PDA

View Full Version : Iran tests new weapon



Bella
05 Aug 08,, 00:26
Hey everyone! I'm trying to post the link, but I'm having problems!
Maybe someone can help!
Anyways, the news is reporting that Iran has tested a new weapon that would be able to sink ships around 200 miles away.
This comes a couple of days after Iran was suppose to respond to it's nuclear weapons program.

I have a couple of questions...........
"I'm sorry if I can't follow what is always happening in the world today, and I'm not no military expert, but................."
"For a country that can't massively produce its own air force, navy, etc, and relies on Russia and China for it's weapons, how are they able to developer a weapon to sink ship up to 200 miles away?"
My personal belief is that Iran is trying to scare the rest of the world by making up false statements because 40% of all oil is transported thru the Straits of Hormuz.
What do you think?
Is Iran able to test a new weapon able to sink a ship from 200 miles away, while it can't even develop it's own navy, air force, ect..??

Thanks!

gunnut
05 Aug 08,, 00:53
I suspect most of these claims are to bolster their own morale and to jolt the oil market. They know they can't hurt the USN. We know they can't hurt the USN. But we all know a few words of "possible armed conflict" can send the oil up by $5 a barrel in one day.

Bella
05 Aug 08,, 01:00
I suspect most of these claims are to bolster their own morale and to jolt the oil market. They know they can't hurt the USN. We know they can't hurt the USN. But we all know a few words of "possible armed conflict" can send the oil up by $5 a barrel in one day.

Kinda funny huh?! At the same time oil droped to around $120! Your probably right!

Traxus
05 Aug 08,, 03:06
I suspect most of these claims are to bolster their own morale and to jolt the oil market. They know they can't hurt the USN. We know they can't hurt the USN. But we all know a few words of "possible armed conflict" can send the oil up by $5 a barrel in one day.

Didn't an Iranian mine almost sink a US vessel in the Straight of Hormuz in the 80s? Seems like they could hurt it a little bit anyway.

Yusuf
05 Aug 08,, 06:49
I think they might be referring to kamikazes who will start on their coast towards USN battle group 200 miles away. They havent used it, so its new for them.:biggrin::biggrin:

Bella
05 Aug 08,, 20:37
I think they might be referring to kamikazes who will start on their coast towards USN battle group 200 miles away. They haven't used it, so its new for them.:biggrin::biggrin:

That's funny!! What kinda weapon would it be though? 200 miles for a torpedo is a long way..........My best guess would be some sort of a anti-ship missile.
"IF" Iran did develop a weapon like this, doesn't the U.S. navy have a defense?
Also, I know that Iran has subs, but in the case of WAR, wouldn't the U.S. send a massive amount of attack subs to keep the Straits open?

Thanks!

zraver
05 Aug 08,, 21:44
Hey everyone! I'm trying to post the link, but I'm having problems!
Maybe someone can help!
Anyways, the news is reporting that Iran has tested a new weapon that would be able to sink ships around 200 miles away.
This comes a couple of days after Iran was suppose to respond to it's nuclear weapons program.

It's probalby the new cruise missile they are working on. Its a rebuilt silkworm with greater range, better inertial guidance, and an air breathing motor but still sub sonic.


I have a couple of questions...........
"I'm sorry if I can't follow what is always happening in the world today, and I'm not no military expert, but................."
"For a country that can't massively produce its own air force, navy, etc, and relies on Russia and China for it's weapons, how are they able to developer a weapon to sink ship up to 200 miles away?"

They build fighters, tanks, turboprops, MRBM, SRBM, IFV's, helicopters, advanced anti-ship missiles, submarines, radars etc. Thier stuff isn't first rate by any means but they can build most things they can get an example of.



My personal belief is that Iran is trying to scare the rest of the world by making up false statements because 40% of all oil is transported thru the Straits of Hormuz.
What do you think?

Enough second and third rate equipment is still a threat.



Is Iran able to test a new weapon able to sink a ship from 200 miles away, while it can't even develop it's own navy, air force, ect..??

Thanks!

They have one of the largest fleets of fast attack craft in the world, one of the largest inventories of sea mines including rocket mines, can keep the F-14 flying, have cloned the Cobra attack Helicopter etc. Iran is not Iraq.

GAU-8
05 Aug 08,, 23:34
Its a rebuilt silkworm with greater range, better inertial guidance, and an air breathing motor but still sub sonic.

How much of a threat would this weapon pose to a modern warship in the straights? Could modern warships shield tanker traffic from a silkworm-type missile? How detectable/vulnerable are the launch sites?

Thanks.

zraver
06 Aug 08,, 00:04
How much of a threat would this weapon pose to a modern warship in the straights? Could modern warships shield tanker traffic from a silkworm-type missile? How detectable/vulnerable are the launch sites?

Thanks.

The missile is still in development but my guess is it will eventually be fitted to trucks and Su-24's. So not very vulnerable to counterforce operations vs the missile itself.

As far as tankers go, the SEARam should cook these things to order. But again every new Iranian missile requires 2 new allied missiles to stop it unless we can scramble its guidance.

Bella
06 Aug 08,, 01:57
Posted by zraver: Enough second and third rate equipment is still a threat.

If that is the case, is it wiser for the U.S. to build a massive amount of 2nd and 3rd rate weapons just to save money to overwhelm an enemy?
Or build 1st rate weapons that limit the damage of 2nd and 3rd grade equipment?
Shoot, I know that an civil war cannon will damage to a new destroyer, but............

zraver
06 Aug 08,, 02:53
Posted by zraver: Enough second and third rate equipment is still a threat.

If that is the case, is it wiser for the U.S. to build a massive amount of 2nd and 3rd rate weapons just to save money to overwhelm an enemy?
Or build 1st rate weapons that limit the damage of 2nd and 3rd grade equipment?
Shoot, I know that an civil war cannon will damage to a new destroyer, but............

A threat does not automatically mean success. If we build enough of the right 1st rate stuff and use it properly we should win. However using less than 1st rate stuff means even if you win, you paid with more blood than you might have otherwise. The US would rather spend treasure than blood, Iran can only spend blood so its a different game for each.

Traxus
06 Aug 08,, 03:03
How much of a threat would this weapon pose to a modern warship in the straights? Could modern warships shield tanker traffic from a silkworm-type missile? How detectable/vulnerable are the launch sites?

Thanks.

I've got to think the tankers wouldn't take the risk. Even if the US had a very good chance of shielding a tanker it would be a very big problem if even one got through to an unarmored tanker carrying a full load of oil.

zraver
06 Aug 08,, 07:44
I've got to think the tankers wouldn't take the risk. Even if the US had a very good chance of shielding a tanker it would be a very big problem if even one got through to an unarmored tanker carrying a full load of oil.

Risk is quantified via insurance rates and price increases. As long as there is profit to be made, or a national government willing to risk its ships the passage will be attempted by someone. Historically the merchant mariners of the world carry around a couple of big brass ones if you know what I mean.

Bella
06 Aug 08,, 17:34
If tensions continue to build, do you guys think that the U.S. would be poised to send more attack subs, and surface vessels to the Straits to keep them safe?

Alamgir
06 Aug 08,, 18:41
Im a little skeptical about the news but im certain that such a weapon is being developed.

Stitch
06 Aug 08,, 19:40
If tensions continue to build, do you guys think that the U.S. would be poised to send more attack subs, and surface vessels to the Straits to keep them safe?

Definitely; probably pretty much the same thing we did during the Iran-Iraq War back during Operation Earnest Will in the '80's, though: re-flag oil tankers and protect international shipping, especially the tankers, from attacks by the Iranians. I don't think subs would be necessary, they couldn't do much against Iran's fast-attack boats anyway, but some surface-action ships would be nice, maybe some Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates, some Ticonderoga-class Aegis guided missle cruisers,and some PB Mark III patrol boats.

xerxes
06 Aug 08,, 19:49
Kinda funny huh?! At the same time oil droped to around $120! Your probably right!


No, the oil - among other commodties such as gold - are dropping because the USD is getting stronger versus Yen and Euro. Commodties are traded in USD in NYMEX and COMEX.

My view is that with each intrest rate cut done by the Federal Reserve since last sept, USD was getting weaker and weaker, and the currency was dropping. As the market was getting worse, the financial institutions put their money in commodties. By commodties, I mean mostly crude oil, since there is so much liquidity in it. The pitch point was reached on Jan 20-23 2008, right around Martin Luther King holiday, when the Asian market collapsed, and the day after NYSE crashed. Two weeks after oil and Gold started to climbup, with oil passing the 100 $ from 90$, on its way to the tip of the superspike. Gold passed the 1,000 barrier build on the worries of regarding Bearn Stern.

Samething happened just a few weeks ago, but instead of Bearn Stern, it was Freddie and Fannie. The USD today is trading 1.54 against Europ right now. But, just two-three weeks ago Dow was on the edge of 10,900 level, oil at 145 $ and Gold at 970 $, and the USD was at an all time low of 1.59 against Euro.

I expect as US economy will be getting better the intrest rate to be increased - in the next year. That will cut through inflation and support the USD, probably bursting the bubble in oil. IMHO ofcourse.

gunnut
06 Aug 08,, 23:14
Posted by zraver: Enough second and third rate equipment is still a threat.

If that is the case, is it wiser for the U.S. to build a massive amount of 2nd and 3rd rate weapons just to save money to overwhelm an enemy?
Or build 1st rate weapons that limit the damage of 2nd and 3rd grade equipment?
Shoot, I know that an civil war cannon will damage to a new destroyer, but............

That's how we won WW2...except our "2nd rate" stuff wasn't that much worse than German's 1st rate stuff, and we enjoyed a 20:1 numerical advantage. Against the Japanese, our "2nd rate" stuff is better than their "1st rate" stuff by middle of the war, and we still out number them 20:1. :))

zraver
06 Aug 08,, 23:46
No, the oil - among other commodties such as gold - are dropping because the USD is getting stronger versus Yen and Euro. Commodties are traded in USD in NYMEX and COMEX.

My view is that with each intrest rate cut done by the Federal Reserve since last sept, USD was getting weaker and weaker, and the currency was dropping. As the market was getting worse, the financial institutions put their money in commodties. By commodties, I mean mostly crude oil, since there is so much liquidity in it. The pitch point was reached on Jan 20-23 2008, right around Martin Luther King holiday, when the Asian market collapsed, and the day after NYSE crashed. Two weeks after oil and Gold started to climbup, with oil passing the 100 $ from 90$, on its way to the tip of the superspike. Gold passed the 1,000 barrier build on the worries of regarding Bearn Stern.

Samething happened just a few weeks ago, but instead of Bearn Stern, it was Freddie and Fannie. The USD today is trading 1.54 against Europ right now. But, just two-three weeks ago Dow was on the edge of 10,900 level, oil at 145 $ and Gold at 970 $, and the USD was at an all time low of 1.59 against Euro.

I expect as US economy will be getting better the intrest rate to be increased - in the next year. That will cut through inflation and support the USD, probably bursting the bubble in oil. IMHO ofcourse.

Add the devaluing pressure of the war borrowing to that. If our budget deficit grows smaller the supply of dollars will get tighter causing its value to rise.

Skywatcher
07 Aug 08,, 00:37
It's probably just a C-803 mod the Iranians are talking about. It's not as if its a hypersonic UCAV or a anti shipping ballistic missile.

zraver
07 Aug 08,, 10:04
It's probably just a C-803 mod the Iranians are talking about. It's not as if its a hypersonic UCAV or a anti shipping ballistic missile.

No its a modified HY-2 silkworm call the Ra'ad not to be confused with the ATGM of the same name. It is sub-sonic with a 1/2 ton warhead and a 350km range. It can be probably be sued for anti-shipping missions like its proginator but will most likely be employed as a stand-off attack weapon like the Tomahawk since Iran already has the very capable C-802/Noor for long ranged attack along with Iran's inability to acquire and then provide targeting data on ships 350km away.

http://www.iranmilitaryforum.com/pictures/IMF/Missiles/ASM-Raad-with-350-Km-range.jpg

Traxus
07 Aug 08,, 22:25
Risk is quantified via insurance rates and price increases. As long as there is profit to be made, or a national government willing to risk its ships the passage will be attempted by someone. Historically the merchant mariners of the world carry around a couple of big brass ones if you know what I mean.

True enough. And the huge rise in oil prices should there be war would certainly make it very profitable.

xerxes
08 Aug 08,, 14:04
Zraver, looks like the USD jumped up a lot against the Euro
It is now at 1.5071,
Expect gold and crude to tumble down.

Dollar extends 9-week high against euro - Aug. 7, 2008 (http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/07/markets/dollar/index.htm)


True enough. And the huge rise in oil prices should there be war would certainly make it very profitable.

Very high oil price are definitly not profitable in the long run, when they kill the demand.

NishanbazKhan
08 Aug 08,, 14:43
Zraver, looks like the USD jumped up a lot against the Euro
It is now at 1.5071,
Expect gold and crude to tumble down.

Dollar extends 9-week high against euro - Aug. 7, 2008 (http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/07/markets/dollar/index.htm)



Very high oil price are definitly not profitable in the long run, when they kill the demand.gold has tumbled considerably in the past month. For a good part of 08 it was over $1000/oz now it's down to $857.30 as of this morning.

xerxes
08 Aug 08,, 15:08
gold has tumbled considerably in the past month. For a good part of 08 it was over $1000/oz now it's down to $857.30 as of this morning.

That good part was more like about 10 trading days, no more

That bubble was burst when JP Morgan and Fed saved Bearn Sterns, and which infact told the market "We will not let the big financial go down the drain"

NishanbazKhan
08 Aug 08,, 16:27
That good part was more like about 10 trading days, no more

That bubble was burst when JP Morgan and Fed saved Bearn Sterns, and which infact told the market "We will not let the big financial go down the drain"if you are refering to peak then yes, but still most of this year it was over $1000 an oz which meant if you missed the ball on the peak to sell you wouldn't be entirely sunk particularly if you had bought gold when it was around $300/oz back in the late 90s. Then again gasoline was under a dollar a gallon in some instances back then

xerxes
08 Aug 08,, 16:47
Again, i am saying that you are incorrect.

Gold reach above 1,000 for a bit more than two weeks.

When it reached above 1,000 it was the first time, and when it fell in mid-March it was the last time it was over 1,000.

I have no idea where you get "but still most of this year it was over $1000 an oz"

We are in the month of August. and two-three weeks divided by numbers of weeks in the year so far, is far from most of this year

NishanbazKhan
08 Aug 08,, 16:59
my mistake, gold bullion operates a bit differently from bulk gold coins (kruggerands etc.) of which have been at or a little over $1000 (and are one ounce) for most of the year.

xerxes
08 Aug 08,, 17:23
Are you a Gold trader?

NishanbazKhan
08 Aug 08,, 17:58
Are you a Gold trader?not in so much, but dealer spot on bullion is typically between 10-15% depending on the coin. so bullion + 15% and you will see an ounce going for over $1000 more often than not even if gold is only at $900 and that is what I was basing this claim on.

NishanbazKhan
08 Aug 08,, 17:59
I find silver to be more within my price range at the moment than gold was and when silver passed $15 an ounce I made decent money off the silver scrap I collected when it was around $3/oz

xerxes
08 Aug 08,, 18:11
You can made good money in very short term if you trade with options of Gold stocks. Read the fine print below.



The trick is that you MUST be right in your bet.

Zinja
08 Aug 08,, 20:49
Add the devaluing pressure of the war borrowing to that. If our budget deficit grows smaller the supply of dollars will get tighter causing its value to rise.


Good point! The trick for the US is balancing the budget. All the other issues will fall into place.

gunnut
09 Aug 08,, 01:25
Good point! The trick for the US is balancing the budget. All the other issues will fall into place.

The complication is "how?" There are 2 ways to balance a budget. One, increase revenue. Two, decrease spending. We know there's no way in hell the neo-coms will ever cut governement spending. That leaves us with the 1st option. How do we increase revenue? Increase taxes or decrease taxes?

zraver
09 Aug 08,, 02:02
The complication is "how?" There are 2 ways to balance a budget. One, increase revenue. Two, decrease spending. We know there's no way in hell the neo-coms will ever cut governement spending. That leaves us with the 1st option. How do we increase revenue? Increase taxes or decrease taxes?

Once the war is over the deficit will go down, so lets get committed to winning it.

Bella
09 Aug 08,, 02:35
That's how we won WW2...except our "2nd rate" stuff wasn't that much worse than German's 1st rate stuff, and we enjoyed a 20:1 numerical advantage. Against the Japanese, our "2nd rate" stuff is better than their "1st rate" stuff by middle of the war, and we still out number them 20:1. :))

True! German technology was far better than U.S., and we won the war by pure numbers and manufacturing strength. However, are you stating that Iran has better numbers in weapons, and manufacturing than the U.S., or something else?
Please forgive me!.......I'm not trying to insult your intelligence or anything, but that was the 1940's and it's 2008. Times have changed, and technology is changing a lot faster today then back then.
Shoot........! If you buy a computer today, 2 months from now, it's outdated!
The best analogy I can use is that, "If you need a computer to solve a hard problem,.......would you want to use 20 computers from 1960 to solve the it, or 1 from 2008?"
During WWII Germany, the U.S., and the U.K., were all manufacturing giants.
I know at that time Germany had quite a bit of manufacturing, and intelligence, but lacked manpower due to the war, and used slave labor from prisoners of war for weapons manufacturing.
The U.K. had unbelievable intelligence, but lacked the necessary force to defeat Germany.
The U.S. had o.k. intelligence, but a huge manufacturing force and resources.
When Iran has 25,000 old T-72 tanks, 15,000 MIGs, and 75,000,000 troops, then I will think differently.
Anyway, back on topic, what kinda primitive technology can Iran use, in overwhelming force, to really hurt the U.S. military?

Thanks!:)

zraver
09 Aug 08,, 04:08
True! German technology was far better than U.S., and we won the war by pure numbers and manufacturing strength.

That is not even close to the truth. Germany had some superior technology such as tank cannon, but was inferior in some other area like gasoline octane, battle rifles etc.



Anyway, back on topic, what kinda primitive technology can Iran use, in overwhelming force, to really hurt the U.S. military?

Thanks!:)

Iran has some weapons that qualify as high tech such as the TorM1 or Klub antiship missile, rocket mines, and rocket torpedoes. They have a lot of technology that would be considered modern if not high technology. The C-802/Noor, the Kosar missile, the Su-24 and Su-25. The Cobra attack helicopter etc. To classify Iran as primitive is a mistake. They are more advanced than Iraq was in some areas.

turbulence671
09 Aug 08,, 15:41
"Anyway, back on topic, what kinda primitive technology can Iran use, in overwhelming force, to really hurt the U.S. military?"

Hurt the US military is exactly what they would aim to do, while countries like Iran wouldn't stand a chance in defeating the US or most western military powers their best and only option would be to make the prospect of war more hassle than it is worth (especially with Iraq/Afghanistan to deal with). However this aside, if Iran is genuinely developing nukes I would like to think people would support military intervention and not camp on the side of naivety. While I'm not exactly supportive of wars I think it would be a mistake to let a country governed by a religious crackpot with a mind from the 15th century acquire nukes or any advanced weapons tech that can be used for offensive action.

Alamgir
10 Aug 08,, 19:31
Iran to reveal details of new weapons
Sun, 10 Aug 2008 15:00:04 GMT

Iran's Defense Ministry has announced plans to make public details of the latest developments in the country's weapons arsenal.

Speaking to reporters after a Sunday cabinet meeting, Brigadier-General Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar said Iran's defensive capabilities are now based on equipment manufactured by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC).

In early July, the IRGC held an extensive military exercise, during which Iran successfully test-fired advanced shore-to-sea, surface-to-surface and sea-to-air missiles.

Iran also tested the upgraded Shahab-3 missile equipped with a one-ton conventional warhead and capable of hitting targets within a 2,000-kilometer range.

In August, IRGC chief Major General Mohammad-Ali Jafari announced that Iran had developed a high-tech naval weapons system capable of targeting any warship within a range of 300 kilometers from its shores.

"The design and production technology used in this weapon is completely Iranian and has never been employed by any other country," Maj. Gen. Jafari added.

Iran has stepped up efforts to demonstrate its defense capabilities amid escalating US and Israeli threats to strike the country's nuclear facilities.

While the UN nuclear watchdog has confirmed that Iran is enriching uranium to 3 percent, a rate consistent with electricity generation,
Washington and Tel Aviv accuse the country of making efforts to build a nuclear bomb.

The two allies have repeatedly threatened to launch military strikes against Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), should the country continue nuclear enrichment.

Iran cites diplomacy as the only acceptable means for clarifying the nature of its nuclear program and ending the nuclear standoff. However, Tehran has warned that Israel and 32 US bases in the region will be targeted should the country come under attack.

A recent study by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a prestigious American think tank, found that a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities 'is unlikely' to delay the country's program.

The ISIS study also cautioned that an attack against Iran would backfire by compelling the country to acquire nuclear weaponry.

Press TV - Iran to reveal details of new weapons (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=66185&sectionid=351020101)

I am looking forward to learning more about this weapon and its capabilities.

Zinja
11 Aug 08,, 01:08
The complication is "how?" There are 2 ways to balance a budget. One, increase revenue. Two, decrease spending. We know there's no way in hell the neo-coms will ever cut governement spending. That leaves us with the 1st option. How do we increase revenue? Increase taxes or decrease taxes?

Combination of both. Marry some of Obama's policies with some of McCain's you can get a balanced budget in two years considering that the budget guzzler Iraq is now slowly getting out of the way (asuming the Iran Issue will resolve itself somehow) :)

xerxes
11 Aug 08,, 19:58
US dollar went up to 1.4925, extending its powerfull rally from last week. USD is kicking a##, against Euro and Yen.

Commodities led by Gold and Crude are dropping fast to 828 $ and 114 $, respectively

PS: is there a subsection in this forum, where the market and economy are discussed?