Mach 2 +, Sunburn missile. - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

dkveuro · #1 10-29-2005, 07:20 PM

http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm

The above gives a litle prespective to the upcoming threat.
Will the Iranians now avenge the commercial aircraft shot down by the USS Vincennes

Botnst · #2 10-29-2005, 10:46 PM

The missle threat is probably overstated. Remember that nobody pays attention to no news. News has to have splash. Yes, the missle is a threat. So what? It's beyond dumb to counter an attack strategy directly--that tells the enemy what to expect. Instead, use assets the enemy doesn't have and use them to threaten something more dear to him than that which he threatens of yours.

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2003/Summer/art3-su3.htm
http://www.house.gov/hasc/testimony/106thcongress/00-07-19gill.html

dkveuro · #3 10-30-2005, 12:51 AM

The point is...Iran is the central figure in this senario.
With porous borders , there's enough range in the latest missiles ( 180 nm ) to reach any surface vessel in the Red Sea or the Golf of Hormuz from a land based mobile launcher(s).

The AWAC's only look at moving threats, by the time a missile is launched and on track at Mach 2 plus... there's maybe 30 seconds to impact.

I'd say this is a serious threat that has left a big hole in surface shipping defence.

China and far east threats do not pose the same 'inland waters' confined attack strategums.

.

cmac2012 · #4 10-30-2005, 02:31 AM

That's a pretty serious article. I've been worrying for a while that cruise missiles are kryptonite for the SDI/star wars/missile shield. Course, cruise missiles are not intercontinental but ballistics' point of origin is known unlike with CM.

I'm thinking delivering a CM on a fishing boat might be fairly easy. Or maybe hiding one under a couple of metric tons of cocaine and getting 50 miles away from a target city.

Botnst · #5 10-30-2005, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkveuro

The point is...Iran is the central figure in this senario.
With porous borders , there's enough range in the latest missiles ( 180 nm ) to reach any surface vessel in the Red Sea or the Golf of Hormuz from a land based mobile launcher(s).

The AWAC's only look at moving threats, by the time a missile is launched and on track at Mach 2 plus... there's maybe 30 seconds to impact.

I'd say this is a serious threat that has left a big hole in surface shipping defence.

China and far east threats do not pose the same 'inland waters' confined attack strategums.

.

Yeah, it's a threat. There are lots of threats for which we have no direct countermeasure. But then we do have countermeasures of different sorts. This was the whole concept of MAD vs the USSR. We couldn't stop MIRV'd nukes but we could make retribution so horrific that the USSR was intimidated by the response.

Ths same applies to Iran. If they screw-around too much we have a wide array of responses that can introduce them to a world of pain. The trick is to convince them that a first strike for them is not worth the response we will deliver.

B

aklim · #6 10-30-2005, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Ths same applies to Iran. If they screw-around too much we have a wide array of responses that can introduce them to a world of pain. The trick is to convince them that a first strike for them is not worth the response we will deliver.

B

That is the trick tho. To convince them that we have the stones to do it when we have shown restraint. We call it restraint, they call it a lack of courage and they are good at capitalizing on it,

raymr · #7 10-30-2005, 11:01 AM

They would never be stupid enough to launch a preemptive strike. However this missile capability sure gives them a lot of bargaining power. I'm sure they will leverage that in every way possible to benefit their anti-Israel agenda. Why is it with all the efforts to bring peace to that part of the world, it has become more of a powder-keg than ever?

PC Dave · #8 10-31-2005, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkveuro

The point is...Iran is the central figure in this senario.
With porous borders , there's enough range in the latest missiles ( 180 nm ) to reach any surface vessel in the Red Sea or the Golf of Hormuz from a land based mobile launcher(s).

Umm, so what? I saw that article a year or more ago when it first surfaced. The real question is, why would we ever take a carrier into the Persian Gulf or the Straits of Hormuz (the Red Sea is on the other side of Saudi, the missiles couldn't reach)? Our carrier-based attack aircraft can fly a lot farther than the missiles can, esp. with refuelling. Essentially, we have a gun, he's got a knife, why would we ever get within 3 feet of him? Our capital assets are fairly safe.

The real concern would be if the Iranians popped those into a couple of oil tankers in the Gulf. If we start something, I'd guess we'll be shutting down shpping in the Gulf for a while (hurts the Iranians more than it does us). If they do it unilaterally, or hit a US destroyer or some other surface asset that would venture into the Gulf, well, they've started a whole new game, and we're in a conventional war that we didn't start (the kind the Europeans don't mind if we win).