Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Bogie603rd on August 28, 2006, 12:11:39 PM
-
Yesterday I saw a news report on a new iranian made missile that is launched from a sub to hit a target in the air or in the water. Test was succesfull and hit the water-target right in the middle. Although I do not know what they were aiming at, it was rather small plus the missile got a direct hit.
Still think the nuclear crisis can be contained, now that Iran has under-water missiles, nuclear generators / reactors, sub-to-air / water missiles? Looks like their building up their weapons arsenal for a LONG war.
-
EDIT: For I R Dumbness
-
True, yet within a 3 month span period, they came out with all this new technology mainly missiles. All of which could fire from or near the water to hit water targets. Sound intresting?
-
Just more sabre rattling. Would do you think the Iranians have that they dont show on the news. Thats more to be concerned about.
-
Originally posted by BlueJ1
The superpowers have had sub to air missles for a long time now.
Can you find a link to a sub to air missile that is operational?
-
Short Memory. Remember Operation Praying Mantis in the late 80s when the U.S. was running convoy protection in the gulf for Kuwait tankers?
Operation Praying Mantis was the April 18, 1988 action waged by U.S. naval forces in retaliation for the Iranian mining of an American warship by the Iran Ajr.
The April 14 mining nearly sank the guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts, which was sailing in the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Earnest Will, the 1987-88 convoy missions in which U.S. warships escorted reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers to protect them from Iranian attacks.
After the mining, U.S. Navy divers recovered other mines in the area. The serial numbers matched those of mines seized along with the Iran Ajr the previous September.
By the time the Roberts was towed to Dubai on April 15, battered but saved with no loss of life, U.S. planning for the retaliatory operation had already begun in Washington and in the Middle East.
The battle, the largest between surface forces since World War II, sank two Iranian warships and as many as six armed speedboats.
The attack by the U.S. helped pressure Iran to agree to a ceasefire with Iraq later that summer, ending the eight-year conflict between the Persian Gulf neighbors.
The battle
On April 18, 1988, the Americans responded with several groups of surface warships, plus airplanes from the carrier USS Enterprise. The action began with coordinated strikes by two surface groups. One group, consisting of two destroyers and the amphibious transport dock USS Trenton, attacked the Sassan oil platform while the other, which included a guided missile cruiser and two frigates, attacked the Sirri oil platform. U.S. Marines from Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) 2-88 fast-roped onto the Sassan platform, gathered intelligence, and set explosives to disable it.
Iran responded by dispatching Boghammar speedboats to attack various targets in the Persian Gulf, including an American-flagged supply ship and a Panamanian-flagged ship. After these attacks, A-6E Intruder aircraft from VA-95 were vectored in on the speedboats by an American frigate. The aircraft dropped Rockeye cluster bombs on the speedboats, sinking one and damaging several others.
Action continued to escalate. Joshan, an Iranian Combattante II Kaman-class fast attack craft, challenged USS Wainwright (CG-28) and her surface group, firing a Harpoon missile at them. The American ships responded to the challenge by firing six Standard missiles and one Harpoon at Joshan, destroying it. Fighting continued when the Iranian frigate Sahand departed Bandar Abbas and challenged elements of an American surface group. She was observed by two VA-95 A-6Es while they were flying surface combat air patrol for USS Joseph Strauss (DDG-16).
Sahand launched missiles at the A-6Es, and the Intruders replied with launches of two Harpoons and four laser-guided Skipper bombs. This was followed by a Harpoon firing from Joseph Strauss. The weapons delivered against Sahand were successful.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/OperationPrayingMantis-IS_Alvand.jpg)
Fires blazing on her decks eventually reached her magazines, resulting in an explosion that led to her sinking. Despite the loss of Sahand, one of Iran's most modern ships, the Iranian navy continued to fight. A sister ship, Sabalan, departed her port for operations in the Persian Gulf. She fired on several A-6Es from VA-95 with a surface-to-air missile. One of the Intruders responded with a laser-guided bomb that hit Sabalan and stopped her dead in the water. The Iranian frigate was taken in tow by an Iranian tug with the stern partially submerged. VA-95's aircraft, as ordered, did not continue the attack.
By the end of the operation elements of the American fleet had damaged Iranian naval and intelligence facilities on two inoperable oil platforms in the Persian Gulf, and sank at least six armed Iranian speedboats. Sabalan was repaired in 1989 and has since been upgraded, and is still in service with the Iranian navy. In short, Iran lost one major warship and a smaller gunboat. Damage to the oil platforms was eventually repaired and they are now back in service.
The U.S. side took only two casualties: the aircrew of a Marine Corps AH-1T Sea Cobra gunship. The Cobra, attached to the USS Trenton, was flying reconnaissance from the Wainwright and crashed sometime after dark about 15 miles southwest of Abu Musa island. The bodies of Capt. Stephen C. Leslie, 30, of New Bern, N.C., and Capt. Kenneth W. Hill, 33, of Thomasville, N.C., were recovered by Navy divers in May, and the wreckage of the helicopter was raised later that month. Navy officials said it showed no sign of battle damage, though the aircraft could have crashed while trying to evade Iranian fire.
Operation Praying Mantis is one of five American naval engagements cited by United States Naval Academy Prof. Craig L. Symonds in his book Decision at Sea (2005) as being decisive in establishing U.S. naval superiority. The others were the Battle of Lake Erie (1813), the Battle of Hampton Roads (1862), the Battle of Manila Bay (1898), and the Battle of Midway (1942).
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/Iranian_frigate_Sahand_on_fire.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Can you find a link to a sub to air missile that is operational?
No, because Im guessing Im wrong.
-
Hehe yes you are :)
No such system is operational today. The russians have had some systems installed in the sail, but you have to be on the surface or semi-submerged to fire them.
There are a few companies that are researching it but none of those systems are operational.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Hehe yes you are :)
No such system is operational today. The russians have had some systems installed in the sail, but you have to be on the surface or semi-submerged to fire them.
There are a few companies that are researching it but none of those systems are operational.
How come? What seems to be the problem?
I mean by now you'd think we would bebale to do such a thing.
-
Originally posted by BlueJ1
How come? What seems to be the problem?
Guidance and tracking
The fact that launching from a sub reveals the position of the sub.
The russians developed it for their diesel-electric subs to be used against helos and planes if they were caught on the surface while charging the batteries . If it ever was put onboard any of the Kilo subs it was inteded for is unsertain. American and other nuklear subs dont surface at all.
The companies that are researching it are mainly european companies that wants them for thier diesel-electric subs. The development of AIP subs have slowed down the pace of that development and they may never get operational.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Guidance and tracking
The fact that launching from a sub reveals the position of the sub.
The russians developed it for their diesel-electric subs to be used against helos and planes if they were caught on the surface while charging the batteries . If it ever was put onboard any of the Kilo subs it was inteded for is unsertain. American and other nuklear subs dont surface at all.
The companies that are researching it are mainly european companies that wants them for thier diesel-electric subs. The development of AIP subs have slowed down the pace of that development and they may never get operational.
Thankyou sir. One last question, do you have any reccomended sites I can read on the subject?
-
Originally posted by BlueJ1
Thankyou sir. One last question, do you have any reccomended sites I can read on the subject?
Not at the moment. The info i have is from my days in the navy and various other sources within that community. A year or so i also stubled across a site with alot of info on the topic, but i have later failed to find it again im afraid.
You may find some info at: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/877-specs.htm
I will have a look at a place i belive there is some info and get back to you
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Not at the moment. The info i have is from my days in the navy and various other sources within that community. A year or so i also stubled across a site with alot of info on the topic, but i have later failed to find it again im afraid.
You may find some info at: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/877-specs.htm
I will have a look at a place i belive there is some info and get back to you
thankyou very much sir. Dont bother wasting more time on educating the uneducated. :D
-
hehe no problemo.. its an interesting topic for me :)
http://www.adjunct.diodon349.com/DNSO/ss_news_daily_for_06jan06.htm#AIM-9X_Land_Launch_Demo_Advances_Sub_Payload_Capability_
"AIM-9X Land Launch Demo Advances Sub Payload Capability
By Team Submarine Public Affairs, NAVSEA Newswire, 5 Jan 06
WASHINGTON - The Navy successfully conducted a research and development (R&D) land based test at an Army range in New Mexico, leveraging the Sidewinder AIM-9X missile, an air to air missile used on tactical fighter aircraft, to proof out critical missile adaptation features for submarine use.
Among the test objectives achieved in November 2005 were the ability to vertically launch the missile from zero velocity, and to lock-on after launch. The test was a collaborative effort between the Joint Program Office for Air to Air Missiles, Raytheon Missile Systems and Team Submarine Advanced Research. Capt. Mark Bock, program manager for Team Submarine's Undersea Defensive Systems Program Office, led this effort.
The land launched test involved detecting, tracking and destroying an unmanned helicopter drone. The target was not visible to the missile at launch. The missile turned and acquired the target several miles down range, remaining locked on until intercept.
Many “firsts” were achieved during this demonstration. Aside from the zero air speed vertical launch, this test was also the first AIM-9X launched from an Army Chaparral trailer, the first AIM-9X to engage a target below 3,000 feet, or 300 knots, and the first launch using a commercial off the shelf fire control system.
Because the AIM-9X missile is a good choice for research and development (R&D) of small missile payloads for the guided missile submarines (SSGNs) and attack submarines (SSNs), the results can be extended to other missile payloads and different platforms such as the Littoral Combat Ship.
The next step in this R&D process is to analyze the vertical launch thrust characteristics of gas production and temperature in support of encapsulation for an underwater test.
According to Capt. Bock, planning for in-water testing of the capability is currently underway.
“The ‘encapsulation’ technique will be the forerunner for deploying air breathing payloads like unmanned aerial vehicles from submarines in the future,” he said.
The most mature of these encapsulation technologies, the Stealthy Affordable Capsule System or SACS, will be leveraged for the next phase of risk reduction testing. This effort, led by the Northrop Grumman Corporation, will demonstrate the capability to encapsulate and perform submerged launch of the AIM-9X from a launch fixture representative of a submarine Vertical Launch System that is currently used for Tomahawk cruise missiles.
The long-range research goal is to be able to field any existing Department of Defense missile payload onboard submarines rapidly and at low cost."
-
The system beeing developed in Europe is a variant of the Polyphem missile. Not much info to find with google unless you dig deep, but this picture sais it all
(http://www.5dt.com/products/images/def_polyphem_cbt_006.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
The russians have had some systems installed in the sail, but you have to be on the surface or semi-submerged to fire them.
That reminds me, I forgot to mention I heard that the majority of their weapons aresenal is or was created by the russians. Also, the sub has to be surfaced to fire this missile.
-
Alot of what the Iranians have are made by/designed by/designed with Russia or China.
The Iranian missile that hit the two ships off the Lebanese coast is a Chinese design that has been reverse-engineered from a Russian weapon and improved.
-
What about this F-15 launched from sub!? fake? must be a Polaris missile faked, no?:(
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6084166636389127522&q=f+15&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6084166636389127522&q=f+15&hl=en)
-
Originally posted by ghi
What about this F-15 launched from sub!? fake?:(
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6084166636389127522&q=f+15&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6084166636389127522&q=f+15&hl=en)
Yes, very fake. It looks like it was a rockets and someone just put a f-16 over it.
-
I wonder how useful a sub would be in the Persian gulf, fairly shallow
water for submarine operations.
-
I wonder how useful a sub would be in the Persian gulf, fairly shallow
Great for sinking oil tankers.......
-
I suppose so, if they can get to them.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Alot of what the Iranians have are made by/designed by/designed with Russia or China.
The Iranian missile that hit the two ships off the Lebanese coast is a Chinese design that has been reverse-engineered from a Russian weapon and improved.
Nope. It was an Iranian made copy of a Chinese development of a reverse-enginered French MM.38 Exocet. :)
Hi Nilsen, I'm Viking, a countryman of yours.
-
Wiki: Persian Gulf
The waters are overall very shallow and have a maximum depth of 90 metres and an average depth of 50 metres.
Wouldn't take very long to crash dive to the bottom, I'd think.
-
Anyone ever try this? http://www.strategyfirst.com/en/games/DangerousWaters/
-
USN calls a iranian sub in the Persian gulf a "target".
-
Originally posted by Viking
Nope. It was an Iranian made copy of a Chinese development of a reverse-enginered French MM.38 Exocet. :)
Hi Nilsen, I'm Viking, a countryman of yours.
Hi Viking.. I got my missiles mixed up and you are correct. Exocet was the original that was reverse-engineered.
-
Originally posted by ghi
What about this F-15 launched from sub!? fake? must be a Polaris missile faked, no?:(
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6084166636389127522&q=f+15&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6084166636389127522&q=f+15&hl=en)
(Off topic really quickly) After clicking that link I found another video that I thought would be fun to watch. After watching it 3 times, I noticed one of the bombs being dropped from this A-10 never detonated on impact!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3250497958394185571
Watch the bomb on the far right.
-
In regards to sub-to-air missiles, it's worth nothing that the US submarine fleet has a handful of Stinger launchers on each ship, if I understand correctly. Not exactly what the subject is about (if by "not exactly" I mean "not at all"), but it's technically, in this context, a sub to air missile. :D
I don't imagine that a Polaris configured to airburst 30 seconds after launch to knock out local aircraft would count either, for that matter....
-
True, it's nothing big that we can't handle. But once again, it just shows proof that Iran is not planning on ceising all work on its nuclear program. Especially since their coming out with tests for all this technology they are making / receiving. The U.N. (Although their a bunch of asses) should take note of this and decide that isolationism is the only method, if not a full-scale attack with bunker-busters on their nuclear sites.
-
Originally posted by Bogie603rd
True, it's nothing big that we can't handle. But once again, it just shows proof that Iran is not planning on ceising all work on its nuclear program. Especially since their coming out with tests for all this technology they are making / receiving. The U.N. (Although their a bunch of asses) should take note of this and decide that isolationism is the only method, if not a full-scale attack with bunker-busters on their nuclear sites.
lol.. the UN is not a "they", its you, me and all off us. You are infact calling yourself whatever you called the UN :lol
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
lol.. the UN is not a "they", its you, me and all off us. You are infact calling yourself whatever you called the UN :lol
For myself, I do not feel represented by the UN. Just because you do
doesn't mean it applies to everyone.
-
Ahmadinejad challenges Bush to live TV debate
I hope Bush accepts the chalange, this would be interesting to watch, would have more viewers than SuperBowll game
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-08-29T150005Z_01_L29932186_RTRUKOC_0_UK-NUCLEAR-IRAN.xml (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-08-29T150005Z_01_L29932186_RTRUKOC_0_UK-NUCLEAR-IRAN.xml)
-
Originally posted by Rino
For myself, I do not feel represented by the UN. Just because you do
doesn't mean it applies to everyone.
Your country is a member nation so in that respect you are represented.
-
Nilsen, just because you are part of that country, doesent mean that all the nations hear the cries of 634 million people. Who on earth would have time for that, since the average U.N. ambassador for countries only has a team of 30 or so that are directly affiliated with the ambassador.
-
Well thats true i suppose, but when you say "they" it sertainly sounds like its not somthing you belong to.
Would you use the word "they" about say NATO or any other organisation you country is a member of?, or is it just the UN that are "they" instead of say "we/us in the UN?"
What im getting at is that it sounds like the UN is something you would like to wash your hands off.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
What im getting at is that it sounds like the UN is something you would like to wash your hands off.
Personally, I would keep NATO and wave bye-bye to the UN.