click photos to enlarge
Qader ("Capable") anti-ship missile fired from mobile dual launcher.
Claimed range is 200 kilometers.
AShM dual launcher with retractable canvas covering
Extended box launchers for longer Qader AShMs
Nasr ("Victory") anti-ship missile fired from mobile multiple launcher
Foreground: AShM mobile triple launcher
High ranking Artesh officers
Marine or Naval Commandos equipped with G3 battle rifles
Photos: Hamed Jafarnejad at Fars News Agency
Videos: maydayfire at IMF
If you got it... you don't need to flaunt it.
If you got it... you don't need to flaunt it.
They wheel these four trucks out every year.Vaqhan Khandedareh.
Anybody that thinks that the Islamic regime can fight America with three old and rusty submarines and a few boats obviously needs their head examined.
In fact only brainwashed fanatic will believe that these piles of rusty old junk will stand against the most advanced navy in the world.
Now lets read some pathetic comments from the mullah lovers clan.
Nice plastic boates and fire crackers.
this is just iran navy irgc twice stronger than navy and far longer range missile than navy.
"this is just iran navy irgc twice stronger than navy and far longer range missile than navy."
Oh, well in that case the US doesn't stand a chance.
What over a bunch of glass fiber boats and three rusty submarines?
The Iranians bet their money on the right stuff; Anti-ship missiles are devastating against naval vessels, at the same time very difficult to fend off.
Remember the Falklands war and how the Argentines used their Super Etendards armed with AM.39 Exocet, they were relatively succesfull against the British navy. Unfortunately, they only had a limited stock of Exocets and were banned from purschasing more of them.
Now iran has got a substantial number of potent anti-ship missiles (domestically manufactured) that are even more advanced and more capable than the Anti-ship missile that the Argentines had.
Plus the Iranians have Ballistic missiles, which the Argentines never had, and those can home in on naval targets as well, equipped with bomblets and cluster munitions.
I think the Americans and the British are well aware of the consequences (they are very sensitive to casualties), hence the reluctancy to strike Iran.
Bottomline: don't underestimate the Iranians.
Sour grapes... give me a break. Why can't we just let Amadinejad and Obama fight to the death themselves and hope for a tie.
Anon 10:56 AM
You honestly believe that only Iran has anti ship missiles?
Haven't you thought for one minute that the US navy has enough anti ship missiles to sink the Iranian and IRGC navies a hundred times over and still have enough left to do it again and again?
Haven't you thought for one minute that the US has enough conventional and nuclear tipped cruise and ballistic missile that can level Iran ten thousand times over?
And haven't you thought for one minute that the US navy will have total air dominance over Iran therefore destroying all ground targets.
The answer to all those questions is no because you don't think for yourself. If you did you wouldn't right such dross that the Islamic regime feeds you.
bottom line is the only thing distroyed ship just a missile that be accure to the enemy target for usa to distroyed boat just make two or four life but to hit usa ship in many front cost billion of dollars and many catualty that usa concern about it most iran boat has extreimly high power of missile fast boat in 1988 usa experience such a attack,iran navy would not be great match to usa at this time only big damage from irgc fast boat that is the reality if usa do not say does not mean is not their like 1000 dollar missiles hit the 2 billion dollars warship or interprize also cia has reported in 2009 about navy and irgc you can find it in cia webside report.
"Remember the Falklands war and how the Argentines used their Super Etendards armed with AM.39 Exocet, they were relatively succesfull against the British navy. Unfortunately, they only had a limited stock of Exocets and were banned from purschasing more of them."
The Exocet's success can be traced to two failures by the British:
They lacked AWACS support.
They lacked low altitude anti-missile systems.
Don't forget the Argentine navy operated the exact same air defense DDG as the British (the Type 42) so they could exercise against the same weapon they were going to fight. They knew exactly the method required to successfully attack them. Iran does not have access to such systems.
The US and the west learned a lot from the Falklands and have since corrected their deficiencies.
"Now iran has got a substantial number of potent anti-ship missiles (domestically manufactured) that are even more advanced and more capable than the Anti-ship missile that the Argentines had."
But the US has defenses far better than what the British had or have now. Anti-ship missiles are what the Navy considers its primary threat today and have invested the majority of their surface ship's systems in to missile defense.
Compare the UK's primary air defense DDG of the Falklands era with the US's current DDG, the difference is impressive:
2 single band vs 3 Multi Band FCRs
22 SAMs vs up to 96 (with four ESSMs in once cell a possible option)
3D air search radar vs Phase Array radars
manual directed 20mms vs 2 CIWS
No radar jammers vs 2 Radar Jammers
"Plus the Iranians have Ballistic missiles, which the Argentines never had, and those can home in on naval targets as well, equipped with bomblets and cluster munitions." Argentina did in fact have Ballistic missiles during the Falklands war, the Missile was called the Condor 1. The Falklands were just beyond their range and their accuracy was far to low to be effective in naval combat.
The US has been working on ABM systems since the 1950s. The US is now deploying ABM missiles aboard its Missile Cruisers and from land based launchers. Ballistic missiles are also very limited in the naval strike role, guidance systems do not handle hypersonic flight well. Thermal and Visual guidance are easily masked (Thermal by the frictional heat of the airframe moving at high speed, Visual by atmospheric effects), while Radar can be jammed. Also such weapons require another platform to provide targeting data and mid course guidance; Iran has very few long range patrol aircraft capable of this (the handful of P-3s being the only ones capable of doing this effectively) and such aircraft would be required to do such a task in the face of superior in numbers and equipment American air power.
'The barking 'dog' will never bite for the reason that the biting 'dog' will never bark'
Post a Comment