Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile

  1. #1
    Patron
    Join Date
    21 Nov 04
    Location
    Baltimore, MD, USA
    Posts
    253

    The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile

    I found this article posted on antoher board, but I figured I would post it here because from what I have read on this site thus far you guys no more about the militaryand security issues than any other site I have ever been to.


    "Anti-ship cruise missiles are not new, as I've mentioned. Nor have they yet determined the outcome in a conflict. But this is probably only because these horrible weapons have never been deployed in sufficient numbers. At the time of the Falklands war the Argentine air force possessed only five Exocets, yet managed to sink two ships. With enough of them, the Argentineans might have sunk the entire British fleet, and won the war. Although we've never seen a massed attack of cruise missiles, this is exactly what the US Navy could face in the next war in the Gulf.

    Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after barrage of Exocet-class missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds, as well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The questions that our purblind government leaders should be asking themselves, today, if they value what historians will one day write about them, are two: how many of the Russian anti-ship missiles has Putin already supplied to Iran? And: How many more are currently in the pipeline?"

    full article: http://www.indiemediamagazine.com/ar...50118055547492

  2. #2
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    26 Aug 03
    Posts
    3,169
    Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after barrage of Exocet-class missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds, as well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The questions that our purblind government leaders should be asking themselves, today, if they value what historians will one day write about them, are two: how many of the Russian anti-ship missiles has Putin already supplied to Iran? And: How many more are currently in the pipeline?"
    The Sunburn is hardly "unstoppable". Furthermore we won't get close enough for them to use them.

  3. #3
    Patron
    Join Date
    21 Nov 04
    Location
    Baltimore, MD, USA
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by Praxus
    The Sunburn is hardly "unstoppable". Furthermore we won't get close enough for them to use them.
    Do these things really have a nuclear tip?

  4. #4
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    26 Aug 03
    Posts
    3,169
    The ones the Iranians got don't.

  5. #5
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Te Whanganui a-Tara, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,870

    more on the ss-n-22

    CONTINUING DEVELOPMENTS IN IRAN (Senate - June 27, 1996)


    [Page: S7204] GPO's PDF
    [Begin insert]
    Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I wish to warn my colleagues of continuing developments in Iran which I believe to be very dangerous to the national interests of the United States.
    As many are aware, I have spoken before to express my concerns about the continuing threat which I believe the leadership of Iran offers to the Middle East. Today, I would like to focus again on Iran's procurement of missiles which threaten the free passage through the Persian Gulf of oil and other goods vital to the United States.

    Early this year Pentagon officials acknowledged that Iran had test-fired a Chinese-built C-802 antiship cruise missile. The test firing of this missile occurred near the approaches of the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic waterway at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. The C-802 antiship cruise missile can achieve speeds up to mach 0.9 and can be fired from over 50 miles from the target ship. It is powered by a turbojet with a rocket booster and attacks the target vessel at a height of only 15 feet above the ocean. The Pentagon said that five Chinese fast-attack craft are equipped to carry the missiles, with another five of the missile patrol boats expected to be delivered to Iran soon. Additionally, 10 Kaman-class fast attack boats are now being modified by Iran to carry the C-802. In response to this development, Senators Larry Pressler, Arlen Specter, Connie Mack, and I asked President Clinton to verify that China had sold this missile to Iran in violation of the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act of 1992. I regret to say that the response of the administration was unsatisfactory.

    A less publicized acquisition of Iran has been the procurement of the SS-N-22 (SUNBURN) anti-ship cruise missile from a Former Soviet Union State. This missile is much more capable and dangerous than the Chinese C-802. The SUNBURN missile can travel at speeds up to mach 2.5, almost 3 times as fast as the Chinese C-802 missile. It can perform `S' turns during flight and carries sophisticated electronic sensors. This missile, as I will discuss in more detail, poses a significant threat to our naval vessels and the free flow of oil in the Persian Gulf.

    Mr. President, let me talk briefly and in very general terms about the systems which our naval vessels use to defend themselves. At the outset, I should say that the Navy has begun to improve its ship self-defense systems, as they are called, following the tragic incident in which the U.S.S. Stark was hit and badly damaged by an Iraqi-launched Exocet missile. The ship self-defense systems fall into two general categories. The first are sensors, missiles and guns which are designed to locate and shoot down the attacking missile. The idea is to hit a bullet with a bullet. I believe that there can be no disagreement that this is a difficult task. Because of the size of the Persian Gulf, ships are always relatively close to shore. When an antiship missile is fired from a land-based site as it could be in Iran, ground clutter can conceal the missile from ship or

    aircraft radar until it reaches open water, which reduces the reaction time of our ships and makes the interception much more difficult. With an anti-ship missile like the SUNBURN, traveling at mach 2.5, the time from its appearance over the horizon until it impacts on its target is only approximately 30 seconds. Further, sophisticated missiles which engage in corkscrew and serpentine maneuvers as they enter their final phase make them very difficult to engage.
    The second general category of ship self-defense systems are decoys. Navy vessels are equipped to fire chaff into the air when their sensors detect an incoming anti-ship missile. The chaff can confuse the sensors carried by the less sophisticated anti-ship missiles. This is simply an improvement of the technology used by aircraft early in World War II. A much more promising technology is the NULKA Decoy System. It is an all-weather self-protection missile that is especially designed to protect combatant amphibious ships operating in littoral waters against anti-ship missiles. This decoy draws the anti-ship missile away from its target and shows great promise against the most sophisticated threats when integrated with the ship's sensors and weapons systems. I urge the Pentagon and my colleagues on the Defense committees to take the necessary measures to expedite fielding of this system as quickly as possible.

    Mr. President, I now ask what purpose the Government of Iran has for its actions? Its recent procurement of nuclear technology can be explained away, however lamely, with claims of non-military applications. An apologist could argue that Iran's procurement of submarines is defensive in its nature. However, there is no argument which can explain the procurement of anti-ship missiles of the type I have described. They are clearly for offensive purposes. They can only be used to attack ships in the Persian Gulf or threaten to do so. Imagine yourself as a sailor on one of our ships that has just detected the approach of such a missile. Thirty seconds is very little time to react in a meaningful way. I need not remind my colleagues that we fought in Iraq, in large part, to continue to guarantee free passage of oil from the Persian Gulf. If Iran cannot be persuaded to abandon its current course, I am afraid we may be forced to do so again.
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r104:S27JN6-1303:
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

  6. #6
    Liberté, Unité, Egalité Senior Contributor Tronic's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Dec 04
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,997
    nice article

  7. #7
    Ex-Wabber Defense Professional
    Join Date
    10 Dec 04
    Posts
    7,029
    I think that the question of Sunburns in Iran is open to debate. Russia has said publicly that the sale of the Sunburn is tied directly to the sale of Sov class DDG's.

    Also, the US has stated very clearly to Russia that any sale would scuttle the debt forgiveness deals that the US has made with Russia, as well as the CTR program (Nunn-Lugar).

    In 1995, Jane's repeated a rumor that originated in Israel that Ukraine sold 8 Sunburns to Iran for $450,000 each.
    May 1995
    A senior Israeli defense official tells the Israeli daily newspaper the Jerusalem Post that Israel was aware of and protested Ukraine's sale of eight SS-N-22 missiles to Iran several months ago. A middleman representing a US arms dealer proposed to buy the missiles from the Ukraine, but states that his deal fell through and that Iran ended up paying $450,000 for each missile.
    —Alon Pinkas, "Ukraine sold missiles to Iran despite protest," Jerusalem Post, 14 May 1995, p. 2, in Lexis-Nexis, <http://www.lexis-nexis.com/>.
    This report was denied by Ukraine,
    May 1995
    Ukraine Ambassador Ivan Maydan denies accusations that Ukraine sold Iran eight SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship cruise missiles for $450,000 each.
    —International Security Digest, May 1995, cited in Agence France Presse International News, 14 May 1995, cited in "Ballistic, Cruise Missile, and Missile Defense Systems: Trade and Significant Developments, March 1995-June 1995," Nonproliferation Review, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Fall 1995, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 161; IRNA (Tehran) 17 May 1995, cited in "Ballistic, Cruise Missile, and Missile Defense Systems: Trade and Significant Developments, March 1995-June 1995," Nonproliferation Review, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Fall 1995, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 161.
    http://www.nti.org/e_research/profil...1788_1810.html

    So even if the reports are true, what are we really talking about? 8 missiles that are over ten years old, and probably have a questionable service record.

    There is a lot of hype about these on the Net, with some sites even trying to claim they are nuke tipped and aimed at Israel! Lol. I don't think so...

    BTW, the reports that I have seen on the tests of the RAM and ESSM against supersonic CM's were 161/168 for the RAM and 149/150 for ESSM.
    "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Carrier killers (an article from JED online)
    By lurker in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 172
    Last Post: 28 Dec 06,, 05:39
  2. India's First and Largest nuclear power plant..
    By Jay in forum Central and South Asia
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 11 Feb 06,, 18:50
  3. Why use force when talk works so well?
    By Leader in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 05 Dec 05,, 09:29
  4. Sunburn,Angel of death for the US Navy???
    By MIKEMUN in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 24 Mar 05,, 21:59
  5. Russian Navy
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 17 Feb 05,, 04:55

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •