Article Archive: Current 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Air Defense: Naval Defenses Against Iranian Missiles
   Next Article → ATTRITION: Black Times For Black Tigers

July 10, 2008: Last week, the U.S. Navy sent a message, and conducted some anti-missile training, as two Aegis warships (one off the coast of Israel, and the other in the Persian Gulf) practiced defeat a combined missile attack, from Syria, Lebanon and Iran, against Israel.

So far, the Aegis system has knocked down nearly 90 percent of the missiles fired towards it. This includes shooting down a low flying space satellite. The Aegis system consists of a modified version of the Standard anti-aircraft missile and the Aegis radar system, that shoots down ballistic missiles. This system, the RIM-161A, also known as the Standard Missile 3 (or SM-3), has a range of over 500 kilometers and max altitude of over 160 kilometers. The Standard 3 is based on the failed anti-missile version of the Standard 2, and costs over three million dollars each. The Standard 3 has four stages. The first two stages boost the interceptor out of the atmosphere. The third stage fires twice to boost the interceptor farther beyond the earth's atmosphere. Prior to each motor firing it takes a GPS reading to correct course for approaching the target. The fourth stage is the 20 pound LEAP kill vehicle, which uses infrared sensors to close on the target and ram it. The Aegis system only operates from warships (cruisers and destroyers that have been equipped with the special software that enables the AEGIS radar system to detect and track incoming ballistic missiles.

The recent exercise mainly tested the communications and computer operations of the Aegis systems in the two warships. No missiles were actually fired (although some simulated ones were in a software version of the system, used for testing and training.) Iran has threatened to fire missiles at Israel, if anyone attacks Iranian nuclear weapons development facilities. Israel also has its own anti-missile systems. The U.S. is most concerned about Iranian short range missiles attacking U.S. bases in Iraq, or oil production facilities in nearby Arab nations.

By the end of the year, the U.S. Navy will have 18 ships equipped with the Aegis anti-missile system. Japan also has four Aegis warships being equipped with this anti-missile capability.

 

Next Article → ATTRITION: Black Times For Black Tigers
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
flyingarty    10% through   7/10/2008 5:44:48 AM
I think that 10% through means a lot of innocent civilians die. This is the differnce between the US and  Iran, Syria and the others. The US strives to hit military targets, Iran Syria, and the other try to hit ANYTHING.
 
Frankly, It is time to have the showdown with Iran. Not only is Iran developing nuclear weapons; it is developing missile technology to deliver them over long distances. Frankly as long as we talk and sanction, Iran hardens its missile sites.
 
An attack comes down to the all important first day of the war scenario. Frankly, the US has a few weapons systems that Iran has no answer for: the B2, the F22, and TLAM laucnched from SLCM, and CALCM launched from stand off 52's Z(from Deigo Garcia).  I also like the CSBA's idea of putting conventional warheads on Minuteman's and Trident D-5's.
 
Its time,
 
Flyingarty 
 
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       7/10/2008 7:14:46 AM

I think that 10% through means a lot of innocent civilians die. This is the differnce between the US and  Iran, Syria and the others. The US strives to hit military targets, Iran Syria, and the other try to hit ANYTHING.

 

Frankly, It is time to have the showdown with Iran. Not only is Iran developing nuclear weapons; it is developing missile technology to deliver them over long distances. Frankly as long as we talk and sanction, Iran hardens its missile sites....

 
...Its time,

 

Flyingarty 

 


Problem here is,
anything the US does pre-emptively is only going to tarnish our image even further.
 
I hate to say this but,
we almost need to let the iranians make the first move,
actually cost some other a lot of civilian casualties,
then and only then it'll be proven to the rest of the world the dirtbags that they are,
and the UN can unilaterally launch a combined multinational all-out strike.
 
Maybe we could sanction the nation apart, akin to post-WW2 Germany (and look how much better off they are for it now, Europe in general, over half a century later).
 
No,
unless Iran launches a strike first,
the US is only going to dig itself into an even deeper quagmire.
If Iran launches first, we'll get a ton more support that we'd really need to the job: we can't stop Iran by airstrikes alone, as it'll just become Iraq all over again, with insurgents coming out of the woodwork in droves, in far greater number than we've seen in both Iraq and A-stan combined.
 
Should anyone blame the US as to why we "allowed" Iran to strike first,
we need only point to all the flak we've gotten over being in Iraq...
 
Besides, how is the US also going to cough up  enough military presence to help stabilize Iran, a nation 3-4 times larger than Iraq, with far more mountainous terrain than A-stan to clear out all the goat-loving jihadists?
 
The trump card in any action against Iran might be the growing disgust within the general populace who are becoming more and more suspicious of the corruption spreading amonst the clerics' ranks.
Especially amongst the younger generations, who are getting more access, and understanding, of what goes on in the rest of the world (how priviledged are other countries' youths who aren't being suppressed by an all-controlling religious caste).
Enough youth rallies and protests (could a government really get away with sending in the goon squads to arrest, even gun down, its own children? china still has its nightmares from T'n Square),
especially after any strikes that claim hundreds of civilian lives in another country attacked by Iran,
might encourage an overthrow attempt that a lot of other nations have been hoping for for some time now.
Enough dissention in its own ranks can topple a country as quickly as a foreign military taking action.
 
Besides, would Iran really want to risk enraging a large portion of its surrounding neighbors?
A near-global scale Sunni-Shiite muslim civil war isn't something that would benefit them in any way.
 
Quote    Reply

flyingarty    agreed   7/10/2008 10:28:24 AM
Doggtagg,
 
I agree with a lot of what you said. Our military has served its nation well and deserves the rest.The US does not have much political capital left to strike any other country, this is fact. The problem is that Israel also has a part of this, and I dont believe that it is in the mood to wait.
 
As far as rebuild Iran, no way! Occupy,  Iran no way. Break their nukes and leave.If the US doesn't, Israel will.
 
Flyingarty
 
Quote    Reply

sjdoc    Equivalent shore-based technology?   7/10/2008 10:52:02 AM
--
Aegis warships offer sophisticated and highly deployable sensor/weapons platforms, true enough, but they're (a) very expensive, (b) very conspicuous, and (c) very vulnerable to attack in ways that ground-based systems tend not to be.
 
The thought of an Aegis cruiser deployed in the Persian Gulf as the principal asset upon which we must rely to provide friendly Arab nations (and U.S. bases) with cover against Iranian nuclear and conventional missile attack is a bit nervous-making.
 
Is there anything about the RIM-161A system that makes it impossible it to be employed from shore-based installations?
 
Insofar as I understand, from an electronics warfare (EW) perspective there is absolutely nothing "inconspicuous" about the Aegis system's radar footprint, and no amount of hardening or camoflage can provide the phased-array emitter/receiver of such a system with infallible protection.
 
But a system distributed over a physically secured ground installation - separating missile launcher(s) from emitter array(s) and control center(s), with some redundancy and much concealment - offers at the very least some greater degree of potential survivability than a single Spruance-class hull in the shallow, narrow waters of the Persian Gulf.
 
--
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       7/10/2008 12:18:36 PM

--

Aegis warships offer sophisticated and highly deployable sensor/weapons platforms, true enough, but they're (a) very expensive, (b) very conspicuous, and (c) very vulnerable to attack in ways that ground-based systems tend not to be.

 

The thought of an Aegis cruiser deployed in the Persian Gulf as the principal asset upon which we must rely to provide friendly Arab nations (and U.S. bases) with cover against Iranian nuclear and conventional missile attack is a bit nervous-making.

 

Is there anything about the RIM-161A system that makes it impossible it to be employed from shore-based installations?

 

Insofar as I understand, from an electronics warfare (EW) perspective there is absolutely nothing "inconspicuous" about the Aegis system's radar footprint, and no amount of hardening or camoflage can provide the phased-array emitter/receiver of such a system with infallible protection.

 

But a system distributed over a physically secured ground installation - separating missile launcher(s) from emitter array(s) and control center(s), with some redundancy and much concealment - offers at the very least some greater degree of potential survivability than a single Spruance-class hull in the shallow, narrow waters of the Persian Gulf.

 

--

 
There is no reason why an Aegis can be land based - but you miss the point and are technically incorrect about survivability.  A moving warship is always going to be at an advantage over a fixed installation that can be pre-targeted.  One of the biggest selling points here is the fact that the warships can be moved from hot spot to hot spot - and into the best firing location while a fixed site can be targeted by anyone with a login id for google earth maps. 
We also don't have that collateral damage problem or political problem to deal with - no civilians are going to be located by a moving warship and no diplomat has to go on bended knee to ask permission for our ships to transit international waters. 
 
The last time the Iranians elected to go up against the US Navy they lost big time (see operation Praying Mantis).  It is worth noting that the Standard missile was using with great success in a surface to surface role during Praying Mantis.
The Navy has been trying to convince the Army to use Aegis and Standard for decades but politics pointed the Army to its own systems such as Patriot and THAAD.  That is a problem best solved here at the procurement end, inside the Pentagon and inside the halls of congress.
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    flyingarty   7/10/2008 12:34:08 PM

I think that 10% through means a lot of innocent civilians die. This is the differnce between the US and  Iran, Syria and the others. The US strives to hit military targets, Iran Syria, and the other try to hit ANYTHING.

 

Frankly, It is time to have the showdown with Iran. Not only is Iran developing nuclear weapons; it is developing missile technology to deliver them over long distances. Frankly as long as we talk and sanction, Iran hardens its missile sites.

 

An attack comes down to the all important first day of the war scenario. Frankly, the US has a few weapons systems that Iran has no answer for: the B2, the F22, and TLAM laucnched from SLCM, and CALCM launched from stand off 52's Z(from Deigo Garcia).  I also like the CSBA's idea of putting conventional warheads on Minuteman's and Trident D-5's.

 

Its time,

 

Flyingarty 

 


Keep in mind the SM-3 has racked up a perfect score in the last dozen tests - including the satellite shoot down.  Also, if the missiles are fired at Israel - the SM-3 will be the first of several interceptors to get a shot - the Arrow and Patriot systems will provide for point defense.
While I am not inclined to cry if we strike Iran - I don't really think its necessary or even a wise course.  The mullarkcracy is screwing things up so badly - they want an attack to take the internal pressure off for change.  Why walk into an obvious trap?  All we have to do is wait it out and they will go bye bye on their own merits.
 
They pull this "beat the chest" thing about once a month to keep oil prices high and nothing else.  Its a stupid ploy to fill their pockets with cash - not go to war.
 
Instead of striking Iran directly we can easily cripple its economy with a single strike - at KHARG island.  Nearly all the Iranian oil goes out through Kharg.  No oil - no bucks - no funding for nukes or any other weapon systems.  We don't even need to destroy much that can't be repaired in short order - after the parts embargo is lifted.  A one shot war with virtually no casualties can topple their government.
 
Granted the Iranians may retaliate but their armed forces (Navy/Air Force) are so badly crippled by the mullarkcracy as to make them not much more than targets.  Even their Chinese Silkworm missile sites are so open as to be spotted by Google maps much less Tercom via Tomahawk.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    How Cool?   7/10/2008 1:49:42 PM




I think that 10% through means a lot of innocent civilians die. This is the differnce between the US and  Iran, Syria and the others. The US strives to hit military targets, Iran Syria, and the other try to hit ANYTHING.



 



Frankly, It is time to have the showdown with Iran. Not only is Iran developing nuclear weapons; it is developing missile technology to deliver them over long distances. Frankly as long as we talk and sanction, Iran hardens its missile sites.



 



An attack comes down to the all important first day of the war scenario. Frankly, the US has a few weapons systems that Iran has no answer for: the B2, the F22, and TLAM laucnched from SLCM, and CALCM launched from stand off 52's Z(from Deigo Garcia).  I also like the CSBA's idea of putting conventional warheads on Minuteman's and Trident D-5's.



 



Its time,



 



Flyingarty 



 






Keep in mind the SM-3 has racked up a perfect score in the last dozen tests - including the satellite shoot down.  Also, if the missiles are fired at Israel - the SM-3 will be the first of several interceptors to get a shot - the Arrow and Patriot systems will provide for point defense.


While I am not inclined to cry if we strike Iran - I don't really think its necessary or even a wise course.  The mullarkcracy is screwing things up so badly - they want an attack to take the internal pressure off for change.  Why walk into an obvious trap?  All we have to do is wait it out and they will go bye bye on their own merits.

 

They pull this "beat the chest" thing about once a month to keep oil prices high and nothing else.  Its a stupid ploy to fill their pockets with cash - not go to war.

 

Instead of striking Iran directly we can easily cripple its economy with a single strike - at KHARG island.  Nearly all the Iranian oil goes out through Kharg.  No oil - no bucks - no funding for nukes or any other weapon systems.  We don't even need to destroy much that can't be repaired in short order - after the parts embargo is lifted.  A one shot war with virtually no casualties can topple their government.

 

Granted the Iranians may retaliate but their armed forces (Navy/Air Force) are so badly crippled by the mullarkcracy as to make them not much more than targets.  Even their Chinese Silkworm missile sites are so open as to be spotted by Google maps much less Tercom via Tomahawk.



If the in the middle of yesterdays volley of missiles a USN cruiser swatted the Iranian birds down with a brace of SM-3's and then announced a joint excersize with the Iranians.
Would'a been a cool stunt.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

flyingarty    Softwar   7/10/2008 3:19:52 PM
This is a great idea! I am not wanting to kill Iranian citizens-They probably hate Mahmoud as much or more than I do. I just do not want to see Amadinejad get nukes and missile technology to deliver them. Your idea could be done with a submarine (wouldn't even have to be a boomer)!
 
It was interesting yesterday to hear political pundits from both presidential camps "Big League" questions from reporters about "What would your candidate do if Iran blockaded the Straight of Hormuz?" For an everyday American without politcal aspiration this is a very important question with gas over $4.00 a gallon and climbing. No, our politicians wanted no part of this one. At least Bush for all his many failings was clear on this one: Blockade anything and he was coming for ya.
 
flyingarty
 
Quote    Reply

Monksta       7/10/2008 7:31:43 PM
Did anyone see that only three of the reported four Iranian missiles actually launched?  The "media arm" of the Revolutionary guard photoshopped a fourth missile into the picture badly and the worlds media noticed.
 
Does this mean therefore that if the Iranian missiles don't work, and Israels do, then Israel is the only effective destabalising force in the region?
 
If Iran does do something very silly, I can' see Syria getting too involved.  What have they to gain?  They are close to negotiating a return of most of the Golan heights and militarily they could neither take, nor hold them if it all gets messy.  Better for them to sit it out and reap the dividend for being good neighbours.
 
Quote    Reply

flyingarty    Photoshop   7/11/2008 8:24:06 AM
Yeah, I saw it. They're playing a very dangerous game. Flyingarty
 
Quote    Reply
1 2