CNN: Iran test-fires sub-to-surface missile

[krispos42]

I just saw this on CNN. The anchor merged this story with one about Iran's new nuclear reactor or something. Didn't say if it was an anti-ship missile, land-attack cruise missile, or a sub-launched ICBM.

The Pentagon is gonna go nuts about this. Will keep looking for updates.

<edit>

Okay, the AP has it:

Iran test-fires sub-to-surface missile

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran on Sunday test-fired a sub-to-surface missile in the Persian Gulf during large-scale military exercises, state-run television reported.

"The army successfully test-fired a top speed long-range sub-to-surface missile off the Persian Gulf," the Army's Navy commander, Gen. Sajjad Kouchaki, said on state television.

<more>

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_MISSILE?SITE=CAANR&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&SECTION=HOME

[Deja Q]

1. Oh no.

Why must they do this? :(

[oscar111]

3. sounds like a waste of money

and,... i didnt even know they had subs.

[wakeme2008]

5. three kilo class subs

:)

[wakeme2008]

4. HT could it be they heard George beating his WAR PRESIDENT drum

again.

[Igel]

20. Iran started serious beefing up of their military

under Clinton.

The entire Iran-Iraq war thing made them realize they needed to be tougher if they wanted to continue their Islamic Revolution. Also plays nicely into the Islamic-nationalist populist version of Islam that their mullahs like to preach.

Lots of long-term plans coming to fruition now, combined with short-term plans that were tacked on later. Iran no more has a time-travel device than Hamas does.

[leesa]

21. Their Islamic Revolution? How about if they just want to survive as a

country? With the constant nuke threat from the US and Israel, what else are they supposed to do?

[wakeme2008]

22. You mean that they did not know about Project for a New American

Century and the ppl that signed it. An once George got selected Iran that was going moderate made a turn back to the hard line.

[ixion]

7. If you were a sovereign nation staring down the barrel of the US military

wouldn't you? :shrug:

Okay, let me just say that I think that ALL SIDES in ANY war are stupid. War is stupid. It is a waste of time and energy and human life. Without question, it is anathema to human existence, and will most certainly be the catalyst of our undoing.


But that's just me.

Most people seem to really like war, even though they won't admit it. I think in past lives I liked war quite a bit, so I know that the propensity is there. I can also ask my ID. He likes war a lot, too.

So, all that said, what you're seeing here is the result of the 'fight or flight' syndrome. Nowhere to run, so the only option is to fight. This is a core component to human survival strategies, and common to each and every human being on the planet. Why, then, should it surprise you that Iran is going to try and defend itself against (yet another) illegal invasion by BushCo?

Just curious. :-)

[Amonester]

24. Of course: "Iran has a right to defend itself."

The same right to defend itself against foreign and domestic threats as every other sovereign country has.

Besides, $10/gallon++ is gonna be quite satisfying for BushCo's BigOil Executives's retirement plans, and they don't care at all if millions of US just freeze to death next winter because we won't be able to pay our home's heating bills.

We know (remember Katrina) they don't care at all. :mad:

[Radioactive]

23. To deter military action against Iran of course

.

[wakeme2008]

2. Plus they have three (last I heard) Russian Kilo Class subs.

Bush is CRAZY if he can Shock and Awe Iran.

more info here http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kilo/

[krispos42]

8. I've heard the Kilo is a good medium-range sub...

But I don't know how good their crews are. Our Los Angeles-class attack subs are made more for deep-water operations, but we have plenty of P-3 Orions and S-3 Vikings and Sh-60 Seahawks to hunt them down if we have to. But they are a major threat to tanker traffic and the world oil supply if Iran get belligerent.

And I was going to go to bet at 6am... good thing I stayed up!

[Lasher]

18. She looks a tad more sophistocated than my dad's WWII diesel boat.

This caught my interest: Rubin is developing an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system which could be available for retrofit to the other versions. Looks like she could me modified to run the diesels without coming to the surface? Liquid oxygen or something?

And there was this: The Type 636 submarine is considered to be to be one of the quietest diesel submarines in the world. It is said to be capable of detecting an enemy submarine at a range three to four times greater than it can be detected itself. Without being specific to diesel boats, this seems to imply that the claim also applies to nuclear attack subs. I'm skeptical of that.

[krispos42]

25. I don't know about AID, but the Kilo can be damn quiet

it's a diesel-electric boat. when it's running on batteries and barely making steerage, it may actually be quieter then the water around it.

These submarines have snorkels that allow them to run their diesels underwater, but diesels are loud and give away your position. D/E boats can't compete in the manuever game because they lack endurance under water, but they are excellent for stalking. The critical areas of the Persian Gulf are geographically small, so a sub will not have far to go to be a major threat.

I suppose it is possible to run the diesels on LOX, but you would have to dd something with the exhaust, perhaps compress it back into air tanks. And it would not solve the problemof throbbing diesels.

I guess if they carried extra LOX, then could combine the leftover hydrogen from the air-generating plant with the LOX in a fuel cell and put some power back into the batteries that way, but I may just be tallking out of my ass.

[Lasher]

26. Hey, thanks for helping me with some 'blue sky' theorizing about diesels

I've pretty much concluded just now that oxygen-independent diesels are pretty much just passing gas (pun intended). Some folks think these guys have to surface at night, not thinking about snorkels. But in today's warfare technologies, charging your batteries during the night or day, with a snorkel or without, is like walking around in high school with a 'please hit me' sign on your back.

You make a good point about today's diesels' stealthiness, compared to nuclear attack subs, but I don't know if I'm quite ready to salute that yet. But even if this advantage is real, it seem to me that the diesels can be easily defeated by tactics of just waiting until they have to surface or snorkel, then just blowing them away. I'm no expert on the subject and that's for sure, but I have studied some about diesel subs, mainly on account of my father's service on one of them.

Thanks for helping me with the head scratchin'.

Lasher

[HereSince1628]

6. Was the missle launched from a surfaced submarine or submerged?

[Kailassa]

11. The photo shows a surfaced sub firing,

But I suspect that's just a stock photo and means nothing.

[HereSince1628]

15. hmm, I thought the picture was from a land launch

[Kailassa]

17. There is a larger version here,

Which clearly shows that you are right. I "mis-saw" it at first. ;-)

[krispos42]

9. CNN now has a story on it

Iran test fires long-range missile

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran test fired a long-range, radar-evading missile on Sunday from a submarine in the Gulf as part of war games that began earlier this month, state television reported.

The missile was called Sagheb, which means Piercing, but the report did not give the missile's range.

"Minutes ago it was launched from a submarine in the Persian Gulf and it hit the target," television reported.

<more>


http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/27/iran.missile.reut/index.html

[Kailassa]

14. It's typical the way this article denigrates Irans capabilities, by

showing this picture with this article.

Military analysts say Iran often exaggerates its abilities,
they argue that its military equipment is outmoded and that
new missiles Iran claims to have produced are often modified
versions from other countries such as North Korea.

Someone there might think this is funny, but encourages
Americans to under-rate their "enemy" has already made
enough trouble.

[Lasher]

19. The Sagheb is a short range, low altitude, surface to surface missile

Don't you think it's more likely that they fired a Russian-made Shkval, which Iran calls the Hoot? They have tested the Shkval before, but not from a sub.

Edit: I know it names the Sagheb in the CNN article, but they also say it was a long-range missile. CNN has something wrong.

The Sagheb is a copy of the Chinese FM-80. If they really did fire a Sagheb, then CNN used at least a generally appropriate photo to depict what would be a non-event.

[FlavaKreemSnak]

10. Will we say Iran is not allowed to have any submarines?

So far we have just said they are not allowed to have nuclear bombs but the other day somebody posted an article saying that the CIA couldn't find any nuclear bombs, and some of them thought that would be a problem with the attack plans, personally I don't agree, but I wonder if they will say they are also not allowed to have submarines and here is proof that they have some so it is legal for us to invade.

[leveymg]

12. I'd say that these subs will be the first targets of any first-strike

The U.S. Navy has enormous anti-submarine capabilities, and these old ex-Soviet diesel electric subs aren't hard to track.

[Kagemusha]

16. Actually...

When submerged, diesel electric subs are running on just the electric and are considerably harder to track than most nuclear subs.

Of course when they're NOT submerged, they're pretty easy to find and hit. But please. Subs running on electric alone are very quiet. If subs don't need to move far, non-nuclear subs are great for operating near coastlines.

An old Soviet Victor III nuclear sub would be far easier to track when submerged, for example. Either way, it's not the biggest problem the US military faces. Besides, Kilo's don't have what it takes to do ICBM's.

[David__77]

27. That's why Iran would be smart to strike first.

If there is a war buildup or a selective US missile attack, Iran would be smart to respond with everything that they have got, and seize the initiative.

[PaDem]

13. Why can't Iran just disband their entire military apparatus...........

and peacefully concede their oil to America? The nerve of these Islamo-Fascists!