Iran bluffs...badly

[Wndrtch]

Well, those wonderful pictures of Iran's might, was all crap afterall.


IRAN MISSILE TEST BLUFF: OLD ROCKETS, BOGUS VIDEO
Fri Jul 11 2008 15:18:02 ET

Many of Iran's claims related to missile tests during "Great Prophet III" war games -- appear to be smoke and mirrors!

The missiles tested DID NOT not have 2,000-kilometer range, the NEW YORK TIMES is planning to report on Saturday.

Iran DID NOT launch a Shahab-3 missile, able to reach Israel.

It was an older missile that was out of production, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE.

And a video showing what appeared to be many missiles being fired -- is actually one missile, filmed from different angles!

NYT's Bill Broad is planning to quote military insiders.

Developing...

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashim.htm

I guess Obama can change his position again, now. I know he was looking forward to his meeting with Ahmedinijad.

[william the wierd]

Iran pulling a Saddam? Claiming non-existent weapons in order to be invaded is a bad idea.

[MCTHOUSAND]

The Russians sold the Iranians Sunburn anti-ship missiles that travel at mach 2.5 that skim low over the water. The latest defense for this is the sea-ram but one hit from this Sunburn can sink a carrier. I fear for our navy. I just hope the navy has something we don't know about that will protect our sailors and ships.

The French Exocet missile that was so deadly to British ships in their war with Argentina is a toy compared to the Sunburn. If the Argentine air force had more of the Exocet missiles, the outcome might have been different.

[AlanC]

Having a missle with a range of 100 miles means you have to have a delivery system capable of getting with in 100 miles of its target. If you are using shore batteries, they have to survive long enough to fire. If you are using radar to guide the missle your radar installations have to be on line and sending a signal for them to work.

All of this means it will be extremely difficult for the Iranians to make any significant launches against any navy ship much less an aircraft carrier.

Carrier fleet protection, the role of the F-14, is capable of engaging enemy planes from a distance of 300 miles from its carrier. Ask the Iraqis just how long their active radar survived if they were dumb enough to turn it on.

Prior to the war in Kuwait, all the talk was about the great Russian tanks and their expert Republican Guard crews and how the Americans were going to find them such a tough foe.

Ask the Republican Guards now how that worked out for them. It seems they don't see too well in the dark. Their Russian made SAMs weren't very effective with no working radar to guide them either.

[micfranklin]

I guess Obama can change his position again, now. I know he was looking forward to his meeting with Ahmedinijad.

Like he said earlier, Iran doesn't pose the kind of threat to us the way the Soviet Union did when they were armed to the teeth with missiles. Guess this proves it.

Still, going to launch another war is not a positive.

[MCTHOUSAND]

Having a missle with a range of 100 miles means you have to have a delivery system capable of getting with in 100 miles of its target. If you are using shore batteries, they have to survive long enough to fire. If you are using radar to guide the missle your radar installations have to be on line and sending a signal for them to work.

All of this means it will be extremely difficult for the Iranians to make any significant launches against any navy ship much less an aircraft carrier.

Carrier fleet protection, the role of the F-14, is capable of engaging enemy planes from a distance of 300 miles from its carrier. Ask the Iraqis just how long their active radar survived if they were dumb enough to turn it on.

Prior to the war in Kuwait, all the talk was about the great Russian tanks and their expert Republican Guard crews and how the Americans were going to find them such a tough foe.

Ask the Republican Guards now how that worked out for them. It seems they don't see too well in the dark. Their Russian made SAMs weren't very effective with no working radar to guide them either.


The Sunburn is a fire and forget missile and you are right about the range. If one gets within range, look out.

[MCTHOUSAND]

The Sunburn is a fire and forget missile and you are right about the range. If one gets within range, look out.

By the way I should have mentioned that the Persian gulf is 615 miles long and at the widest point is 210 miles.

[AlanC]

Thus the need to have active radar. The target has to be locked on before it can be fired. When you are afraid to lturn it on, it makes life immensly more difficult.

Assuming the missles weren't destroyed long before the radar was. That is a function of stealth planes and smart munitions you know.

[MCTHOUSAND]

Thus the need to have active radar. The target has to be locked on before it can be fired. When you are afraid to lturn it on, it makes life immensly more difficult.

Assuming the missles weren't destroyed long before the radar was. That is a function of stealth planes and smart munitions you know.

I hope you are right. (Bowing motion)

[G.B.]

Just an insiginificant side note, the F-14 is no longer in service. The Navy's main plane is now the FA-18.

[AlanC]

The main plane is the F-18 for all ground attack and fighter cover support. However the primary mission of the F-14 has been and still is to my knowledge, fleet protection.

The F14 has an effective combat range of 250 miles with a loiter time on station of over an hour. In addition it is the only platform designed to carry and launch the Phoenix missle. The Phoenix is a long range missle designed for this very specific purpose, fleet protection.

With the Phoenix, the F-14 can engage targets up to 90 miles away and destroy them at a distance of 75 miles. The Phoenix is a fire and forget self guided missle that reaches cruising altitudes of 70,000 feet and attacks down on its target making evasion extremely difficult.

The Phoenix has also been tested successfully against incoming missles as well as aircraft. I doubt that the plane or the missle have been removed from service for these reasons. The normal air to air ordinance carried by the F-18 has a maximum range of about 30 miles to target if the newest AAMRAMs are used.

As all US missles are updated in their capabilities all the time, this information is dated and may greatly understate the capabilities of the Phoenix at this time.

Okay, an update. My apologies. It seems I am wrong and the F-14 HAS been deactivated and replaced by the F-18E Super Hornet in 2006. See what happens when you go to sleep for a few decades? Anyway, it seems all the above information on the F-14 is out of date. However, it also seems that the information on the Phoenix missle is not. I can only assume that the Super Hornet which has a larger air frame and more powerful engines than previous models of the F-18, has been fitted to carry the Phoenix missle. But the capabilities for fleet defense remain, with an effective combat range of over 500 miles now.

Add that to the use of AWACS planes and in-flight refueling and you get the idea. The ability of other aircraft getting close to an aircraft carrier is going to be diminished to the point of virtually non-existant.

Egad! This is getting old. It seems you may safely ignore all of what I posted concering the F-14, and the Phoenix missle It would seem that the Phoenix missle was decomissioned in 2004, two years before the F-14 was replaced in its designated fleet protection role. Where oh where does the time go?

So its back to the original concept. Fleet protection is more than capable of keeping enemy aircraft more than 3 times farther out than the sunburn missle needs to even reach a target. Thus the problem is the shore or land based lauch sites. The two most obvious methods of dealing with that is the destruction of both the launch sites and their active radar used for targeting. Back to stealth fighters and smart munitions for those purposes if the need should arise.

A sunburn missle with a nuclear payload could indeed take out an aircraft carrier. I doubt the Iranians have any nuclear weapons from Russia. The conventional payload would not. If Iran has designs on starting a war with anyone, they will ultimately regret it. If they start it with us, they will regret it a lot sooner.

[Poseidon]

THe F-14 has been completely decommissioned, thank you. The F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet provides both fleet protection and ground attack capabilities until the new JSF comes into service somewhere around 2012. That's merely a side note, however, as none of these platforms is designed to counter anti-ship missiles directly. Certainly after a launch we can destroy the launching platforms, but it would take a deadly toll, not to mention the Iranians could possibly be able to close the Strait of Hormuz, if only temporarily. The best countermeasure, in my mind, is our Tomahawk missiles, which could be used extensively against perceived launch sites without endangering our pilots (as Iran flies decently well maintained MIGs).

BTW a Sunburn missle doesn't need a nuclear payload to take out a surface ship. I agree they will regret a war, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't do a lot of damage.

Regardless, diplomacy is definitely the way to solve this, as Iran has cooperated in the realm of their nuclear ambitions. So, why not use their apparent transparency (as has been recently confirmed by the IAEA and several of our own intel agencies) and reach out to them, engage them in a cooperative discussion? It's not that I think we can be close allies with them instantly, but I think this is a key moment where we can possibly cause an old enemy to cooperate with us for mutual benefit. Not to mention, I'd rather not have our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen killed over Iran, especially when Iran is cooperating.

Your point about Iranian aircraft getting near our carrier battle groups is spot-on, though irrelevant to the sunburn missile talk. In the entirety of our war with Iraq, only one Iraqi pilot claimed a kill, and that has been disputed. Many believe that this "kill" was a mechanical failure, but, giving the pilot credit, that's still only one. The Iranians would have to do a lot better, and their pilots simply don't have the training to do it.

An Iranian surprise attack with sunburn missiles would certainly hurt, but definitely not cripple us and the response from our forces would be swift and definite. I would count on Iran seeking to cooperate with us before assaulting our forces.

[Easy90]

Alan, Poseidon is correct about the F-14. It's been out of service for a while now.

[AlanC]

Alan, Poseidon is correct about the F-14. It's been out of service for a while now.

Uhhhh read further down... I had already noted that and ammended my post before Poseidon had posted . The F-14 has been out of service since 2006 and the Phoenix missle since 2004.


Okay, an update. My apologies. It seems I am wrong and the F-14 HAS been deactivated and replaced by the F-18E Super Hornet in 2006. See what happens when you go to sleep for a few decades? Anyway, it seems all the above information on the F-14 is out of date. However, it also seems that the information on the Phoenix missle is not. I can only assume that the Super Hornet which has a larger air frame and more powerful engines than previous models of the F-18, has been fitted to carry the Phoenix missle. But the capabilities for fleet defense remain, with an effective combat range of over 500 miles now.

Add that to the use of AWACS planes and in-flight refueling and you get the idea. The ability of other aircraft getting close to an aircraft carrier is going to be diminished to the point of virtually non-existant.

Egad! This is getting old. It seems you may safely ignore all of what I posted concering the F-14, and the Phoenix missle It would seem that the Phoenix missle was decomissioned in 2004, two years before the F-14 was replaced in its designated fleet protection role. Where oh where does the time go?