iranian missile capability

If you go to war with Iran,w/o any international support, then the everybody will have their asses handed to them.

Originally posted by nightscape
were really going to believe what russia de-classified and what china says about thier wars, that is rediculous

The de-classified russian documents embarrased themselves that why they were classified. Ahd if you dont believe china its your lost.

Because it was a american researched government project.

And the allied total losses in korea were 1,300 aircraft not just 78 sabres

[edit on 11-2-2006 by chinawhite]

updates:

i came accross some other information that i have/or have not included before but slightly updated information.





susrafce to surface (ballistic)

SCUD-D CEP 50m-100m version D

-russian SS-4 "sandel" ballistic missile; range 2000km imported from n.korea:


-BM-25 from north korea range 2500km; quantity = 18

www.defencetalk.com...
www.fas.org...


Fateh-110 / NP-110 - range 150-220km
www.globalsecurity.org...




susrafce to surface (land attack cruise missiles)

russian kh-55 (range 2500km) nucleur capable; quanity = 12

news.bbc.co.uk...
www.globalsecurity.org...






susrafce to surface (anti-ship cruise missiles)

russian styx from north korea

www.nti.org...


- c-801 china imported a few hundred and can manufacture there own

www.fas.org...

- c-802 china imported a few hundred and can manufacture there own

www.globalsecurity.org...


-fl-7 feilong7 / fl-2

www.fas.org...
www.fas.org...




www.emergency.com...

And the allied total losses in korea were 1,300 aircraft not just 78 sabres

That's because most of them were old WWII era piston and propeller aircraft. However the axis air loses were mostly jets.

updates:




susrafce to surface (anti-ship cruise missiles)
klub-s/club-s anti ship missiles
www.globalsecurity.org...



www.strategypage.com...
www.kommersant.com...




[edit on 23-2-2006 by iqonx]

updates:


Kosar stealth cruise missiles (range : unkown, quantity : unknown)
www.globalsecurity.org...

Originally posted by nightscape
Its seriously absurd to think iran would even stand a chance, hands down they would get thier asses handed to them easily guarenteed. The americans have a contingency plan for every possible situation. First off we wouldnt tell everyone we are going to war on a such and such date. It would be out of the blue, bam element of suprise right there. secondly dont you think the americans know all the # that iran has, they know everything they have how it works and where its located. America is a badass when it comes to killin and we are the best at it. So yes i believe iran war would be over in less than a month, 2 months max, remember we arent occupying, but the military would be defeated in about that much time. Another note iran doesnt have the technology to strike 10,000 targets at once with missile from planes, ships, subs you name it, america does, we dont even need to send planes in, the warships send out 1000 missiles that cant be detected by irans outdated radar, all targeting different targets, boom iran is pretty much out in the first day.

And the whole thing with vietnam, the americans lost vietnam becuase we didnt have bombs that could penetrate underground bases and tunnels.

But now i hope everyone realizes that america will not lose any war for at least 100 years, as in defeating the enemys army not occupying, people who think otherwise probly have a bias towards americans and dont want to admit that americans are the best at killin, is what it comes down to, look at the facts, we win everytime.

also on another note, america has the most highly spohisticated missiles on earth and those are the ones we know about, we dont know everything the america military has. believe me we have tons of topsecret weapons no one know about, trump cards as it be.

Hey are you saying that you are good at killing and you don't mind killing?
Is this what you would call civilised. I don't think I can believe that a culture can be so advanced and barbaric at the same time??

If this mentality is prevalent don't you think the rest of the world should be really scared. Ture in Americas a lot of races were wiped out but I thought that you had moved on from that.

Uh that is dumb dude, Stingers are shoulder fired, HEAT seeking missiles with such a short range that todays tactics make them useless unless they are fired at slow and low choppers, even then today's choppers have ways to defeat them. That post was total bunk and make sure you know your subject before you write about it.

ECM is only good against RADAR guided weapons. It spoofs the active radar seeker.

The defence against heat seeking weapons are flares, good eyes and good tactics. If it sees you first and you have not followed sound tactics you will get hit. Note I said get hit, the stinger and similar sized weapons have such small warheads that in most cases fixed wing a/c can make it home to fly another day.

Get things right, then post.

Originally posted by viperwrench
Uh that is dumb dude, Stingers are shoulder fired, HEAT seeking missiles with such a short range that todays tactics make them useless unless they are fired at slow and low choppers, even then today's choppers have ways to defeat them. That post was total bunk and make sure you know your subject before you write about it.

No.

Stinger/SA-18/qw-1/2 etc.... are very valuable in battle fields becuase they allow you to engage helicopter gunships which are providing fire support to armour like tanks and APC/IFV assaults.

Helicopter gunships are also used to find enemy snipers by hovering above a battle field and using there infrared/thermal systems to find troops that are hiding wlthough this has been moved over to UAV.

Low altitude air defence missiles are not useless as you claim becuase it (a) allows you to take out low altitude bombers and gunships stopping the enemy from being able to destroy your armoured forces (b) forces aircraft to fly higher where normal radar can lock onto aircraft and destory them with longer range missiles.

Originally posted by viperwrench
ECM is only good against RADAR guided weapons. It spoofs the active radar seeker.

no this is not true. ECM(Electronic Counter Measures) are routinly updated on a regular basis latest ECM also contain methods which are designed to defend against IR seeking missiles.

What do you think ECM means? ECM is a countermeaure system not a method. What do you think releases IR Flairs? It's the EMC system that does this. So how can you say ECM does not do anything against IR missiles.

Also the latest ECM systems also contain IR Lamps which it can relese and also laser beam which hits the seaker saturating it and damaging it with intense heat.

Originally posted by viperwrench
The defence against heat seeking weapons are flares, good eyes and good tactics. If it sees you first and you have not followed sound tactics you will get hit. Note I said get hit, the stinger and similar sized weapons have such small warheads that in most cases fixed wing a/c can make it home to fly another day.

Flairs don't do anything against modern shoulder launched missiles you should know this as you claim to be an expert becuase they use duel band seekers seeking both in the InfraRed bands and Ultraviolet bands making them immune to Flairs.

The flairs where added to provide basic defence from missiles like SA-7 and Red-Eye missiles the latest missiles countered this by using duel band seekers so now the ECM manufactures re-countered by adding IR seeker saturations techniques like laser to there ECM systems.

Secondly good eyes will do nothing for you considering ambushes and the missiles fly faster then mach 2 i doubt you could do anything to counter this even choosing areas which reduce the risk of getting hit you can stil get hit if your within range.

No. you are wrong once again where you claim that a fixed wing aircrat in most cases can make it home. A stinger or any other modern missile does not have to hit the engine like old IR systems which could only hit the exaust which spared the airframe from major damage allowing them to fly home. with modern missiles with improved seekers like stingers and other SAM's they can also go after airframe heat and with the software thats programmed into them they are programmed to go center mass of the aircraft as possible where the most damage occurs to the airframe when this happens you can no longer fly your fixed wing aircraft becuase of the extensive damage done.

Although there are some lucky times where a person may survive a hit from a missile this is not becuase the warhead is small but becuase the missiles proximity fuze detonated and was not a direct hit causing only minor shrapnel damge to the aircraft. A direct hit to most aircraft will down them only a very heavily armoured aircraft could withstand a missile possible A-10 or similar.

Originally posted by viperwrench
Get things right, then post.

you should take your own advice and apply it to yourself.

Very Good, well informed thread.

I don't think USA will invade if Iran have weapons to strike America.

Sanction time!

I wrote about the usefullness of stingers and like weapons, in fact you quoted me then restated the same info only more indepth.

You are wrong to think that ECM can do anything to a passive seeker, they can't. Your defence for a passive weapon is stay out of the envelope and have a good wingman. Followed by active countermeasures such as flares, note the spelling please.

Various pods have no provisions for any sort of heat seeking weapons. Furthermore, flare can be very effective when employed correctly. I have loaded them by the thousands during my career.

Low bombers, low fighters, dude the only folks that go low anymore are the choppers and A10s. AAA in sheets pretty much ensures we stay medium to high agl.

I have 20plus years in the USAF as weapons spec, I have real world experience. Ya ever fillied a PIDS with chaff, loaded a HARM, filled ALE40 with flares, MJU7 is the choice in most cases. They work, even on todays updated seekers, when employed correctly.

And yes with no way to know (except on more up to date USA choppers) that a passive weapon has been fired at you. You must rely on EYEs to spot incoming missiles. Even low smoke motors leave a tell tale trail and MACH 2 is fast but when you are covering long distances at a fast moving target the time of flight is not so long that good eyes can't see and evade shoulder launched weapons.

Note that MANPADS have not taken down a single fast mover in the USAF in the past 20 years and it is not like they have not tried and it is not like they have not hit a few fast movers, they just don't take down fast moving fixed wing a/c very well.

America is the best at killing and sadly we are doing it a lot these days. I don’t think Americans are proud of it but we do see it as something we must to do keep ourselves secure. We also go to great lengths to limit casualties even if it doesn’t seem that way in the Arab news or even some of the western news.

Iran has an arsenal for sure but they would be hard pressed to give us a real challenge when it came to a military confrontation. The US alone can take on and defeat any enemy in existence today. We can launch thousands of missiles at any given time and have them travel hundreds if not thousands of miles at speeds that wouldn’t give much time to retaliate or shoot it down. And we can put them in a window at a very specific time. And we can do it all at a very safe distance with any threat being seen far ahead of time and shot down easily by either airplanes, the ships protecting an aircraft carrier or the aircraft carriers defenses as well.

This is why Iran has to use Hezbollah and such to attack other countries and do their bidding.

We can take Iran out in a matter of days if wished to but would we be willing to take the chance of killing that many civilians? I hope not. The best thing we can do is fund the people in Iran that want democracy and sanction the current govt to keep em from going any future with the nuke stuff and keep an eye on what they do on the border to Iraq.

Originally posted by iqonx
i think you have too much confidence in the air force flying high all the time. fact is to use certian types of weopons and carry out certian misions you have to fly low either with jet or helicopter and the sa-18 can go high and long enough to hit them. dont assume your aircraft are invincible from missiles. some guided munition can only be fired from a max of 10,000-12,000 feet the sa-18 can reach an a range of 5km and altitude of (3.5km)11,000 feet slant range and even more higher altidude if fire at a closer target with high altiude possibly upto 15,000 feet if fired at a high slant.

Whoever said aircraft are invinicble from missiles.lol the SA 18 will be useless against our bombers which fly at altitudes over 50,000 feet and can drop SDB's which have a range of 60km and use an active seeker to hit moving targets.Lol most guided munitions do best when fired from high altitude and higher speeds. Look at the SDB and JDAM.twisting reality and facts won't help you.there will barely be any misison where we will have to fly low especially with standoff weapons like the tomahawk or SDB.

[edit on 5-8-2006 by urmomma158]

here's an experineced pilot to cear up any misunderstanding you have with Manpds or low altitude penetration.

Originally posted by viperwrench
I wrote about the usefullness of stingers and like weapons, in fact you quoted me then restated the same info only more indepth.

You are wrong to think that ECM can do anything to a passive seeker, they can't. Your defence for a passive weapon is stay out of the envelope and have a good wingman. Followed by active countermeasures such as flares, note the spelling please.

Various pods have no provisions for any sort of heat seeking weapons. Furthermore, flare can be very effective when employed correctly. I have loaded them by the thousands during my career.

Low bombers, low fighters, dude the only folks that go low anymore are the choppers and A10s. AAA in sheets pretty much ensures we stay medium to high agl.

I have 20plus years in the USAF as weapons spec, I have real world experience. Ya ever fillied a PIDS with chaff, loaded a HARM, filled ALE40 with flares, MJU7 is the choice in most cases. They work, even on todays updated seekers, when employed correctly.

And yes with no way to know (except on more up to date USA choppers) that a passive weapon has been fired at you. You must rely on EYEs to spot incoming missiles. Even low smoke motors leave a tell tale trail and MACH 2 is fast but when you are covering long distances at a fast moving target the time of flight is not so long that good eyes can't see and evade shoulder launched weapons.

Note that MANPADS have not taken down a single fast mover in the USAF in the past 20 years and it is not like they have not tried and it is not like they have not hit a few fast movers, they just don't take down fast moving fixed wing a/c very well.

The Golden Rule: Someone who cannot spell Guerrilla can't know the true potential of Guerrilla Warfare.



On the subject of the current Jihad against the Coalition led forces in Iraq(mainly U.S. and some British troops) and the psuedo-guerrilla campaign being waged against them. You don't find it to be effective, ShadowXIX? We both live in the states, so surely we both know how AGAINST the war the public has become, and how against the president the public has become, reflected in every poll conducted in the past 30 days. This is partially a result of the enemies tactics, don't you see this?

It's actually quite ingenius. They have the world's only superpower fully engaged and struggling to secure the entire country, which is about the size of California. In fact, we cannot secure the country, its basicly impossible at this point 3-4 years and going. All they have to do is holdout until our troops can't remain deployed, which may very well be a decision that the military commanders have no choice in, due to public opinion or whomever is the president at the time, ie: our next president, who will undoubtably run on an anti-iraq-war platform of some sort.

When we leave they've won, no matter how many casualties we've inflicted, no matter what the scorecards would officially say in regards to number of kills and destroyed materials/buildings. Who is they? Not just the local Sunni insurgency but the terrorists too, Al-Qaeda as well. When we have to go they will spring an offensive on the ruling Shiites, which will have to defend themselves with militias like Mahdi army because the police and army of iraq suck too much, and the Sunnis will take them out.

OR, if we do succeed in some amazing feat, and the Jihadists who havent received martyrdom yet decide to put down their bombs and go home, the second we leave Iraq, they and Iran will become major allies, being the only two majority Shiite nations on Earth, and neighbors to boot. All the Shiite holy sites are in Iraq.

Yes, I have to say they've got our military by the perverbial balls at the moment, no matter how much we dominate them on the open battlefield. Guerrilla warfare is a funny concept huh? Especially when its combined with Jihadism and all that propaganda ..

[edit on 10-9-2006 by runetang]

An example of what properly equipped and trained guerrilla fighters can do in a defensive situation with 1980's technologies that is perfect for this discussion is the recent conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah.

Hezbollah lost more men than Israel, yes, and im speaking of military men not civilians, which we know Lebanon lost alot more of. But Hezbollah inflicted nasty casualties on the Israeli army, this is the thing. On the ground they were prepared with traps and tactics, with equipment, and held their own, making Israel look MUCH more 'down-to-size' where as before the conflict everyone thought Israel's army was godly because of the 1967 war and 1973 war. Please.

I'm no fan of Hezbollah, infact I was rooting for Israel for personal reasons, but even I can say Hezbollah gave Israel a bloody nose soto speak, despite Israels massive air bombardments and artillery bombardments which bordered on war crimes. You know why they killed so many civilians? Because Hezbollah often fought from populated areas. This is a tactic of guerrilla warfare yet again, and what happens is, the attacker or offender is always seen as the perpetraitor and the guilty party for killing such large amounts of civilians, AS WE SAW from the global reaction to the conflict.

On the subject of a ground war of any kind with Iran, Hezbollah was being trained and led by Iranian extensions, like people from their Armed Forces. Not to mention armed by them to boot. Don't you think a war in Iran would follow the same exact pace and setup? Surely Iran's forces would deploy in a defensive guerrilla posture and inflict casualties much like Hezbollah did to Israeli ground forces. U.S. Commanders know this, and frankly aren't stupid enough(I'd hope) to start such a conflict.. especially while the Iraqi one is ongoing.