Iran tests fastest underwater missile

[BrownTown]

i havent actually read this, but there are torpedo like devices which create a thin layer of air around them, so they are infact never even touching water despite being underwater, this is what they are likely talking about because it works jsut like a missile but is underwater. Of course flying threw air has much less drag then water, so it can go much faster. Completely differnet than a torpedo except that it is underwater..

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: IdioticBuffoon
Link

Hopefully this will act as a deterrent to American aggression and any other form of ill-fated unilateral advancements in the future.

And I don't think bin Laden or Al-keda is about to get ahold of these weapons.

Not exactly from a source known for its accuracy!! rofl

Another talking point, or can you provide examples?

Rofl..the whole Inquirer is a source......read it..lol

In other words, it's just another mindless talking point. Thanks. Blindly partisan you are. Safely dismissed, you may be.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

All political considerations aside, recent history has taught me that a country such as Iraq or Iran can bluster all they like about military capabilities, and we will still own them in short order. We may suck at occupation, but major military campaigns are where we shine.

I recall all the cautionary analysis about how no army had beat down Afghanistan in many centuries, including the mighty USSR. How Iraq had a battle hardened military, that was one of the largest standing on the planet. U.S. armed forces proved that our modern weapons and tactics=industrial sized can of whupass.

Again, I won't concern myself with the politics, just commenting that if we go into Iran, they are grass, and we are the lawnmower. Confident? yes, I suppose I am. I really do believe that our modern military, when given a major campaign such as taking out Irans' nuke program, would do it very impressively. They can use their version of propaganda Bob all they like, but I doubt even their own military is buyin' it.

 

[lozina]

Not sure how effective their 'missile' actually is but I don't think there would be much problem deploying it. They can be launched from the decks of small ships, like torpedo boats. They can be fired from land-based platforms. They also allege they have mini-subs which can launch them though this claim is a stretch. Regardless, small ships like torpedo boats are difficult to pick up on radar, especially in rough seas. Iran wont be relying on large destroyer size ships to launch these things which would be picked up easily by radar. But conisder it's land-based launching capability and the Strait of Hormuz. Our ships will have to pass through that strait eventually to run an effective campaign against Iran. And that strait has all sorts of little islands and a whole lot of Iranian coastline which could be peppered with little launching platforms

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: lozina
Not sure how effective their 'missile' actually is but I don't think there would be much problem deploying it. They can be launched from the decks of small ships, like torpedo boats. They can be fired from land-based platforms. They also allege they have mini-subs which can launch them though this claim is a stretch. Regardless, small ships like torpedo boats are difficult to pick up on radar, especially in rough seas. Iran wont be relying on large destroyer size ships to launch these things which would be picked up easily by radar. But conisder it's land-based launching capability and the Strait of Hormuz. Our ships will have to pass through that strait eventually to run an effective campaign against Iran. And that strait has all sorts of little islands and a whole lot of Iranian coastline which could be peppered with little launching platforms

We are sitting next door, and they could well be flying in supplies and organizing logistics for the next campaign as we speak. Then there is our air power, those boats and launchers won't go unmolested long. I think they would prove minimally effective overall. The conventional planning for moving forces&supplies into that area, has doubtless been reworked since we setup shop in Iraq.

I honestly think the Iranian army wouldn't fight with any greater determination than Iraqs' did either, it is suicide to try to engage us in large scale conflict. And melting in to the general population, or surrendering in hordes, like the Iraqis' did, won't stop us from finding and destroying the objectives.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
All political considerations aside, recent history has taught me that a country such as Iraq or Iran can bluster all they like about military capabilities, and we will still own them in short order. We may suck at occupation, but major military campaigns are where we shine.

I recall all the cautionary analysis about how no army had beat down Afghanistan in many centuries, including the mighty USSR. How Iraq had a battle hardened military, that was one of the largest standing on the planet. U.S. armed forces proved that our modern weapons and tactics=industrial sized can of whupass.

Again, I won't concern myself with the politics, just commenting that if we go into Iran, they are grass, and we are the lawnmower. Confident? yes, I suppose I am. I really do believe that our modern military, when given a major campaign such as taking out Irans' nuke program, would do it very impressively. They can use their version of propaganda Bob all they like, but I doubt even their own military is buyin' it.

In general I agree with you that our military can win military wars as long as there's a clear objective.

But as far as particulars, if we did decide to start another campaign, a whole lot more of you 19-25 year olds better be prepared to see the world, and not voluntarily.

 

[GTaudiophile]

I think Israel will take care of Iran before the US needs to worry.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Meuge
The Shkval torpedo is real, and it's by far the most advanced underwater weapon in existence right now. It's called a "super-cavitation torpedo". However, as far as I know, the range of the export version is very limited... something like 5km I think... and it would never launch against an american target, since the carrying platform would likely be destroyed long before an american ship would up in range.

The Russians have not gone so completely bonkers as to sell the original missile (20+km range, 400-600km/h, and a 14kt warhead to boot... designed to take out entire groups of ships).

Although it's real what is the US defense against it? I hope no one is naive enough to think the US millitary doesn't have a counter-measure for it that isn't talked about. Frankly the millitary doesn't discuss their countermeasures until they are obsolete. How long was it before the Phalanx system's purpose was really understood outside the military?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHERWe are sitting next door, and they could well be flying in supplies and organizing logistics for the next campaign as we speak. Then there is our air power, those boats and launchers won't go unmolested long. I think they would prove minimally effective overall. The conventional planning for moving forces&supplies into that area, has doubtless been reworked since we setup shop in Iraq.

I honestly think the Iranian army wouldn't fight with any greater determination than Iraqs' did either, it is suicide to try to engage us in large scale conflict. And melting in to the general population, or surrendering in hordes, like the Iraqis' did, won't stop us from finding and destroying the objectives.

Iran won't be sending out a line of navy warships to engage our navy in some Romantic era engagement. Netiher would their army. They will have to engage in small-scale, geurilla warfare.

Our air power can only hit what they see. Large military installations, factories, ammo dumps, etc... It's much harder to hit things like small missile launchers on trucks which move around or small torpedo boats/minisubs which hide in coves or the countless regular looking marinas/docks on the shoreline

I'm certain if there's a war our armies will move in and seemingly take over cities rather easily like in Iraq, but the attrition will be much more severe. Countless small-scale raids aka terrorist attacks will take a bigger toll as Iran is much larger and it's terrain much more inhosptiable. And the Iranian people seem to be much less divisive than the Iraqis

 

[Trente]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I think Israel will take care of Iran before the US needs to worry.

It will probably be a combined operation of both American and Israeli forces.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Frankly, I do not believe any of the propoganda that is being spread about Iran. Not saying that Iran is a nice country or our friends or anything like this, but this is the same M.O. that they used with Iraq (planting stories).

So the USA is planting stories with aljazeera now huh? Al Jazeera is in our back pocket now too?

Where have you been? Any story that doesn't meet the libs agenda is of course a plant. Any that back the lib agenda, even if proven to be a completely made up hoax (see last weeks SAS thread, lol), are of course, undeniable facts, and you are scum if you question them.

Seems like EVERYTHING we said about Iraq was 100% dead-on, now wasn't it? Too bad people like you are just too f*cking stupid to learn from your mistakes.

You haven't been right about sh*t regarding Iraq and now you want me to take your word for it about Iran. I don't think so.

You and all your ilk have ZERO credibility. Do you understand that? ZERO, NONE, NIL, NIENTE, NADA.

The right-wing agenda is clear.... kill, kill and kill some more.

Pretty much.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Tom
In general I agree with you that our military can win military wars as long as there's a clear objective.

But as far as particulars, if we did decide to start another campaign, a whole lot more of you 19-25 year olds better be prepared to see the world, and not voluntarily.

Perhaps. I think timing will be very important though, to where the troops come from, and how many. It would make more sense to wait till they can turn over the real bulk of security to Iraqi forces, then they'd have battled hardened verterans of desert warfare for the core of the force. May not need the force size they threw at Iraq either, if the mission is to complete the objectives and get out ala GF1.

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I think Israel will take care of Iran before the US needs to worry.

Be better to play the heavy with them, and ask them to sit it out again, since their involvement would be like pouring gasoline on a fire.

 

[arsbanned]

Just goes to show you how incredibly short-sighted the Republicans are. They just nonchalantly toss out "oh well, the Israelis will handle that, or the U.S. and the Israelis will take care of this..." without even understanding the ramifications of what they are proposing.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHERWe are sitting next door, and they could well be flying in supplies and organizing logistics for the next campaign as we speak. Then there is our air power, those boats and launchers won't go unmolested long. I think they would prove minimally effective overall. The conventional planning for moving forces&supplies into that area, has doubtless been reworked since we setup shop in Iraq.

I honestly think the Iranian army wouldn't fight with any greater determination than Iraqs' did either, it is suicide to try to engage us in large scale conflict. And melting in to the general population, or surrendering in hordes, like the Iraqis' did, won't stop us from finding and destroying the objectives.

Iran won't be sending out a line of navy warships to engage our navy in some Romantic era engagement. Netiher would their army. They will have to engage in small-scale, geurilla warfare.

Our air power can only hit what they see. Large military installations, factories, ammo dumps, etc... It's much harder to hit things like small missile launchers on trucks which move around or small torpedo boats/minisubs which hide in coves or the countless regular looking marinas/docks on the shoreline

I'm certain if there's a war our armies will move in and seemingly take over cities rather easily like in Iraq, but the attrition will be much more severe. Countless small-scale raids aka terrorist attacks will take a bigger toll as Iran is much larger and it's terrain much more inhosptiable. And the Iranian people seem to be much less divisive than the Iraqis

The thing is, we don't hang around during major operations, we hit fast and hard and keep moving. For instance, its foolish to use terrorist tactics on a armored division moving in formation at speed. I just don't think we'd occupy cities, or anything else that would open us up to that type of warfare being nearly as effective as it is in Iraq. We go in, do our thing, get back across the border in the most expeditious manner possible.

Also, build-up and staging from Iraq is the new wrinkle. We won't have to necessarily expose ourselves the way the old coventional force projection scenarios for that theater would have it. At least not to nearly the same degree.

 

[theeedude]

I don't think you can expect to get out of Iraq before invading Iran. Iran can destabilize Iraq if we leave. We could have a continuous Iraq-Iran-Afghanistan battlefield.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHERWe are sitting next door, and they could well be flying in supplies and organizing logistics for the next campaign as we speak. Then there is our air power, those boats and launchers won't go unmolested long. I think they would prove minimally effective overall. The conventional planning for moving forces&supplies into that area, has doubtless been reworked since we setup shop in Iraq.

I honestly think the Iranian army wouldn't fight with any greater determination than Iraqs' did either, it is suicide to try to engage us in large scale conflict. And melting in to the general population, or surrendering in hordes, like the Iraqis' did, won't stop us from finding and destroying the objectives.

Iran won't be sending out a line of navy warships to engage our navy in some Romantic era engagement. Netiher would their army. They will have to engage in small-scale, geurilla warfare.

Our air power can only hit what they see. Large military installations, factories, ammo dumps, etc... It's much harder to hit things like small missile launchers on trucks which move around or small torpedo boats/minisubs which hide in coves or the countless regular looking marinas/docks on the shoreline

I'm certain if there's a war our armies will move in and seemingly take over cities rather easily like in Iraq, but the attrition will be much more severe. Countless small-scale raids aka terrorist attacks will take a bigger toll as Iran is much larger and it's terrain much more inhosptiable. And the Iranian people seem to be much less divisive than the Iraqis

The thing is, we don't hang around during major operations, we hit fast and hard and keep moving. For instance, its foolish to use terrorist tactics on a armored division moving in formation at speed. I just don't think we'd occupy cities, or anything else that would open us up to that type of warfare being nearly as effective as it is in Iraq. We go in, do our thing, get back across the border in the most expeditious manner possible.

Also, build-up and staging from Iraq is the new wrinkle. We won't have to necessarily expose ourselves the way the old coventional force projection scenarios for that theater would have it. At least not to nearly the same degree.

Well, Iran is nearly 4 times as big as Iraq and alot of the terrain is mountainous unlike the flat IRaqi deserts and plains. Our objectives will undoubtedly require military forces to move pretty deep into the country. Cross border raids will only net us very limited results.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: lozina


Well, Iran is nearly 4 times as big as Iraq and alot of the terrain is mountainous unlike the flat IRaqi deserts and plains. Our objectives will undoubtedly require military forces to move pretty deep into the country. Cross border raids will only net us very limited results.

The planners have the work cut out no doubt about it. Raids? Not our style, but a fast and furious trek to the objectives is. I'm obviously not qualified to even guesstimate how long it would take to achieve the goal of setting Irans' nuke program back to square 1 and destroying a lot of it and the militarys' infrastructure, but 3 months seems doable to a armchair general like myself.

 

[IdioticBuffoon]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Just goes to show you how incredibly short-sighted the Republicans are. They just nonchalantly toss out "oh well, the Israelis will handle that, or the U.S. and the Israelis will take care of this..." without even understanding the ramifications of what they are proposing.

Yes, I see that. It's almost like a game for them. Like teenagers playing a game of Red Alert ... my super-duper photonic cannon will pwn your ray gun any day! :disgust:

I don't think you can take any matter lightly where human lives are at stake and especially war. Haven't we learned ANYTHING from Iraq?

And who the hell are the Israelis to do anything to Iran? What gives them the right? Oh because they are the deputy of the World Police? :disgust:

I think it is Israel that needs to be dealt with. Their unilateral agression goes totally unchecked. They are the ones who defy international law and do it with impunity.

It's almost as if war is becoming a pastime for many Americans. There's a guy that goes around here with the following in his signature:

War: it's the only way Americans learn geography. :frown:

 

[Looney]

They're just doing what Sun Tzu advised hundreds of years ago: When you're strong, make the enemies think you're weak (that's if you want to lure them in). And when you're weak, make the enemy think you're strong (if you don't want to be attacked). Only they're not deceiving us.

 

[MadRat]

Iran is a much larger population than Iraq. If anyone here thinks we can utterly waltz into Tehran and win the war is in for a rude awakening. So what if we can pulverize any organized force they deploy? Its the large numbers of irregular forces that will overwhelm our lines of supply and give us the proverbial bloody nose. Its not about winning the war in Iran's case, its about making a stand.

 

[IdioticBuffoon]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Iran is a much larger population than Iraq. If anyone here thinks we can utterly waltz into Tehran and win the war is in for a rude awakening. So what if we can pulverize any organized force they deploy? Its the large numbers of irregular forces that will overwhelm our lines of supply and give us the proverbial bloody nose. Its not about winning the war in Iran's case, its about making a stand.

Another fact that the trigger-happy residents of AT ignore is that the Irani people are very nationalistic and fiercely patriotic. They always have been. I don't think they will give up an inch of their land to foreign forces without a fight.

Iraq's nonexistent defences pretty much melted away because well they were ... nonexistent! There was some resistance the U.S. forces encountered in the south but that was about it. The legendary Iraqi Republican Guard just evaporated the night before the fall of Baghdad, nowhere to be seen. All the big generals and commanders were bribed off moments before the attack on Baghdad and Saddam Hussein was left to rot in a hole for obvious reasons. Along with Baghdad, entire regions of the country were just left for the taking. What kind of a war is that? Any resistance forces that were left were a mix of soldiers who decided not to be sellouts and people loyal to Saddam Hussein and the regime.

Suffice to say, I think Iran will to be a different "experience" if the U.S. decides to flap its military wings again.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: rahvin
Although it's real what is the US defense against it? I hope no one is naive enough to think the US millitary doesn't have a counter-measure for it that isn't talked about. Frankly the millitary doesn't discuss their countermeasures until they are obsolete. How long was it before the Phalanx system's purpose was really understood outside the military?

I'm sure we've developed some countermeasures, but only a handful of people know how good they are (and I'm sure none of us do). Because they're so fast, the usual anti-torpedo measures won't work (you can't intercept something that's faster than the interceptor). Also, these are unguided torpedoes (they are not controlled by the launch site), and the usual electronic countermeasures won't work either. Basically they are "set it and forget it" types of weapons, except that they do not seek the target actively. But as far as I know, we've been in possession of the export version for quite some time now, and hopefully we know how to deal with them.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Frankly, I do not believe any of the propoganda that is being spread about Iran. Not saying that Iran is a nice country or our friends or anything like this, but this is the same M.O. that they used with Iraq (planting stories).

So the USA is planting stories with aljazeera now huh? Al Jazeera is in our back pocket now too?

Where have you been? Any story that doesn't meet the libs agenda is of course a plant. Any that back the lib agenda, even if proven to be a completely made up hoax (see last weeks SAS thread, lol), are of course, undeniable facts, and you are scum if you question them.

Seems like EVERYTHING we said about Iraq was 100% dead-on, now wasn't it? Too bad people like you are just too f*cking stupid to learn from your mistakes.

You haven't been right about sh*t regarding Iraq and now you want me to take your word for it about Iran. I don't think so.

You and all your ilk have ZERO credibility. Do you understand that? ZERO, NONE, NIL, NIENTE, NADA.

The right-wing agenda is clear.... kill, kill and kill some more.

You must have missed last weeks Left Wing plant, the lefties in here gobbled it up, and attacked those who questioned it. Go figure.

What exactly did I get wrong about Iraq? And what exactly were you 100% dead on about? Or are you retro-fitting your assertions now?

Do you realize you just called story run by Al-Jazeera and Iran state news a plant? lol, genious. Next time don't jump so soon.

Gimme a break, I'd school you six ways from sunday on any subject regarding the middle east.

 

[Train]

dp

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: IdioticBuffoon
Link

Hopefully this will act as a deterrent to American aggression and any other form of ill-fated unilateral advancements in the future.

And I don't think bin Laden or Al-keda is about to get ahold of these weapons.

Well you must be proud of them. Look at the BrahMos from India and Russia and some other missiles and get back.

You must be taking the word of al-qaeda-jazeera and the Iranian military seriously. I don't blame you for that.

Yes, this new awesome weapon will send those dirty Americans back where they came from!