OT: the Iranian Shkval

[timmyg00]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/02/iran.missile.ap/index.html

:o

<sigh>

TG

[Palindromeria]

thanks for the link.

wife was asking about this not 10 minutes ago !

[LuftWolf]

Sounds like Ivan boxed a few Squals up for the Central Asians...

[goldorak]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/02/iran.missile.ap/index.html

:o

<sigh>

TG

I find it very strange that the american army-navy-air force still think in terms of cold war tactics. I mean many countries even if they don't have the sheer force of the american navy have non the less quite devastating conventional weapons such as the squall.
Why aren't americans researching such a technology ?
The same thing happens with the F-22 raptor.
An extremely conventional and pricey fighter that doesn't stand up against the Eurofighter nor the Rafale.
The french are even developping a system that would enable the Rafale to be literally invisible to radar waves without having to design the aircraft around RAM materials nor fancy airframes.
They are designing an active cancellation hardware, which the americans aren't even considering researching.

[Bill Nichols]

Did you see my video link on the Subsim front page (under 'news')?

[SeaQueen]

I find it very strange that the american army-navy-air force still think in terms of cold war tactics.


They don't, really. There's been a lot of post-Cold War technologies to emerge and more will come. All of this UAV/USV/UUV stuff is post-Cold War. Things are in the process of changing.

Right now is a complicated time for all militaries globally. It's one thing to say, "you guys need to think differently," but it's another thing to say specifically how. Right now, there's a lot of debate about what ought to be different and nobody really has a single answer.


I mean many countries even if they don't have the sheer force of the american navy have non the less quite devastating conventional weapons such as the squall.


People have known this for a long time. Look at the tanker wars in the 80s. Cruise missiles weren't even as sophisticated then as they are now. Supposedly, one of the "transformative" technologies for the US navy was going to be the Littoral Combat Ship, which is slowly on it's way out. Low observable warships are going to be a big thing in a future where advanced cruise missiles are commonplace. They're also working on developing advanced anti-missile technologies.


Why aren't americans researching such a technology ?


We are.


The same thing happens with the F-22 raptor.
An extremely conventional and pricey fighter that doesn't stand up against the Eurofighter nor the Rafale.


I'm not sure that's entirely clear but that being said, so far, the USAF has been a big loser in terms of it's piece of the defense budget because they have been the slowest to rethink how they fit into the post Cold-War picture. The fastest, actually, has been the Marines and Army. They're relatively inexpensive, though. None the less, the Marines are getting a WHOLE lot of fancy new gear; MV-22s, new AH-1s, new UH-1s, new MH-53s, EFVs, upgraded LCACs, UAVs, JSFs... etc. GATORs in the Navy are also receiving a lot of corresponding attention. Just look at the LPD-17. Additionally, the LHDs are getting all kinds of upgrades. They're moving away from a relatively wimpy ARG to the much more heafty ESG. There's the DD(X) and CG(X). The DD(X) will most likely exist only on paper for some time, but it is a post-Cold War design. There's the MPF(F). There's the whole Seabasing concept, Operational Maneuver from the Sea, and Ship to Objective Maneuver.

In the ASW picture, the Navy has LFA already out, ADS is coming out, they keep trying to figure out how to get the Firescout to do ASW. There's the LCS-ASW package. There's the P-8 coming out. They're also really getting into multistatic sensors.

For the cruise missile threat, there's the RAM, a whole host of new decoys, they're looking into other advanced Star-Wars anti-missile weapons. There's also a lot of attention being paid to anti-ballistic missile defense.

For undersea warfare and special operations, there's the SSGN and TACTOM.


The french are even developping a system that would enable the Rafale to be literally invisible to radar waves without having to design the aircraft around RAM materials nor fancy airframes.
They are designing an active cancellation hardware, which the americans aren't even considering researching.

There's lots of low observable technology out there these days. The Chinese, for example, have started building low-observable missile boats. Unfortunately, once those kinds of secret weapons become public, it's only a matter of time before other nations start trying to develop comparable technology.

It will be interesting to see how every nation adjusts to the post-Cold War types of worries. Some will be faster than others, or choose to concentrate in different areas. Time will only tell who has the best ideas.

[Skybird]

The same thing happens with the F-22 raptor. An extremely conventional and pricey fighter that doesn't stand up against the Eurofighter nor the Rafale.

Having been a critic of the Eurofighter myself, I must admit that slowly but surely even the Germans are turning theirs into useable and highly capable platforms now (they lagged seriously behind the British in their attempt to clean it of the many bugs it left the factory with). And yes, there is probably no aircraft today that is more maneuverable than the eurofighter. Question is if this really is the decisive criterion, in the age of highly maneuverable AA-missiles like AIM9X, Python-4s and Archers (which additionally has BVR capabilitiy). If close-range fights are such lethal, then, BVR fighting becomes essential, and here long range sensors and awareness of what is moving and hiding on the battlefield takes over the important role. The F22 has one major advantage: it must not be made stealth, it already IS stealth. Embedded in the battlefield network of CCCI, like the Americans typically are fighting in, this plane without doubt will perform very well. I assume it looses some of it's advanatages and tactical potentials once it is on it's own, though. All in all I think that both aircraft need to be deployed in different ways, and then both will deliver superior performances, outclassing that of many other fighters today (maybe excluding the latest Russian models with their state of the art radar and missiles technology).

What I mean is this: a statement like the F22 not standing up against the Eurofighter (or Rafael!?) is, I think, a little bit far-fetched. Even IF material-based stealth technology one day will be outclassed in importance by active electronical counter-radar-technology. And that America says it is not researching such technology, does not necessarily mean that it does not research such technology indeed.

Btw, the Eurofighter is an extremely expensive aircraft, too...

[suttorad]

Hmmm,and what about stealth technology and czech radar with codename TAMARA ???

[Kapitan]

One tiny little switch can give a stealth plane away, its called the transponeder, the pilot only has to hit that active switch by accident and it will be shot down easy as any other plane.

As for the iranians skhval was more than likely purchased threw ukrain to save international bother with direct sale from russia.

[Skybird]

One tiny little switch can give a stealth plane away, its called the transponeder, the pilot only has to hit that active switch by accident and it will be shot down easy as any other plane.

Should that be a serious argument against stealthing platforms? That someone maybe, occasionally, by mistake or accident, could push the wrong button? I'm sure that they made sure to minimize the porobablity that something like that could happen, when thinking about the thing that is summarized under the abbreviation EMCON.

[Kapitan]

Well according to BBC FOX CNN and alot and i mean alot of other media and including USAF top brass.

a rapier missile system in england sucsessfuly tracked one of the F117 stealth aircraft while it was on its way to the farnbough airshow, when the americans were told it was orderd home immediatly.

[TLAM Strike]

One tiny little switch can give a stealth plane away, its called the transponeder, the pilot only has to hit that active switch by accident and it will be shot down easy as any other plane. When a Steath plane is on say a bombing mission why would the pilot be fiddleing with the Radio stack?!? Other than to maybe swap COM freqs their hand wouldn't be anywhere near the the Nav radio and XPDR. :huh: :roll:

[Kapitan]

Who knows trasponder is an easy thing to turn on and off by mistake its also one of the most easiest accsessible button on the plane hence when the plane that flew into the pentagon in 9/11 didnt register itself simply because the transponder was off the hijacker turned it off.

[goldorak]

Who knows trasponder is an easy thing to turn on and off by mistake its also one of the most easiest accsessible button on the plane hence when the plane that flew into the pentagon in 9/11 didnt register itself simply because the transponder was off the hijacker turned it off.

You don't give a lot of credit to fighter pilots do you ? :-j
Damn, and all those milions of $$ governments spend just to train them. :rotfl:

[XabbaRus]

Who knows trasponder is an easy thing to turn on and off by mistake its also one of the most easiest accsessible button on the plane hence when the plane that flew into the pentagon in 9/11 didnt register itself simply because the transponder was off the hijacker turned it off.

:damn:

[Kapitan]

If that transponeder was working then the plane could have been enguaged long before it crashed into the pentagon saving alot of lives.

I think that all civil aircraft should have a transponder that is activated by the airport they leave rather than doing it themselves so ATC can make absolutly sure its not doing something that it shouldnt be.

[timmyg00]

Am I stoned, or am I not seeing any discussion about the original topic of the post? :o

This is a gold mine of naval discussion, tactical discussion, scenario building... and maybe even... mod discussion...

come on y'all!

TG

[The Bandit]

Just thought I'd like to mention that I think it was about 3 or 4 years ago that the americans had an expirimental supercavitation weapon in the works. DARPA is into all sorts of intereting stuff that we'll probably never hear about. The russians plan for shkval-II seams to make the most sense though. I forget where I heard about it but apparently, the russians want to make a next-generation super-cavitating torpedo that will supercavitate towards its target at 300 or so knots, then slow down to speeds simular to a normal torpedo (say 30-50 knots) and aquire its target on active sonar, then speed up again and super cavitate to its target. While not fool-proof (I bet active countermeasures could conceviably throw it off) this makes a lot more sense that just shooting an unguided 300 knot supercavitating bullet.

[Orm]

One tiny little switch can give a stealth plane away, its called the transponeder, the pilot only has to hit that active switch by accident and it will be shot down easy as any other plane. When a Steath plane is on say a bombing mission why would the pilot be fiddleing with the Radio stack?!? Other than to maybe swap COM freqs their hand wouldn't be anywhere near the the Nav radio and XPDR. :huh: :roll:

timmyg00, please don't get mad with this post. :D

But for information, during the first Gulf war, a F117 was picked up by a French Crotale AA aerial surveillance radar while it was coming back from a mission over Iraq.

[DivingWind]

So much for stealth technology :)

[goldorak]

So much for stealth technology :)


The term stealth is misguided.
In effect a stealth platform only reduces radar waves reflecting off the airframe (or the hull/superstructures for ships).
It does not make the platform invisibile.
So as radar technology gets better, stealth airplanes will be "less" stealthy :rotfl:

On the other hand, active cancellation of radar waves would make the airplane "invisible" to radar.

[OKO]

the most funny thing is Iranian pretend the new underwater missile to be stealth at sonar !
I can imagine how a rocket motor could be stealth underwater :rotfl:

One very impressive thing from iranian is also the fly boat :

http://inbrief.threatswatch.org/2006/04/irans-stealth-advances-the-ira/

If Iranian mix them, this could be a nasty combinaison !

[timmyg00]

the most funny thing is Iranian pretend the new underwater missile to be stealth at sonar !
I can imagine how a rocket motor could be stealth underwater :rotfl:

One very impressive thing from iranian is also the fly boat :

http://inbrief.threatswatch.org/2006/04/irans-stealth-advances-the-ira/

If Iranian mix them, this could be a nasty combinaison ! Actually, I think the Iranians are currently testing 2 different items: a "stealthy" land-based anti-ship missile and the presumably-supercavitating torpedo. The media/press is probably confusing the two items in their reports.

In any case, it seems like they are not screwing around when it comes to naval defense measures... or perhaps they're just blowing a bunch of hot air for propaganda's sake.

TG

[Kapitan]

To be honest, its over glamoured, if this weapon is anything like the russian built skhval there realy isnt alot to worry about.

The kilo's cant load it out because the tubes are not designed for them and never have been (unless that was why they sent them for upgrade).

The new submarines as xabba said are nothing more than glorified sang O's ie very small submarines and id doubt they could loud out this weapon it would be A too big B to advanced C take up too much space and personaly id say they would have to enlarge the submarine from the pictures i have seen.

As for ship launched via a missile boat, well im sure that one of thier PTG isnt going to get any closer than 30 miles to a CVBG especialy if they have an aegis ship in it, the iranians will be blown out of the water longbefore they got into range.

The missile torpedo itself, eats fuel and will have an max range of only 10 or 11 miles at tops. even at 200knots the torpedo cant use sonar its straight runningso a ship only has to turn.

Fire it from a submarine well bit like going to mount everest with the worlds loudest megaphone and screaming down it at the top of your lungs, you will inform everyone in the entire persian gulf if not further that you are there.

[LuftWolf]

My dad just called me to watch out for Iranians bearing super sonic stealth torpedoes... :rotfl: (No not really...)

The F117 is so first gen...

(Quickies...)

So t, you want Iranian subs to fire Squals now, eh? Well... the problem with that is there is no evidence any subs or ships currently in the Iranian Navy are capable of firing Squals... I can't justify giving them to the Iranian Kilos, because wouldn't it then make sense that the Russian Kilos would be able to fire them already? :hmm:

I think this is just a bunch of blustering two bit crap...

[LuftWolf]

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran announced its second major new missile test within days, saying Sunday it has successfully fired a high-speed underwater missile capable of destroying huge warships and submarines

So, the AP is placing Iranian propaganda in their subheads without reference? Shouldn't that blurb end in, "So Iranian Spokesmen Say?," or is it just that I'm reading it wrong? In any case, it's vague... :88)

Don't they have schools that people who become journalists have to go to? What the hell are they teaching there???

[timmyg00]

So t, you want Iranian subs to fire Squals now, eh? Well... the problem with that is there is no evidence any subs or ships currently in the Iranian Navy are capable of firing Squals... I can't justify giving them to the Iranian Kilos, because wouldn't it then make sense that the Russian Kilos would be able to fire them already? :hmm:

I think this is just a bunch of blustering two bit crap... I would never want that if it were not realistic... I was just trying to spur some conversation on what is (or is said to be) going on in the real-world in comparison to what is or could be modeled in DW.

As for evidence, what "evidence" do we have for any of the "facts and figures" that currently populate our treasured sims? We all know that a good percentage of what is modeled in DW is educated guesswork, especially for AI and playable units of non-US forces.

Anyway, I just thought it would be interesting topic for discussion.

TG

[LuftWolf]

Well it certainly is... :)

Perhaps I just find this to be a particularly amusing claim for the Iranians to make, and I can just imagine the many many exchanges between Russian and Iranian negotiators to get a few Squals to fire off into the ocean at nothing in particular at some randomly appointed time. :lol:

[LuftWolf]

As for evidence, what "evidence" do we have for any of the "facts and figures" that currently populate our treasured sims? We all know that a good percentage of what is modeled in DW is educated guesswork, especially for AI and playable units of non-US forces.

Well this is a great point of course.

I try to make the work done on the Mod at least internally consistent... so that even if something lacks a solid external reference point, it has relative reference points within the database.

Iranian's having Squals doesn't make much for them, both in real life and in the Mod, at least, that's my estimation. I could add them, but they would never be used really on their surface ships... and none of their subs are suitable for the reasons Kapitain spelled out in his post above.

[goldorak]

The missile torpedo itself, eats fuel and will have an max range of only 10 or 11 miles at tops. even at 200knots the torpedo cant use sonar its straight runningso a ship only has to turn.


Sure, but do they have the time to evade ? :hmm:


Fire it from a submarine well bit like going to mount everest with the worlds loudest megaphone and screaming down it at the top of your lungs, you will inform everyone in the entire persian gulf if not further that you are there.

Ah but you are reasoning in western terms.
How about a suicide mission ?
Get near an us navy aircarft carrier, fire several squalls and wait for the virgins in paradise to greet the kilo's crew.
Think about the dismay in the us military if one of the aicraft carriers should sink as a consequence of this type of attack.

[timmyg00]

Let's not get into the differences between propaganda and what passes for journalism these days ;)

LW, I've nothing but praise for your efforts and am happy with what you and Amizaur have done with DW, even though I have precious little play-time to back up my opinions... i'm trying to get back in, i really am :P

I also agree that (a) these weapons don't yet belong in the sim and (b) they're probably not a big deal anyway, and not just for the reasons stated.

TG

[LuftWolf]

Now, I COULD make a Squal with a tactical nuclear warhead and put it on a special version of a ship added to the Iranian navy...

That might be cool... if not a bit stereotypical. :P

If there is going to be any kind of "nuke addition" to DW, that might be one of the more plausible.

goldorak, you have brought up a good point there. The Squal was originally designed to carry a nuclear warhead... if the Iranians got one of THOSE that would suck, but I seriously doubt that any but their plans exist now, of course that could be enough for the Iranians if they have a viable nuclear program, which it would seem they do... :-?

[OKO]

the most funny thing is Iranian pretend the new underwater missile to be stealth at sonar !
I can imagine how a rocket motor could be stealth underwater :rotfl:

One very impressive thing from iranian is also the fly boat :

http://inbrief.threatswatch.org/2006/04/irans-stealth-advances-the-ira/

If Iranian mix them, this could be a nasty combinaison ! Actually, I think the Iranians are currently testing 2 different items: a "stealthy" land-based anti-ship missile and the presumably-supercavitating torpedo. The media/press is probably confusing the two items in their reports.

In any case, it seems like they are not screwing around when it comes to naval defense measures... or perhaps they're just blowing a bunch of hot air for propaganda's sake.

TG

I know it's two different things, that's why I used "if" ;)
Combinaison of a stealthy very fast boat and an underwater missile could cause ... quite a HUGE problem for convoy escort.

Those things really look like they are made to be used together.

On the test of the underwater missile, it was launched from a patrol boat and not from a sub.

I suppose the flying boat won't be unarmed anyway ... and his best weapon could be this one.

[LuftWolf]

Let's not get into the differences between propaganda and what passes for journalism these days ;)

LW, I've nothing but praise for your efforts and am happy with what you and Amizaur have done with DW, even though I have precious little play-time to back up my opinions... i'm trying to get back in, i really am :P

I also agree that (a) these weapons don't yet belong in the sim and (b) they're probably not a big deal anyway, and not just for the reasons stated.

TG

Timmy, just to be clear, I have nothing but respect for your many contributions to SubSim... I don't want you to think at all that I'm jumping ugly on or about your thread. :) :lol:

Cheers,
David

[Bubblehead Nuke]

I suppose the flying boat won't be unarmed anyway ... and his best weapon could be this one.

This "flying boat' is nothing more then a WIG "Wing in Ground Effect" vehicle.

Do a quick search on the internet and you can find large amounts of data on them. The 'Caspian Sea Monster' of the cold war is the most well known.

Check out: http://www.se-technology.com/wig/index.php for some of the basics.

Do a search for Ekranoplans for more info. This is a GREAT idea that someone had. One that I tip my hat to the Soviets for their research and development.

And you are right about this being their best weapon. These are DANGEROUS things if used right. Low altitude, fairly high speed, and HUGE cargo capacities if made right. I shudder to think what a squardon of these, armed correctly, could do to a SAG.

I think the Iranians are, unfortunately, onto something with this one.

[LuftWolf]

I shudder to think what a squardon of these, armed correctly, could do to a SAG.

Absorb large amounts of RAM, CIWS, and .50cal fire? :yep: :|\

[TLAM Strike]

I shudder to think what a squardon of these, armed correctly, could do to a SAG.

Absorb large amounts of RAM, CIWS, and .50cal fire? :yep: :|\ And probably some 5.56, 9mm and if they attack my buddy's Tin Can the DDG-81 some .45 cal, harsh language and a coffee mug! :rock:

[OKO]

I suppose the flying boat won't be unarmed anyway ... and his best weapon could be this one.

This "flying boat' is nothing more then a WIG "Wing in Ground Effect" vehicle.

Do a quick search on the internet and you can find large amounts of data on them. The 'Caspian Sea Monster' of the cold war is the most well known.

Check out: http://www.se-technology.com/wig/index.php for some of the basics.

Do a search for Ekranoplans for more info. This is a GREAT idea that someone had. One that I tip my hat to the Soviets for their research and development.

And you are right about this being their best weapon. These are DANGEROUS things if used right. Low altitude, fairly high speed, and HUGE cargo capacities if made right. I shudder to think what a squardon of these, armed correctly, could do to a SAG.

I think the Iranians are, unfortunately, onto something with this one.

Nothing more, but with very different objectives.
I know about russians flying boats, I've read some amazing things about it, they were planning a really HUGE transport with this concept.

But if it's the same concept, it's not the same goal
Here it's not transport, but fast attack small ship.
Give 2 underwater rockets to the wings of this small boat, and you'll have a very dangerous thing, with unmatched engagment speed.
the time ennemy realise there is a very strange and fast thing around, the target of the flying boat will be hit.

We don't know yet if this rocket will be submarine launched capable.
We have to take a lot of care also on the Iranian propaganda (stealthy to sonar and supercavitating in the same time just look ridiculous ...)
But this rocket WAS launched from a patrol boat (or something bigger, I just saw a very short movie at french TV)
So, it's far from science fiction to imagine they could couple flying boats with that weapon.
If I was them I will have done that :hmm:
don't you ?

Maybe it's just a question of development time ...

[TLAM Strike]

Yea but a Cobra gunship or hellfire armed Seahawk would be a match for this thing!

[LuftWolf]

I still don't see those boats with Squals being any more effective than say a jet armed with anti-ship missiles?

Is there something I'm missing?

It sounds like large fast transports are a better application of this technology. :yep:

[moose1am]

Did the USA disclose it's new tecnology before it went to war? No. And no other country in their right mind will dilvulge it top secret weapons until they are used against an enemy. Right now the USA and other countries are probably working on many new weapons and technolgoies and the last thing they want is for a potential enemy to learn about these weapons. You would risk loosing the element of surprise or a war if you let the enemy in on your top secretes.

So I hope that Iran is just blowing a lot of hot gas right now. A lot of talk has been going on about nuking or destorying Iran's potential to use nuclear weapons. And after what the world has seen the USA do in the past 6 year most countries would be wise to figure out a way to defend their resource if they can.

These supercavatating rocket propelled torpedoes have never been used in anger.. yet. I read where the Kurst was lost due to one of those babies blowing up inside the sub. I am sure that one of our nuclear subs was nearby gathing intel on Iran's war games. I'll bet there were a couple of seawolfs out there gathering intel on Iran.

Radar evading missiles developed by Iran?

Until Iran gets nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the USA they will remain on our short list of easy targets.


the most funny thing is Iranian pretend the new underwater missile to be stealth at sonar !
I can imagine how a rocket motor could be stealth underwater :rotfl:

One very impressive thing from iranian is also the fly boat :

http://inbrief.threatswatch.org/2006/04/irans-stealth-advances-the-ira/

If Iranian mix them, this could be a nasty combinaison ! Actually, I think the Iranians are currently testing 2 different items: a "stealthy" land-based anti-ship missile and the presumably-supercavitating torpedo. The media/press is probably confusing the two items in their reports.

In any case, it seems like they are not screwing around when it comes to naval defense measures... or perhaps they're just blowing a bunch of hot air for propaganda's sake.

TG

[TLAM Strike]

Anyone read the comments about this WIGE vehicle at LGF? :rotfl:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19936_Beware_the_Invisible_Flying_Boat_of_A llah

Three of my favroates so far:
i bought one of those flying boats from one of those tiny ads in the back of popular mechanics magazine... they DON'T fly... at all.

I mean, anyone suggesting this to a bad guy in a Bond film would get laughed at while he was pushed into the piranha tank.
Is it just me or are the Iranians sounding like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail?


EDIT: They also got comments on the "Whale" torpedo:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19927_Iranian_Torpedo_Watch&only

[SeaQueen]

I still don't see those boats with Squals being any more effective than say a jet armed with anti-ship missiles?

Is there something I'm missing?

It sounds like large fast transports are a better application of this technology. :yep:

I'm not sure I'd use the squal as my first shot because it'd be unlikely I'd get a second one, but it'd probably make counterfire very effective. So... in cases where I get shot at first and I don't have a good idea where the guy shooting at me is, the squal might have a better chance of hitting. Because he's not going to be able to get as far away from that bearing as he would with a conventional torpedo.

You'd probably also want to salvo them.

Now that I think about it, actually, a salvo of them, fired from a sub at periscope depth, could be a good first shot. You just mark the bearings of each surface ship, and let 'er rip. They'll stand good chance of hitting.

Is that more effective than a jet with ASCM? It probably depends on stuff.

[Barleyman]

Guys,

Hate to rain on your parade and all, but shkval-e has been on sale for many years.. Iran could quite reasonably buy one, as long as they put enough euros on the table.

After all, Russians sold Kilo to these guys.

Flying wing boo boo nonwithstanding.

[Kapitan]

anyone can buy a skhval infact i wouldnt hesitate to doubt Viktor bout was in on the entire deal he is the one guy who solidly managed to make the deal with iran to buy Kilo's in the first place.

[Wim Libaers]

I still don't see those boats with Squals being any more effective than say a jet armed with anti-ship missiles?

Is there something I'm missing?

It sounds like large fast transports are a better application of this technology. :yep:


Well, they could be more effective if the torpedo is harder to intercept than the cruise missile. Against AEGIS-equipped ships, that's probably correct. However, this obviously does require that the launching platform can get in range, and that's not going to be easy, even for a very low-flying WIG plane. Also, a WIG probably won't be very manueverable, due the requirement to stay low and keep the wings close to horizontal. So it may have problems retreating after releasing the weapon.

When the Soviets made theirs, they were mostly for transport use, and one type for long-range anti-ship missiles.

[NeonSamurai]

Ok well.. (bet ya can tell just from that that this post is gona be long) :)

As for the post on need for manuverability in modern aircraft when faced with modern missles, well it is actualy essential, because the only way your going to beat such a missle is to make it loose enough energy so it cant keep up (since jamming is useless as the missle will either home in on the jamming signal, or just burn through it (burning through jamming meens the missle gets close enough so its radar signal is stronger then the jamming signal). Also ir jammers and flares rarely work on modern IR missles).

So how do you force a missle to loose energy? Well remember 2 things, 1 all missle rocket moters have usualy burnt out long before it reached the target, that meens its gliding. your average rocket motor on most missles runs out of fuel in 5-20 seconds (Depending on type). 2 you need power and agility to quickly force the missle into a an intercept it cant make due to lack of energy, this meens forcing the missle to turn and climb to blead off even more energy. Also putting the missle on your beam (90/270 line) increases the chances that the missle will loose lock, and keeping it there forces it to burn even more of its very finite energy as it tries to keep its intercept course.

There never has been the perfect missle that never misses and always hits/kills, and likely never will. Currently a good pilot with a good plane, stands a very good chance of surviving most single missle shots.


As for "stealth" planes, well as other posters mentioned, there is no such thing, these planes are by no meens not the invisible killers cnn likes to portray. In daylight they can be visualy engaged (which is why the b2 and f117 never fly daylight missions). With the latest radar they can be tracked under the right circumstances, modern IR missles have no troubles tracking the vented exaust on the b2 and f117, and any modern radar missle which gets close enough will be able to lock on and hit them. The reason why more of them dont get shot down is the countries they are used against generaly dont have the very latest technology, and are hampered by poorly trained soldiers who handle what they do have. Even with not so new radar the 2 stealth bombers can be detected, which is why the pilots of these planes follow very carefully ploted paths to minimize radar reflections, also known as threading the needle.


As for the f-22 raptor, well there are some design flaws with it. First off there realy is little reason to want to have a stealthy fighter. Why? Well for one thing the 2 stealth bombers (f117 and b2) do not either carry or typicaly dont use radar when flying missons, they also dont need to (thanks to laser ground altimiters, flir and other technology). An interceptor fighter on the other hand does need to use radar if it realisticly wants to engage anything beyond 5km (which is typicaly the range of most IR missles). Currently AWACS and ground based radar are realy unable to provide accurate enough targeting (and rapid enough real time updates) to allow the F-22 to engage a target in bvr. So that meens they have to use their own internal radar, and by doing that they just threw their stealth "advantage" out the window. Nothing is a larger "here i am" sign then active radar. The moment you flick it on everyone in front of you is going to know that your there, and have a pretty good idea roughly were, you can also expect to soon have some of the latest AA missles homing in on your radar transmisions.

Plus to top it off the F-22 is only slightly stealthy, no where near as much as say the b2, or even f117. The stealth provided is suppost to allow it to get just with in bvr engagement range (about 15-20 km, which is about the outer envelope of the aim-120) before being detected, its stealth also near useless against most radar SAM's and non existant vs IR SAM platforms. It also has 2 large and rather hot super cruise engines, which meens it is just as vulnerable to ir detection and engagement as any other large 2 engine fighter. But to make matters even worse, due to the attempts to make it somewhat stealthy, they seriously sacrificed its maximum ordinance load, as all the oridinance has to be carried in internal weapons bays. which seriously limits what it can carry up (i think but dont quote me, it can carry a total of 6 aa missles, and no air to ground weapons, its a purpose built interceptor only).

So all in all this fighter design makes absolutly no sense to me, they would be far better off in my opinion removing the stealth features, putting the ordinance back on pylons (and thus increasing its ordinace load) and keeping the variable pitch engines and the rest of the technology.


As for the starting topic, im not expecialy worried about the squall missle, as was said by others, it a dumb fire weapon, exactly like a super high speed ww2 era torp. Its range is very very short compared to a us adcap torp (around 15% the max range of an adcap), and even shorter since you have to get close to have much chance of getting a hit. Even if the iranian subs can carry them, those subs would almost certainly get picked up and destroyed long before they with in suitable fireing range for that particular weapon. Now a stealthy passive sonar guided long range torpedo on the other hand is a definate threat to US carrier groups. A salvo of such torpedos could wreck havoc on a carrier group especialy if detected too late to deploy decoys and other countermeasures. Perhaps rather then decoys the US should consider reasearching miniure torpedoes to be used in an anti torpedo role, sort of like the missle defence missles used currently.

As for equiping a nuke on the squall, well i seriously doubt Iran is anywhere near far enough in its nuclear weapons program to make a nuke anywhere near small enough to fit it on a squall.

Lastly as for the Fajr-3, i some how doubt it performs quite as well as they claim. I learned a long time ago not to put any stock in claims of capability of a mentioned weapon from the country of origin. Lets just say its in their best interests to inflate effectiviness and bluff. They would certainly never be forthcoming on the actual results, successfull or not. No one ever lays their cards on the table during peace time.

Oh and dont get me started on CNN and their "experts" ;) I could easily point to their old military expert (and expert in everything else in the universe) Wolf Blitzer (sp?). The man who consistantly got everything totaly wrong about every single piece of military hardware they ever discussed, ive dated women who have zero interest in military hardware that know more about the subject then that idiot. :)