on, you keep thinking like that, your nation is going to get another shock.

With a day or two and some good pictures and maps I could plot a nice attack pattern, while staying below 20ft.

As for ample opportunity, if you have the operatunity, you should go to your nearest army base and ask them just what are the chances of hitting an object moving at 300 knots at 20ft, with a stinger or anti aircraft battery, then you post a reply. During training US troops couldn't even hit a A-10 on CAS with "simulated" Stingers, although, the british rapier system appeared to have held its own.

I can provide some reading for you to improve you basic knowledge if you want, pm me if you would like that.

- Philip

[edit on 25-3-2005 by gooseuk]

Who is talking about stingers?
I'm talking about Patriot missile batteries and Laser Anti Missile Systems such as THEL/ACTD.

The U.S. Army and the Israel Ministry of Defense (IMoD) have blazed a new trail in the history of defensive warfare by using the Army's Tactical High Energy Laser/Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator (THEL/ACTD), the world's first high-energy laser weapon system designed for operational use, to shoot down a rocket carrying a live warhead.

And this was in 2000!

THEL

I think that by having SAM batteries and lasers systems a few Cruise Missiles are manageable.

I'm talking about this.


And this.


Not this.


There are ways to shoot down Cruise Missiles its not impossible!

[edit on 25-3-2005 by WestPoint23]

Wait....the same system that can shoot down friendly jets?

Hmm,

Westpoint, your doing it again, read up on the information available on those weapon systems you stated, if any thing, I am still correct that a Stinger would have a better chance of intercepting a Cruise missile than those you listed.

The Reason is simple. Those two systems you listed are designed to shoot down BALLISTIC Missiles, read your own report on the missile that the Laser system attacked, it was a Missile on a Ballistic Arc, as for the Patriot Missile Battery, thats interesting to a degree, they where designed to shoot down Ballistic Missiles although the US Managed to shoot down a UK jet with them, new capability? Home on IFF?

Cruise Missiles do not fly on a ballistic arc, they are designed to stay as low to the ground, or the surface of the water, there is a reason for that, as I have already mentioned, to stay below Hostile Radar Systems, they in my opinion use "normal" Stealth, in that they remain away from as many hostiles as possible, either by bypassing them or taking longer routes to get to their target.

Lad I would be the last person to say some thing is impossible, I am just telling you that its one of the hardest missiles to intercept over land, they aren't easy targets, nor should it be assumed that you can shoot them down with your laser systems, as they need a target and a straight line to the target, if they can't find the target, how can you engage it.

- Philip

[edit on 26-3-2005 by gooseuk]

The F-14 was designed specifically to intercept a Soviet Bear Bomber and shoot it down with the Phoenix missile before it launches a cruise missile that will destroy the carrier, thats why it's so big and fast but not very manuverable.

The Shahab 3 is not an ICBM it's a medium range missile, the Israeli/Americans have developed the Arrow missile system that might shoot down a shahab 3 over Jordan, but those anti-missile systems fail more than they succeed, and their designed to intercept on a predictable trajectory, if the ballistic missile is the modifyed to avoid the anti-missile, by such simple techniques as zig-zaging, then the failure rate of the arow is even higher, keep in mind missiles like the patriot are useless if the shahab is carring a nuklear warhead because the patriot shoots the thing down to close to it's target..

shooting down a barrage and shahab 3s and cruise missiles, forget about it, you might get a few of them (but none of the cruiseers) but it's a crap shoot at best..

Thats why the white house just slashed anti-missile defense funding, they're just now starting to realize, especially since the last test failed again that it's futile.

Originally posted by gooseuk
Folks,

Do you realise how hard it is to shoot down a cruise missile?

In fact it is probably easier than shoot down balistic misilles. Cruise misilles are harder to detect but much easier to take down. But they can be detected by AWacs or Hawkeye (or other aircraft with look down-shoot down capability)no matter how low are they flying. Both Iraq and Serbian air defences were able to shoot down quite a lot of Tomahawk misilles and they had not the most advanced AA defences nor Awacs planes. The supersonic cruise misilles like Sunburn are harder to shoot down by aircraft but they have also unsufficient range.
The subsonic cruise misilles flying long way against prepared oponent wiith good satelite/awacs/radar coverage have that much chances as you think.

I think if you think the US can detect cruise missiles from any range your on crack.

They coudlnt even track Jumbo Jets on 9/11. THey let them fly into New York City.

If they cant shoot down commandeered airplanes, especially after one of them already takes out a building. YOu cant expect them to shoot down a low flying cruise missile.


Everything you hear about technology and what the Military is capable of is probably a myth.

Especially all the Cold War stuff.

Originally posted by Ritual
I think if you think the US can detect cruise missiles from any range your on crack.

They coudlnt even track Jumbo Jets on 9/11. THey let them fly into New York City.

If they cant shoot down commandeered airplanes, especially after one of them already takes out a building. YOu cant expect them to shoot down a low flying cruise missile.

I said they are harder to detect, but easier to shoot down. You must be just prepared. And of course it is extremely easy todetect and track 747. You just need to know what are you seeking and what will you do when you find it. You cannot take down all jumbos in the air, you know... And BTW I think that the 4th plane was shot down, desipite that "fight with the terrorists story".

Originally posted by gooseuk

Cruise missiles were designed for low level peneration of enemy airspace and plant a nice tactical nuclear warhead, in such a way to prevent them from being intercepted by either enemy aircraft or enemy SAMs. At 50-100ft a granny with a stinger missile could shoot one down, ok maybe not a granny, but at 50ft to 100ft the missile would be observable to enemy radar detection systems, in simple words the missile could be tracked and intercepted by either hostile sams or aircraft. I would love to see where you have been told that they fly normally at 50-100 feet.

Well, 50-100 ft is what is considered a safe operational altitude. Unless the missile is flying over desert then any lower than 50 feet would run the risk of the missile hitting terrain or manmade obstacles such as telephone wires. If we're talking about just flying over a flat landscape then of course they'd fly lower.
As for being picked up by radar, they'd be extremely hard to see over hilly terrain with all the background clutter.

You ever heard of a B1 going to COLA? The means Computer Generated Lowest Attitude, aka any thing from 10ft to 50ft, for a aircraft that size, with that ability, what makes you think the US could not use the same system or imput heights based off detailed satielle images or maps, so that missiles could fly that low

If a B-1 flew even 30 ft off the ground it's engines would be shelled by all the junk it would be sucking off the ground. 50 ft would be considered the lowest safest altitude for a plane flying over a flat landscape as I've said previously.

Harpoons do it, exocets do it, are you saying that the US isn't far enough ahead to do it ::grins:: Just kidding lad, but 50-100 ft is not low level in my mind.

lol These missiles fly over the flat ocean of course they can fly lower but not over land.