Author Topic: "Khaleej Fars" (Persian Gulf) ASHM (Read 17272 times)

M-ATF · « **Reply #50 on:** February 09, 2011, 10:08:11 AM »

Quote from: Ayyash on February 09, 2011, 09:31:10 AM

M-ATF
Does the article actually mention the Qiam as the next generation of these missiles, or did you make that assumption?

no , article hasnt mentioned the Qiam is the next generation, that is just my Idea.
it has a longer range , higher speed than Fateh and seems accuracy of it is more than other similar Iranian missiles (with smaller size). i guess it can be good choice to use it on Iranian large naval vessels too . i dont know if Iran develop a subsurface launch version of Qiam, is it possible to fit it on Kilo Submarines or not.?

M-ATF · « **Reply #51 on:** February 09, 2011, 10:09:26 AM »

Quote from: Ayyash on February 09, 2011, 07:55:34 AM

I just checked, and Google News has a single entry for a "khalij fars missile" search. Everything else, on just appears to be generic wire reports.

Iran's Claim it Test-Fired Anti-Warship Missiles Brings New Concerns, Questions
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/08/iran-test-fires-anti-warship-missiles/

Ayyash do you really give credit to remarks by a man like Nurizadeh?

Quote

Agreed, some things, like this piece below, are starting to pop up, but on the whole, it remains conspicuously absent - or at least in what i've seen so far.

I noticed to this, and it was intresting to know why we cant see any coverage or analysis about this missile in medias or blogs, to me it clearly is more important than many of previous Iranian achivements that had more reflections in foreign media's or blogs.

Ayyash · « **Reply #52 on:** February 09, 2011, 10:31:25 AM »

The Fox News article is kind of a joke i have to admit. It's the usual line about Iran copying missile designs and photoshopping pictures.

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #53 on:** February 09, 2011, 10:51:03 AM »

Ayyash,

I thought someone earlier said this new missile had a top speed of only Mach 3...

I have a hard time believing the Fateh-110 missile which does not follow a traditional ballistic trajectory (as in actually briefly entering space) which means it encounters more drag from the atmosphere would be faster than a Scud missile which only has a top seed of Mach 5 upon impact (and just barely that fast).

But even if this missile has a top speed of say Mach 5 or 6, the SM-3 was purposely designed to intercept short and medium range ballistic missiles and even theorectially ICBMs so I see no reason why I could do the same with this missile. The AEGIS is capable of tracking hundreds of targets from hundreds of kilometers away and is advanced enough to be able to coordinate and fire multiple weapons systems almost simultaneously.

YMJ,

I too have seen images and videos of Hezbollah's tunnels and I am still not convinced they could hide even more than a hundred such missiles, but again I am only able to base this on images we have seen so who knows. But I highly doubt Hezbollah has the ability to build such things...I have never even heard of Hezbollah building any of its own weapons before.

Ayyash · « **Reply #54 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:12:00 AM »

Hey, check this out, MODLEX actually lists the max velocity of the Fateh-110:

1.5 km/s which translates to Mach 4.5

http://modlex.ir/cgi-bin/store.pl/page=product.html/pid=MXF05-000350

MO_SOBOH · « **Reply #55 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:56:05 AM »

Quote from: Eagle2009 on February 09, 2011, 10:51:03 AM

I too have seen images and videos of Hezbollah's tunnels and I am still not convinced they could hide even more than a hundred such missiles, but again I am only able to base this on images we have seen so who knows. But I highly doubt Hezbollah has the ability to build such things...I have never even heard of Hezbollah building any of its own weapons before.

if Hamas can do it with the siege on them, imagine what Hezbollah can do without being restricted!


Hamas weapons industry in Gaza	Small \| Large

Hamas weapons industry in Gaza

YMJ · « **Reply #56 on:** February 09, 2011, 01:27:24 PM »

Quote from: MO_SOBOH on February 09, 2011, 11:56:05 AM

if Hamas can do it with the siege on them, imagine what Hezbollah can do without being restricted!

Daghighan brother mo!

Mashallah to our brothers and sisters who, against all odds, have resisted and fought off the invaders, occupiers, murderers and thieves.

MO_SOBOH · « **Reply #57 on:** February 09, 2011, 01:39:47 PM »

Quote from: YMJ on February 09, 2011, 01:27:24 PM

Daghighan brother mo!

Mashallah to our brothers and sisters who, against all odds, have resisted and fought off the invaders, occupiers, murderers and thieves.

true brother! all credit to them, and it look like they are stock piling them up! lol imagine now what they have and what they were smuggling from the tunnels now that Egypt is in turmoil! Imagine what Hezbollah has!

btw Eagle, I have no proof of this but i guess its just my families word.... I heard that they were smuggling whole cars through the tunnels (Mercedes), and besides ur American and im sure ur familiar with what the Mexican smuggling tunnels are like.... they smuggle tons per year in the US.

comandantecarlos · « **Reply #58 on:** February 09, 2011, 04:13:22 PM »

Most importantly: Cluster Warhead
I would like to know that the Aegis system to defend against the Cluster Warhead. I think nobody knows.
http://thearkenstone.blogspot.com/2011/01/artillery-rockets-and-ballistic.html
http://thearkenstone.blogspot.com/2011/02/developments-in-use-of-tbms-as-anti.html

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #59 on:** February 09, 2011, 08:52:59 PM »

MO_SOBOH,

I never said Hezbollah can't make their own weapons, just that I have actually never heard any reports of such.

Actually I used to keep very close taps on the arms industry in Gaza, which I was fairly impressed with considering the circumstances but I havent heard much about it as of late simply because their arent many sources for such anymore.

But we are getting off-topic..

Ayyash,

I appreciate the link. Though I am not sure about the Mach number since thats the same terminal speed a Scud B has. The speed of sound varies depending on what altitude the object. For example at sea level Mach 1 is 760mph but at altitudes greater than say 30,000 feet its is closer to 660mph. Regardless, that means the Fateh-110 has an impact velocity equal to that of the Scud.

MO_SOBOH · « **Reply #60 on:** February 10, 2011, 09:19:45 AM »

Quote from: Eagle2009 on February 09, 2011, 08:52:59 PM

MO_SOBOH,

I never said Hezbollah can't make their own weapons, just that I have actually never heard any reports of such.

Actually I used to keep very close taps on the arms industry in Gaza, which I was fairly impressed with considering the circumstances but I havent heard much about it as of late simply because their arent many sources for such anymore.

But we are getting off-topic..

we are bro, just 1 last quote 4 u..... just because u dont hear about it doesnt mean it doesnt exist

!

AminCo · « **Reply #61 on:** February 12, 2011, 01:39:09 AM »

that what was Iranian navy missing.
I never thought that this missile is needed with Iran current Navy strategy and equipments.

1-about the warhead, its just wonderful to shred and ship 650kg

2-the speed when compare it to other anti-shape is way to good. 3mach
but when we compare it to others ballistic missile it is slower.
and that what I expect, cause this missile need to hit moving target, less speed better maneuverability.

3-using duel trancing mode with IR, TV or even a tracing radar.
also datalink with a shore or off shore radar is also possible in case of some fast movement in smaller ships.
so we can expect 3 type of combination.
but I think they will use it in case for much large ship similar to aircraft carrier.

4-its seeker locks on the target on final phase (thats what needed to hit a moving target)

thats what I get from the article and news info.

Ayyash · « **Reply #62 on:** February 12, 2011, 02:34:51 AM »

I think those are some pretty big assumptions regarding the capability of this missile which may or may not exist, particularly when talking about things like mid-course data correction the different types of seekers. I'm not saying they don't exist, but that we simply don't have any information on it.

One issue i did want to discuss is how the launch teams would acquire a target.

I am on the fence when it comes to Iranian battlefield networking capability. One one hand, the traditional argument is that sanctions have hampered procurements that would be necessary for a modern military network and that the small amount they have been able to offset this with domestic innovation just isn't enough to catch up to the vast lead that countries like the US have. Now, this is undeniable to some degree, sanctions have hampered military development and the US's electronic warfare capability is unparalleled. It's just a question of how true it is.

On the other hand, denying access to the Persian Gulf plays such a central role in Iran strategy, as well as the fact that the IRGC has displayed remarkable technical advances in doctrine that have been consistently targeted at US weaknesses, it's hard to believe Iran doesn't have an ace up their sleeves.

I'm also wary of underestimating Iran's abilities when it comes to high-technology applications such as processors, or radars, because time and time again, Iran surprises us with specific capabilities in this field or that. Iran's other anti-ship technologies also indicate that Iran, when it wants to, is able to acquire high-technology weapons like the various AShMs they operate.

Anyway, I'm curious as to exactly what Iran has available to it in the Gulf.

The best single source is probably the Iran Electronics Industry website which advertises their "Solution for maritime coastal surveillance and harbour protection":

Quote

Coastal surveillance & security system, including radar, signal processing, Electronic warfare, multi sene: system management.

Data base system and recording & raplay based on the IEI products is designed and built to ensure the integrity of the self territory and territorial waters.

The system identifies. And recognizes surface and air targets in the responsibility Of the self border gurd. The system is based on a number of radar sites including short range radar with sea target detection and signal processing capability and quantities.

The solution also incorporates EW equipment (COMINT& ESM) to act the role of passive detection.
The operational responsibility is allocated to pre-determined regional control centers (RCC).
Each RCC is connected with a number of radar sites.

The overall ----------- operations picture of all RCC is displayed to the operators in the National control center which is located at the Border Guard Harbor. Armaments can be also integrated in the proposed
solution.

The type and quantity of the Armaments is mainly based on the system architecture and customer requirement.
The following types can be introduced to the Solution:
* SSM ( surface to surface missile)
* SAM (( surface to Air missile)
* Rocket Launcher
* Gun 23 mm
* Gun 40 mm
* Gun 76 mm
* Sea mines across the coast

Communication Equipment:

* FON (fibr optic network)
* Point to point wireless
* VHF/UHF Communication
WAFON (Wide Area Fiber Optic Network) for Communication With RCC&NCC

Source: http://ieimil.ir/content/solution

We also know, thanks to other advertisements by IEI, that Iran produces most everything needed for the network, fiber-optic communication, all sorts of microwave and radio communication. EW, and ECCM equipment, etc. It's just a question of how robust it is, and no body knows that.

The main early-warning component would be radars which we know relatively little about. A little while ago, Iran announced the replacement of all US-made radars in the Persian Gulf with domestically made models. This is presumably a reference to the replacing of the radars from the Peace Crown/Peace Ruby/Seek Sentry programs during the days of the Imperial Armed Forces. Of course, we don't know what replaced them, but given the status of Iran's other domestic radar programs, they're "good" if not spectacular. We also know thanks to various sources that several Iranian OTH-type radars have been detected in the Persian Gulf region.

UAVs would also probably be used. Iran also has a nominal airtime maratime surveillance capability, but it's not the strongest of their assets by a long-shot.

Thoughts?

AminCo · « **Reply #63 on:** February 12, 2011, 02:44:02 AM »

WoohooooW, the blast is just wonderful, Look at the shocking Bubble around the target thats awsome.
anyway what to expect with a missile that weight almost 5 ton and the speed of 3mach with a warhead maybe 300kg [not that what I think the will use in a test show like this]
hitting exactly at the middle of the target spot.

By the way we have a small boat and helicopter close to the target, specially the helicopter and the missile did not mistake, and went straight to its victim.

also I found that the missile correct its path toward the target before the impact and if did not done so it may hit some meter after of the target.

tell the 4th point the missile was going directly to the target, but at the same point bowed slightly to the left of the picture and then again in the fifth and sixth spot it back and curve to the right of the picture.
isn't that for a diving toward the target to change the angle of compact??

AminCo · « **Reply #64 on:** February 12, 2011, 10:54:55 PM »

Picture of the Week:

AminCo · « **Reply #65 on:** February 12, 2011, 10:55:27 PM »

as I thought it diving toward the target.

[farsi]معرفی یکی از آخرین دستاوردهای موشکی کشور؛ خلیج فارس؛ دومین قاتل بالستیک ناوهای هواپیمابر در جهان
خبر تولید انبوه موشک بالستیک دریایی «خلیج فارس» ایران را به عنوان دومین کشور دارنده این نوع سلاح معرفی کرد تا این بار هم صاحبان ناوهای هواپیمابر با ابهامی جدید در قدرت دفاعی ایران مواجه شوند.

به گزارش گروه دفاع و امنیت مشرق، موشک های بالستیک گونه ای از موشک های سطح به سطح هستند که در واقع همگی فرزندان موشک وی-2 آلمانی، بکار رفته در جنگ جهانی دوم محسوب می شوند.
این موشک ها از پیشرانه راکتی برخوردار بوده و اغلب به صورت عمودی پرتاب می شوند و پس از اتمام سوخت موتور، وارد قوس نزولی شده و مطابق قوانین علم بالستیک، تا نقطه هدف، حرکت می کنند. برای درک بهتر مسیر حرکت این نوع موشک ها، بخش اول پرواز، یعنی تا نقطه اوج را می توان مشابه یک ربع دایره و بخش دوم را به یک ربع بیضی تشبیه کرد.
بدین ترتیب موشک در هنگام شیرجه روی هدف، با استفاده از جاذبه زمین و جرم خود، به سرعت بیشتری دست می یابد که موجب افزایش انرژی جنبشی موشک نیز می شود.
پس از اینکه استفاده از موشک های بالستیک در دکترین نظامی کشورهای قدرتمند جا باز کرد و روشهای مقابله با آنها نیز در دستور کار دانشمندان موشکی قرار گرفت، سکوی پرتاب دیگری هم برای این موشکها در نظر گرفته شد و آن هم زیردریایی بود.
در دوران جنگ سرد، شوروی سابق به فکر استفاده از موشک های بالستیک در برابر اهداف دریایی افتاد اما به خاطر چالشی بودن چنین سامانه هایی برنامه توسعه آنها را متوقف کرد.
علت رویکرد شوروی به چنین سامانه ای، قدرت ناوگان دریایی ایالات متحده آمریکا به عنوان ابرقدرت رقیب شوروی بود.
از حدود 10 سال پیش، چینی ها که روند فزاینده قدرتمند شدن آنها، لزوم برقراری توازن قوای نظامی را در دریاهای مشرق ایجاب می کرد، به طور جدی به دنبال زنده کردن این ایده بودند و در این راستا موفق به توسعه موشک بالستیک میانبرد «دی اف-21» شدند که آخرین نمونه آن، مدل D می باشد. بدین ترتیب، چین اولین کشور دارنده موشک بالستیک ضد کشتی گردید.
پاتریک کرونیین، از مدیران ارشد برنامه امنیت نوین آسیاپاسیفیک در مرکز امنیت نوین آمریکا در این خصوص گفته است: قابلیت نوظهور موشک ضدکشتی چین و به ویژه موشک دی ~62undefined66~، نشان گر اولین توانمندی بعد از جنگ سرد است که می تواند قدرت دریایی آمریکا را با چالش جدی روبرو کند.
اعتراف به این مطلب از سوی یک مقام آمریکایی، به خودی خود موفقیت بزرگی برای چین است که قدرت دریایی دوربرد آن به هیچ وجه قابل مقایسه با ناوگان بیش از 10 فروندی ناوهای هواپیمابر آمریکا نیست. در واقع این نوع از موشک ها به «Carrier Killer» یا «قاتل حامل» (منظور ناوهای هواپیمابر و بالگردبر است) مشهور شده اند.
البته پروفیل عملکرد موشک چینی یاد شده، کمی با موشک های بالستیک فعلی متفاوت است و به عنوان یک موشک شبه بالستیک، به نظر می رسد برخلاف نمونه های معمول که بعد از مرحله اول پرواز، یک مسیر پرواز بالستیک زیر مداری را دنبال می کنند، این موشک از یک نوع سامانه هدایت ترمینال برای جای گرفتن در هدف استفاده می کند.
بدین ترتیب و در راستای راهبرد نبرد نامتقارن با ظهور این گونه از موشک های بالستیک، توازن قوا به روشی کم هزینه، تغییر کرده و به سمت تعادل پیش می رود.
همانطور که می دانیم، ناوهای هواپیمابر هرگز به تنهایی به مأموریت اعزام نمی شوند و در کنار آنها چندین فروند ناوشکن موشک انداز، ناوهای لجستیکی و حتی زیردریایی وجود دارد. ناوهای هواپیمابر به تنهایی ارزشی در حدود 6 میلیارد دلار دارند و هزینه نگهداری آنها در سال بالغ بر 200 میلیون دلار است و به اینها بایستی ارزش ده ها فروند هواگرد، سوخت و تسلیحات و مهمات موجود را نیز اضافه نمود، خدمه آموزش دیده و با تجربه نیز عملاً قابل قیمت گذاری نیستند. اما این پایگاه هوایی بزرگ و متحرک که روزگاری تهدید عظیمی به حساب می آمد، امروز به سادگی مورد تهدید موشک های بالستیک پرسرعت تاکتیکی و میانبرد قرار گرفته است.
ناوگروه های هواپیمابر برای رهایی از تهدید این سلاح های نوین، بایستی منطقه ایستایی خود را از سواحل کشور هدف، به اندازه برد این موشک ها دور کنند که به معنی دورتر شدن مسیر حرکت هواپیماهای موجود در آنها، کاهش جنگ افزارهای قابل حمل به دلیل لزوم حمل سوخت بیشتر و نیازمند شدن به سوختگیری هوایی(با توجه به برد موشک ضد کشتی) و همچنین افزایش خطر رهگیری و انهدام توسط نیروهای مدافع است.
اما در صورتی که این ضعف تاکتیکی تحمیل شده پذیرفته نشود چه خواهد شد؟
موشک های بالستیک ضد کشتی، با استفاده از پرتابگرهای متحرک، با خروج از مخفیگاه های خود و شلیک چندین فروند موشک به ناوگروه مهاجم، یورش خواهند برد و با شلیک تعداد بالایی از این موشک های سوخت جامد که در زمانی کمتر از یک دقیقه آماده پرتاب می شوند و با شتاب بالای خود، به سوی اهداف حرکت می کنند امکان واکنش از سوی ناوگروه دشمن، بسیار ناچیز خواهد شد. با توجه برخورداری کشورمان از سواحل طولانی در جنوب و جزایر متعدد، امکان شلیک از سمت های مختلف به ناوگروه دشمن ممکن شده و توان انهدام این موشک ها عملاً ناممکن می گردد. از آنجا که موشک «خلیج فارس»، به عنوان نسل چهارم موشک موفق، دقیق، پرطرفدار و کاملاً بومی فاتح110، به صورت انبوه، تولید می شود، فرماندهان نظامی از بابت نرخ آتش به سوی اهداف مهاجم، نگرانی نخواهند داشت.
به گفته فرماندهان سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی ایران، این موشک در مرحله نهایی خود بر روی هدف قفل می کند. این جمله گویای این است که اولاً این موشک از سامانه شناسایی و تشخیص هدف برخوردار است که می تواند از هریک از انواع اپتیکی، فروسرخ، راداری یا لیزری باشد که عدم اعلام این نوع هدایت، برای ناشناخته ماندن ماهیت عملکرد سامانه و سخت تر شدن مقابله با آن لازم به نظر می رسد. دوماً سامانه ای که قابلیت عمل قفل داشته و به پردازشگر هوشمند (دارای هوش مصنوعی) مجهز باشد قطعاً و یقیناً توان تعقیب اهداف متحرک را دارا است.
ضمناً این نکته را نیز در نظر داریم که بنا به اعلام فرماندهان نظامی، هم اکنون تمام سطح و زیرسطح خلیج فارس و دریای عمان توسط سامانه های مختلف به صورت 24ساعته و بلادرنگ مورد پایش قرار دارد و از بابت هدفیابی اولیه مشکلی وجود ندارد.

این موشک با سرعت بالای خود که حدود 3 برابر سرعت صوت اعلام شده (تقریباً 1020 متر بر ثانیه) دارای انرژی جنبشی بالایی است که با وجود حرکت شیرجه ای بر روی هدف در مرحله نهایی پرواز، که به این انرژی می افزاید، اثر تخریبی بسیار بالایی دارد و امکان واکنش را نیز از هدف خود سلب می کنند.
مجهز بودن "خلیج فارس" به یک کلاهک 650 کیلوگرمی که تنها 65 کیلوگرم کمتر از کل جرم یک موشک کروز ضدکشتی نور است، قدرت تخریبی باورنکردنی برای این سلاح ضد کشتی ایجاد می کند و شاید تنها اصابت یک فروند از این موشک برای آسیب رسانی بسیار جدی به یک ناوشکن و یا خارج کردن یک ناوهواپیمابر از رده عملیاتی کافی باشد.
همچنین برد 300 کیلومتری خلیج فارس، تقریباً تمام خلیج همیشه فارس و دریای عمان را پوشش می دهد که به معنی از بین رفتن امکان اجرای امن عملیات در این گستره برای نیروهای فرامنطقه ای است.
ترکیب موشکهای ضد شناور رعد، نور، کوثر، نصر، حوت و اکنون خلیج فارس، قطعا سطح بازدارندگی و پاسخگویی نیروهای مسلح کشورمان را به نحو چشمگیری افزایش خواهد داد تا حتی اگر دشمنان علاقه ای به امنیت این منطقه مهم ندارند، مجبور به اطاعت از دستورالعمل جمهوری اسلامی ایران باشند.

[/farsi]

http://mashreghnews.ir/NSite/FullStory/News/?Id=29302

Jonk89 · « **Reply #66 on:** February 13, 2011, 05:59:03 PM »

Quote from: M-ATF on February 07, 2011, 12:50:33 PM

Great Pics:

it seems its very accurate,
other pics of "Khalij Pars" (persian Gulf) missile:
http://www.farsnews.com/imgrep.php?nn=8911181144

Video Clip:
http://www.farsnews.com/media.php?nn=8911181225

Jonk89 · « **Reply #67 on:** February 13, 2011, 06:01:48 PM »

Quote from: Jonk89 on February 13, 2011, 05:59:03 PM

I love the name.

AminCo · « **Reply #68 on:** February 13, 2011, 06:57:37 PM »

here is the Fars news mixed with music and picture we got.
background music and the last pictures became nice


Iran Persian Gulf (Khalije Fars) Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile	Small \| Large

also I got my hand on some of clips while I was in journey, so I update my youtube account, probably those update clip you people saw it before me

Catsoo · « **Reply #69 on:** February 13, 2011, 09:55:21 PM »

Yap! The ending images are very interesting!

catsoo

YMJ · « **Reply #70 on:** February 13, 2011, 11:13:18 PM »

Sitting ducks in the Persian Gulf!

AminCo · « **Reply #71 on:** February 13, 2011, 11:15:09 PM »

Quote from: YMJ on February 13, 2011, 11:13:18 PM

Sitting ducks in the Persian Gulf!

no brother, ones you said this:
Sitting coffin.

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #72 on:** February 14, 2011, 12:02:49 AM »

With due respect I would like to make the following points:

1. Such a missile would be fairly easy to detect and track by AEGIS equipped vessels so there is little 'surprise' as the AEGIS will give the vessel roughly 3-4 minutes.
2. The SM-3 fitted on said vessels have been proven in tests to likely be quite capable of intercepting a missile of this range, speed, and trajectory. (The AEGIS ABM being the only trully successful system in tests)This is because the SM-3 can intercept a target in the boost or terminal phase until most ABMs.
3. US Naval vessels will in case of war purposely stay out of range of all of Iran's coastal defenses in the Persian Gulf except this and the Ra'ad which means the number of potential threats to naval vessels is greatly diminished though small ships remain a major threat.
4. Further to above point the USN could simply launch attacks from the Gulf of Oman or Arabian Sea thereby staying of the of range of all Iranian coastal defences while still being able to launch aircraft and cruise missiles.
5. IF the USN was to launch an attack on Iran from the Persian Gulf, then I do agree the number of threats including this missile, the Ra'ad, and small missile equipped vessels (since larger vessels are almost guaranteed to be taken out in a first strike) do make the 5th fleet very vunerable with a guarantee of loss of vessels and life.

For this reason, it is quite possible the USN has thought of this possibility before and prepared a plan to attack form outside the Persian Gulf severely limiting Iran's ability to counterattack, relaying on Cruise missiles (which could number hundreds of Tomahawks given the makeup of the 5th Fleet alone). Now obviously such a plan does limit the ability to launch deep airstrikes into Iran but in all likelihood such strikes would be taken on by B-2 bombers anyway which makes the 5th fleets location irrelevent in that aspect. Once the X-47 become operational on carriers (likely before the decade) they will be able to perform similar strikes deeper into Iran without having to flying B-2s from the US as is current policy.

Of course in the case of a surprise Iranian attack on the fleet (even less likely than a US attack of right now in my opinion) the 5th fleet would indeed suffer major casualties.

Ayyash · « **Reply #73 on:** February 14, 2011, 12:50:23 AM »

Quote from: Eagle2009 on February 14, 2011, 12:02:49 AM

2. The SM-3 fitted on said vessels have been proven in tests to likely be quite capable of intercepting a missile of this range, speed, and trajectory. (The AEGIS ABM being the only trully successful system in tests)This is because the SM-3 can intercept a target in the boost or terminal phase until most ABMs.

My concern with this is the limited number of interceptors, both the SM-3, and late model SM-2s. The number of available SM-3s is in the very low-hundreds with the majority of those deployed in the Pacific. Last i checked, only a single SM-3 armed ship was set to be in the Persian Gulf at any given time (total of 4, rotating through) with a total of 72 SM-2 IV/SM-3.

Iran's definitely shown a proclivity for firing salvos of missiles at targets, which could exhaust the US's inventory.

Quote from: Eagle2009 on February 14, 2011, 12:02:49 AM

3. US Naval vessels will in case of war purposely stay out of range of all of Iran's coastal defenses in the Persian Gulf except this and the Ra'ad which means the number of potential threats to naval vessels is greatly diminished though small ships remain a major threat.

<snip>

For this reason, it is quite possible the USN has thought of this possibility before and prepared a plan to attack form outside the Persian Gulf severely limiting Iran's ability to counterattack, relaying on Cruise missiles (which could number hundreds of Tomahawks given the makeup of the 5th Fleet alone). Now obviously such a plan does limit the ability to launch deep airstrikes into Iran but in all likelihood such strikes would be taken on by B-2 bombers anyway which makes the 5th fleets location irrelevent in that aspect. Once the X-47 become operational on carriers (likely before the decade) they will be able to perform similar strikes deeper into Iran without having to flying B-2s from the US as is current policy.

This is probably one of the reasons Iran retains the strategic option of threatening tankers and mining the Gulf. The USN might try to avoid high-risk places like the Straits of Hormuz, but if they're drawn in to escorting tankers and executing mine-sweeping operations, there would be no other option.

Iran of course would have to deal with the repercussions of affecting international shipping traffic. On one hand, this might increase pressure for a quick end to the conflict, or it might unify countries against Iran in a war that America probably wouldn't otherwise have had great support for.

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #74 on:** February 14, 2011, 02:08:25 AM »

Ayyash,

As of November of 2010, 5 Ticonderoga class Cruisers and 16 Arleigh Burke class destroyers have Ballistic Missile Defence armament (which does include both SM-2 late models and SM-3). 6 more Arleigh Burke class destroyers will gain this ability by 2013 (which will be nearly half of that class).

When it comes to the deployment I can find no firm numbers on how many are deployed to the Persian Gulf other than at least one "cruiser" (meaning a Ticonderoga class) they always refer to multiple ships so I think there may be at least two.

However, I was not saying the AEGIS Ballistic missile defense would be able to stop this missile every time simply that the vessels are not unprotected. I also wager than the Evolved SeaSparrow could be used for such a task since part of its design was to take out high-speed Russian AshMs though this is purely a theory.

But if the US was planning an attack on Iran it is logical they would move more of their BMD equipped vessels to the Gulf since as of late last year there are 21 available ships spread amongst the fleets. More importantly according to current projections there will be 38 such equipped vessels by 2015 and if this is what the planned 300 SM-3 production run is for (more to follow of course), that comes to roughly 7 or 8 interceptors each vessel. This however does not included BMD versions of the SM-2 so I think can assume by then each vessel will have at least a dozen interceptors. Still not quite enough but we have to remember they were ordered with more long range missiles in mind, not threats to ships so the production numbers could increase because of this new missile's existence.

Your points about protecting commercial traffic are quite true unless the US decideds to simply allow the Gulf to be blocked so as to destroy Iran coastal defenses as best it can and then begin escorts after it feels its "reasonably" safe. We must remember that the US no longer relays on Persian Gulf solely for oil (only 16%). Now obviously such a closure will still be terrible fo world markets but the US can survive some time without Persian Gulf oil. Ironically enough however, the nation that would be most hurt by closing the Persian Gulf would Iran's ally China who relies far more on the Gulf (39% of oil imports come just from the Gulf) which by actual amount of oil is well over twice what the US imports from that region. So should such a closure of the Gulf occur, it could potentially do more immediate damage to the Chinese economy than the US in doing so angering arguably Iran's best ally in the world. Which is why that strategy has puzzled me a bit as of late. A decade ago it made somewhat more sense but not today, blocking the Gulf not only hurts Iran's economy but its staunchest ally in the world China.