Wanna know why the Iranian missiles didn't work against our base in Iraq?

[Cellblock2429]

This is our "low tech" way of taking out incoming missiles.

IIRC, the tracers you see are every 5th projectile or so.

dOnald would have us believe they deliberately missed.

What do you believe?

That they run out of missiles? Felt sorry for Americans? Found Jesus and stopped being Evil? Got bored?

What?

Several missiles got into the embassy to hit unmanned buildings, and the Iranians stopped all aggressive attacks after their vandalism attacks.

It's been about 2 weeks since Trump ordered your Hero Solemani's death.

You think they quit the retribution without killing a single American because of what?

A. Fuck you with Solemani's dick.

B. How the fuck can anyone know who to believe in this crazy *administration*? They all lie all the time. This is the most dishonest group of people ever assembled on the face of the Earth. If there is a word for government by lies that's what we have.

/----/ "They all lie all the time. "
What lies and what proof do you have? None, I bet.

 

[evenflow1969]

This is our "low tech" way of taking out incoming missiles.

IIRC, the tracers you see are every 5th projectile or so.

To a dumb fuck it may have appeared that the missles did n ot work how ever I saw pictures of where they landed. They hit dead center of every building showing an accuracy of under one meter and also hit structures devoid of human life on purpoose. Telling me that they not only have smart weapons but intellegence in real time of who was where on that base. If I were in charge of that base I would be looking for who ever is giving that intelegence.

 

[Crepitus]

dOnald would have us believe they deliberately missed.

What do you believe?

That they run out of missiles? Felt sorry for Americans? Found Jesus and stopped being Evil? Got bored?

What?

Several missiles got into the embassy to hit unmanned buildings, and the Iranians stopped all aggressive attacks after their vandalism attacks.

It's been about 2 weeks since Trump ordered your Hero Solemani's death.

You think they quit the retribution without killing a single American because of what?

A. Fuck you with Solemani's dick.

B. How the fuck can anyone know who to believe in this crazy *administration*? They all lie all the time. This is the most dishonest group of people ever assembled on the face of the Earth. If there is a word for government by lies that's what we have.

It's already been up your ass.

I'm sorry, did I offend your butt-buddy?

By the way, did you ever find that corner?

Wow, butt hurt about being butt hurt.

You mad bro?

Nope.

But if you defend scum-sucking dimwit who accused me of something really nasty you're gonna get caught in the verbal crossfire.

 

[martybegan]

What do you believe?

That they run out of missiles? Felt sorry for Americans? Found Jesus and stopped being Evil? Got bored?

What?

Several missiles got into the embassy to hit unmanned buildings, and the Iranians stopped all aggressive attacks after their vandalism attacks.

It's been about 2 weeks since Trump ordered your Hero Solemani's death.

You think they quit the retribution without killing a single American because of what?

A. Fuck you with Solemani's dick.

B. How the fuck can anyone know who to believe in this crazy *administration*? They all lie all the time. This is the most dishonest group of people ever assembled on the face of the Earth. If there is a word for government by lies that's what we have.

It's already been up your ass.

I'm sorry, did I offend your butt-buddy?

By the way, did you ever find that corner?

Wow, butt hurt about being butt hurt.

You mad bro?

Nope.

But if you defend scum-sucking dimwit who accused me of something really nasty you're gonna get caught in the verbal crossfire.

Lol "crossfire", just like some on the left claimed the missile attack was.

You are a pop-gun firing hack, nothing more.

 

[Mushroom]

If you are going to take out a missile, do so with something like just Patriot missiles that destroys most of the missile upon impact.

Actually, the PATRIOT does not do that. Unless it gets a really lucky hit in the fuel tank or warhead. The main intent is to destroy the ability of the missile to operate, and hopefully destroy the wiring that is required for it to explode. This is why they try to engage the inbound missile at the longest range they can, typically 6-25 miles.

Since most missile systems have a complex arming and detonation system to prevent premature detonation, taking that out generally lets the body of it crash to the ground without detonation.

 

[Rigby5]

This is known to most people as the Phalanx CIWS weapon system, pronounces sea-whiz.
CIWS is Close In Weapon System.

Phalanx CIWS - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

{...
The Phalanx CIWS (pronounced "sea-wiz") is a close-in weapon system for defense against airborne threats such as anti-ship missiles and helicopters. It was designed and manufactured by the General Dynamics Corporation, Pomona Division,[5] later a part of Raytheon. Consisting of a radar-guided 20 mm Vulcan cannon mounted on a swiveling base, the Phalanx has been used by the United States Navy and the naval forces of 15 other countries. The US Navy deploys it on every class of surface combat ship, except the Zumwalt-class destroyer and San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock.[7] Other users include the British Royal Navy, the Royal Australian Navy, the Royal Canadian Navy and the US Coast Guard (aboard its Hamilton- and Legend-class cutters).

A land variant, known as the LPWS (Land Phalanx Weapon System), part of the C-RAM system, has recently been deployed in a short range missile defense role, to counter incoming rockets, artillery and mortar fire.[8] The U.S. Navy also fields the SeaRAM system, which pairs the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile with sensors based on the Phalanx.

Because of their distinctive barrel-shaped radome and their automated nature of operation, Phalanx CIWS units are sometimes nicknamed "R2-D2" after the famous droid character from the Star Wars films.[
...}

Been around since 1980, and it won't work very well on most things.
That is because it only works to damage fragile things.
If you armor the incoming or don't care what happens to your incoming, like an incoming ballistic artillery shell or SCUD missile, then it still pretty much hits target and explodes.
It also fails if there are lots of incoming at the same time.

It is very good against soft targets like helicopters, cruise missiles, etc., as long as it picks them up soon enough.

 

[Rigby5]

If you are going to take out a missile, do so with something like just Patriot missiles that destroys most of the missile upon impact.

Actually, the PATRIOT does not do that. Unless it gets a really lucky hit in the fuel tank or warhead. The main intent is to destroy the ability of the missile to operate, and hopefully destroy the wiring that is required for it to explode. This is why they try to engage the inbound missile at the longest range they can, typically 6-25 miles.

Since most missile systems have a complex arming and detonation system to prevent premature detonation, taking that out generally lets the body of it crash to the ground without detonation.

I realize they have tried to improve the Patriot batteries since Desert Storm, but when we tried to block Saddam's SCUD missiles, it was a total failure. Not a one was blow up or prevented from blowing up upon impact. The incoming missile does not need a complex or electronic arming or detonation system, but can simply use the same propeller screw that an artillery shell or aerial bomb uses. Mortar shells are even easier, but Israel's Iron Dome only has about a 50% success rate with those either. One of the problems is that incoming can deliberately fragment fuel tanks upon descent, and totally confuse radar.

 

[Rigby5]

Remember that Iran has tens of thousands of guided missiles, each capable of sinking a destroyer sized ship.

 

[Mushroom]

I realize they have tried to improve the Patriot batteries since Desert Storm, but when we tried to block Saddam's SCUD missiles, it was a total failure. Not a one was blow up or prevented from blowing up upon impact. The incoming missile does not need a complex or electronic arming or detonation system, but can simply use the same propeller screw that an artillery shell or aerial bomb uses. Mortar shells are even easier, but Israel's Iron Dome only has about a 50% success rate with those either. One of the problems is that incoming can deliberately fragment fuel tanks upon descent, and totally confuse radar.

Several mistakes here.

Remember, the system deployed in 1990 was a prototype, using warheads that were entirely designed to shoot down aircraft (proximity fused explosive warheads). And there were a great many hits, and missiles shot down. But they were not effective because of the warhead, not that the system itself did not work.

In fact, this is an image of one that was shot down. Notice the round "spots", this is where the shrapnel impacted the body, like a shotgun blast. Good for aircraft, not so good against missiles.

Fast forward to 2003, where new generations of missiles (Specifically PAC-3 and GEM) were now designed to shoot down missiles. In that conflict they engaged 9 missiles, and shot down all 9 of them. The modern missiles do not use proximity fuses, but are kinetic kill weapons that destroy the target with a solid metal rod.

And no, falling debris does not "confuse" the RADAR. Such things are discarded by the software as they do not fit the profile of a potential target. Too small, too slow, moving at the wrong angle. RADAR today is very sophisticated, and filters out such things automatically. This is why unlike in the early "manual RADAR" they no longer pick up things like flocks of birds unless you have the "squelch" essentially turned off.

 

[Mushroom]

Remember that Iran has tens of thousands of guided missiles, each capable of sinking a destroyer sized ship.

Actually, no they do not.

Between both the Chinese SILKWORM and the Iranian copies (Nasr-1 and Ra'ad), they are believed to have around 2 dozen launchers, and around 300 missiles.

And about the same number of the Chinese "Sky Dragon" and the Iranian copy (Kowsar).

Their Navy has around 100 of the "Sea Eagle" ship based missile, as well as their copy (Noor).

They are believed to have no more than 5 launchers and 30 or so missiles for the "Khalij Fars" anti-ship ballistic missile (which is considered to be "still in testing" and never actually fully tested).

Around 10-15 launchers and 200-300 Qader missiles.

And maybe 200 of the Zafar patrol boat launched missiles.

All told, that is less than 2,000 and not anywhere close to "tens of thousands". And they have many more missiles then they do launchers.

A huge number of those are actually sea launched, primarily from their small patrol boats (they have 24).

The biggest problem is that because of sanctions (and the willingness of nations to sell them such weapons) they can not get any more, and have had to resort to trying and make their own copies. And at one time they did have a huge stockpile of missiles like the SILKWORM, but those are all long past their expiration date, and they are reduced to making their own.

And as many nations, their biggest bottleneck is actually in launchers. Which is why they

 

[Rigby5]

I realize they have tried to improve the Patriot batteries since Desert Storm, but when we tried to block Saddam's SCUD missiles, it was a total failure. Not a one was blow up or prevented from blowing up upon impact. The incoming missile does not need a complex or electronic arming or detonation system, but can simply use the same propeller screw that an artillery shell or aerial bomb uses. Mortar shells are even easier, but Israel's Iron Dome only has about a 50% success rate with those either. One of the problems is that incoming can deliberately fragment fuel tanks upon descent, and totally confuse radar.

Several mistakes here.

Remember, the system deployed in 1990 was a prototype, using warheads that were entirely designed to shoot down aircraft (proximity fused explosive warheads). And there were a great many hits, and missiles shot down. But they were not effective because of the warhead, not that the system itself did not work.

In fact, this is an image of one that was shot down. Notice the round "spots", this is where the shrapnel impacted the body, like a shotgun blast. Good for aircraft, not so good against missiles.

Fast forward to 2003, where new generations of missiles (Specifically PAC-3 and GEM) were now designed to shoot down missiles. In that conflict they engaged 9 missiles, and shot down all 9 of them. The modern missiles do not use proximity fuses, but are kinetic kill weapons that destroy the target with a solid metal rod.

And no, falling debris does not "confuse" the RADAR. Such things are discarded by the software as they do not fit the profile of a potential target. Too small, too slow, moving at the wrong angle. RADAR today is very sophisticated, and filters out such things automatically. This is why unlike in the early "manual RADAR" they no longer pick up things like flocks of birds unless you have the "squelch" essentially turned off.

I disagree.
Sure the shrapnel blast idea is better for aircraft than a missile as far as how hard the target is, but the shrapnel blast idea is also much more likely to hit than a single kinetic steel rod.
The image clearly is NOT a SCUD warhead, but instead is a SCUD fuel tank. The warhead is much smaller and harder to detect by radar, than the fuel tanks and booster. So there is no way for radar to differentiate. The goal is not to produce little chaff, but to break up the booster and fuel tanks into fragments identical in size to the warhead. There is no way to filter out the debris. The warhead is much too small, and has no identifier, like a heat signature. No one has ever been able to reliably intercept missiles, and if they do, missiles will just match with their own counter measures. For example, it would not only be easy to launch missiles in groups, but sacrifice a few to deliberately project high intensity radar signals and blind all radar systems. Remember radar is normally only picking up weak reflections, so direct transmissions would likely completely over load the systems. I don't see anti missile systems ever being very practical.

 

[Rigby5]

Remember that Iran has tens of thousands of guided missiles, each capable of sinking a destroyer sized ship.

Actually, no they do not.

Between both the Chinese SILKWORM and the Iranian copies (Nasr-1 and Ra'ad), they are believed to have around 2 dozen launchers, and around 300 missiles.

And about the same number of the Chinese "Sky Dragon" and the Iranian copy (Kowsar).

Their Navy has around 100 of the "Sea Eagle" ship based missile, as well as their copy (Noor).

They are believed to have no more than 5 launchers and 30 or so missiles for the "Khalij Fars" anti-ship ballistic missile (which is considered to be "still in testing" and never actually fully tested).

Around 10-15 launchers and 200-300 Qader missiles.

And maybe 200 of the Zafar patrol boat launched missiles.

All told, that is less than 2,000 and not anywhere close to "tens of thousands". And they have many more missiles then they do launchers.

A huge number of those are actually sea launched, primarily from their small patrol boats (they have 24).

The biggest problem is that because of sanctions (and the willingness of nations to sell them such weapons) they can not get any more, and have had to resort to trying and make their own copies. And at one time they did have a huge stockpile of missiles like the SILKWORM, but those are all long past their expiration date, and they are reduced to making their own.

And as many nations, their biggest bottleneck is actually in launchers. Which is why they

I very much disagree with this weapons assessment.
That sounds like about 30 years ago.

{...
Missiles[edit]
Medium-range (MRBM)[edit]
Medium-range missiles are considered to have a range between 1000 and 3000 kilometers.

• Shahab-3A/B/C – strategic MRBM with a range of 1,200 km to 2,100 km.
• Ghadr-110 MRBM with a range of 2000–3000 km.[98]
• Ashoura missile 2 stage solid fuel MRBM with a range of 2,000 km.[99]
• Sejjil 2-stage solid fuel MRBM with a range of 2000–2500 km.
• Fajr-3 MIRV warhead.[citation needed]
• Emad – improved version of Shahab-3 with 500-meter precision.[100]
• Zolfaqar – Ballistic solid-fueled missile with a range of 750 km.[101]
• Khorramshahr – MRBM capable of carrying multiple warheads with a range of 2000 km.[102]

Short-range (SRBM)[edit]
Short-range missiles are considered to have a range up to 1000 kilometers.

• Shahab-1 – Tactical SRBM with a range of 350 km. Copy of Soviet SS-1C/Scud-B[103]
• Shahab-2 – Tactical SRBM with a range of 750 km. Copy of Soviet SS-1D/Scud-C[104]
• Naze'at – Unguided rocket series.
• Fateh-110 – single-stage solid-propellant SRBM with a range of 200 km
• Zelzal 1/2/3/3B – Single-stage SRBM with a range of 200 to 400 km[105][106][107]
• Qiam 1 – Tactical SRBM with a range of 750 km. Uses liquid fuel and has a smart targeting system.[108]
• Raad-500 – Tactical lightweight variant of Fateh-110 family of tactical SRBM with a 200 km increased range[109]

Cruise missiles[edit]

• Nasr-1 – Iranian-made short-range missiles.
• Meshkat – Iranian cruise missile with range of 2000 kilometers.
• Qader – Iranian anti-ship cruise missile with a range over 200 km.
• Ya-Ali – Iranian land attack cruise missile with 700 km range.
• Soumar – copy of the Raduga Kh-55.
• Noor – Anti-ship cruise missile based on C-802
• Kowsar – medium-range, land-based anti-ship missile
• Ghadir
• Nasr-e Basir – Anti-ship cruise missile
• Zafar – Anti-ship cruise missile
• Nasir – anti-ship cruise missile[110]
• Hoveyzeh- Surface-to-surface cruise missile with a range of 1350 km.[111]

...
Naval missiles[edit]

• Ra'ad – Indigenously developed long-range anti-ship missile based on HY-2 Silkworm.
• Fajre Darya- copy of Sea Killer II.
• Kowsar 1/2/3 – Several versions based on Chinese C-701 TL-10 and C-704[167][168]
• Nasr – Several versions based on TL-6 and C-705
• Tondar – upgraded copy of Chinese C-801. Similar to Noor but powered by solid rocket booster and range of 50 km.[169][170][171]
• Thaqeb – Similar to Noor, modified for submarine launch.[172]
• Noor – upgraded copy of Chinese C-802.[173]
• Qader – Iranian anti-ship cruise missile with a range over 200 km.[174]
• Khalij Fars – Anti ship ballistic missile based on Fateh-110
• Zafar – Indigenously developed short-range anti-ship missile.[175][176]
• Hormuz I/II – naval strike ballistic missile that can hit mobile targets at sea with high precision[177]
• Jask – Submarine-launched cruise missile[178]

...}

List of military equipment manufactured in Iran - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The intelligence I have read said we have counted over 500 Iranian launchers, and over 10,000 missiles capable of reaching the Mediterranean or further.
These are cheap, easy to make and store, and pretty much have no expiration date.
They are the non-nuclear equivalent of a deterrent, so the Iranians have not held back.
All our systems are incredibly vulnerable to any sort of mass attack like that.
Our aircraft carriers in particular are incredibly obsolete.
We never needed them anyway, since they are only good for offense, and worthless for defense.

 

[Mushroom]

I disagree.
Sure the shrapnel blast idea is better for aircraft than a missile as far as how hard the target is, but the shrapnel blast idea is also much more likely to hit than a single kinetic steel rod.
The image clearly is NOT a SCUD warhead, but instead is a SCUD fuel tank. The warhead is much smaller and harder to detect by radar, than the fuel tanks and booster. So there is no way for radar to differentiate. The goal is not to produce little chaff, but to break up the booster and fuel tanks into fragments identical in size to the warhead. There is no way to filter out the debris. The warhead is much too small, and has no identifier, like a heat signature. No one has ever been able to reliably intercept missiles, and if they do, missiles will just match with their own counter measures. For example, it would not only be easy to launch missiles in groups, but sacrifice a few to deliberately project high intensity radar signals and blind all radar systems. Remember radar is normally only picking up weak reflections, so direct transmissions would likely completely over load the systems. I don't see anti missile systems ever being very practical.

The SCUD class missiles have a fixed missile body and warhead, it is not a multi-stage discarding system like say an ICBM. It goes up as one unit, it comes down as one unit.

And I will say this 1 more time. The PATRIOT system engaged 9 missiles in 2003, and shot down all 9.

I have no idea where you are getting this information, but it is completely wrong.

And there is a reason why PATRIOT is used against Short Range and Medium Range Ballistic missiles, because they are all single piece missiles. It can also hit many Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles, depending on the missile.

And no, it is not that easy to "launch missiles in groups". Other than those launched from ships, all of the launchers are single missile units. They fire a missile, and if they are not driving away like a bat out of hell to avoid a counter-strike, they are then spending the next 2 hours or so reloading. And most countries only have a handful of launchers. Even at it's height, Iraq only had around a dozen launchers for the SCUD. And while they did mass launch them against Iran, they did not do that against the US because they knew they had to avoid such tactics or they would get destroyed.

Heat signature? Such systems work via RADAR, not heat. And yes, actually they do have a heat signature. Quite a big one actually since they are traveling through the air at a very high velocity. When captured by an IR camera they almost glow from the heat. These are "ballistic missiles" after all.

Almost all of what you just posted is outright wrong, or simply made up. RADAR jamming ballistic missiles indeed. And debris is not "chaf". It is not even close, and a RADAR system can easily tell the difference.

 

[Mushroom]

Remember that Iran has tens of thousands of guided missiles, each capable of sinking a destroyer sized ship.

Actually, no they do not.

Between both the Chinese SILKWORM and the Iranian copies (Nasr-1 and Ra'ad), they are believed to have around 2 dozen launchers, and around 300 missiles.

And about the same number of the Chinese "Sky Dragon" and the Iranian copy (Kowsar).

Their Navy has around 100 of the "Sea Eagle" ship based missile, as well as their copy (Noor).

They are believed to have no more than 5 launchers and 30 or so missiles for the "Khalij Fars" anti-ship ballistic missile (which is considered to be "still in testing" and never actually fully tested).

Around 10-15 launchers and 200-300 Qader missiles.

And maybe 200 of the Zafar patrol boat launched missiles.

All told, that is less than 2,000 and not anywhere close to "tens of thousands". And they have many more missiles then they do launchers.

A huge number of those are actually sea launched, primarily from their small patrol boats (they have 24).

The biggest problem is that because of sanctions (and the willingness of nations to sell them such weapons) they can not get any more, and have had to resort to trying and make their own copies. And at one time they did have a huge stockpile of missiles like the SILKWORM, but those are all long past their expiration date, and they are reduced to making their own.

And as many nations, their biggest bottleneck is actually in launchers. Which is why they

I very much disagree with this weapons assessment.
That sounds like about 30 years ago.

We never needed them anyway, since they are only good for offense, and worthless for defense.

OK, I am now done with this discussion. You are either completely making things up, or completely changing the discussion.

You specifically talked about anti-ship missiles that could "sink destroyers". Then you turn right around, say I am wrong and list a slew of ballistic ground attack missiles.

And on top of that, you listed all of the anti-ship missiles that I had just described. So thank you there for confirming what I said. But are you capable of sticking with a single type of missile instead of simply vomiting up every missile, if it applies to your claim or not?

 

[Rigby5]

I disagree.
Sure the shrapnel blast idea is better for aircraft than a missile as far as how hard the target is, but the shrapnel blast idea is also much more likely to hit than a single kinetic steel rod.
The image clearly is NOT a SCUD warhead, but instead is a SCUD fuel tank. The warhead is much smaller and harder to detect by radar, than the fuel tanks and booster. So there is no way for radar to differentiate. The goal is not to produce little chaff, but to break up the booster and fuel tanks into fragments identical in size to the warhead. There is no way to filter out the debris. The warhead is much too small, and has no identifier, like a heat signature. No one has ever been able to reliably intercept missiles, and if they do, missiles will just match with their own counter measures. For example, it would not only be easy to launch missiles in groups, but sacrifice a few to deliberately project high intensity radar signals and blind all radar systems. Remember radar is normally only picking up weak reflections, so direct transmissions would likely completely over load the systems. I don't see anti missile systems ever being very practical.

The SCUD class missiles have a fixed missile body and warhead, it is not a multi-stage discarding system like say an ICBM. It goes up as one unit, it comes down as one unit.

And I will say this 1 more time. The PATRIOT system engaged 9 missiles in 2003, and shot down all 9.

I have no idea where you are getting this information, but it is completely wrong.

And there is a reason why PATRIOT is used against Short Range and Medium Range Ballistic missiles, because they are all single piece missiles. It can also hit many Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles, depending on the missile.

And no, it is not that easy to "launch missiles in groups". Other than those launched from ships, all of the launchers are single missile units. They fire a missile, and if they are not driving away like a bat out of hell to avoid a counter-strike, they are then spending the next 2 hours or so reloading. And most countries only have a handful of launchers. Even at it's height, Iraq only had around a dozen launchers for the SCUD. And while they did mass launch them against Iran, they did not do that against the US because they knew they had to avoid such tactics or they would get destroyed.

Heat signature? Such systems work via RADAR, not heat. And yes, actually they do have a heat signature. Quite a big one actually since they are traveling through the air at a very high velocity. When captured by an IR camera they almost glow from the heat. These are "ballistic missiles" after all.

Almost all of what you just posted is outright wrong, or simply made up. RADAR jamming ballistic missiles indeed. And debris is not "chaf". It is not even close, and a RADAR system can easily tell the difference.

SCUDS are a family of missiles originated by the Soviets, but still being improved upon.
{...
Yet the greater threat of Scuds has always been not what they are today, but what they can lead to tomorrow. After the War of the Cities, the North Koreans took a cue from the Iraqis and began a project to build a Scud derivative that was 50 percent bigger in each dimension. Western analysts labeled the rocket the No Dong (as with all North Korean rockets, the analysts simply named the missile after the town near where it was first spotted). Because the No Dong can hurl a one-ton warhead 930 miles, it can reach any part of South Korea and Japan.

Pyongyang has exported No Dong missiles, components, and technology to Pakistan (where it is called the Ghauri 2) and Iran (the Shahab 3). North Korea reportedly is also developing missiles that combine No Dong and Hwasong components into multi-stage rockets. These missiles, the Taepo Dong series, could reach Alaska, Hawaii, and even parts of the continental United States.
...}

What's a Scud?

The Scud missiles causing so much anxiety in the world today are Soviet designs that originated in a weapon developed by the Nazis.

www.airspacemag.com

But whether the SCUDS Saddam had were multi stage or not, the presence of fuel tanks would still make it harder to hit just the warhead. To hit a missile at its apogee is one thing, but nearly impossible once it has returned to maximum velocity.

Lots of anti missile systems have passed simulated tests, but none have proven useful in real world combat. The 2003 test was likely just a fake, like all the others that proved useless.

Sure Iraq had very few SCUD launchers, but Iran is turning them out in the hundreds.
After what we did to Iraq, Iran was rightfully paranoid, and may well have thousands of launchers by now. It is not like they are difficult or expensive to make. Wouldn't you if you were an Iranian?

Radar systems are extremely easy to jam. We did it constantly over Hanoi in the Vietnam war. While Iran may not have AWACS or satellites, they could easily use a few missiles for the purpose.

And no matter how you look at it, the payload is tiny compared to the rest of the missile, so hitting the warhead is going to be near impossible.

 

[Rigby5]

Remember that Iran has tens of thousands of guided missiles, each capable of sinking a destroyer sized ship.

Actually, no they do not.

Between both the Chinese SILKWORM and the Iranian copies (Nasr-1 and Ra'ad), they are believed to have around 2 dozen launchers, and around 300 missiles.

And about the same number of the Chinese "Sky Dragon" and the Iranian copy (Kowsar).

Their Navy has around 100 of the "Sea Eagle" ship based missile, as well as their copy (Noor).

They are believed to have no more than 5 launchers and 30 or so missiles for the "Khalij Fars" anti-ship ballistic missile (which is considered to be "still in testing" and never actually fully tested).

Around 10-15 launchers and 200-300 Qader missiles.

And maybe 200 of the Zafar patrol boat launched missiles.

All told, that is less than 2,000 and not anywhere close to "tens of thousands". And they have many more missiles then they do launchers.

A huge number of those are actually sea launched, primarily from their small patrol boats (they have 24).

The biggest problem is that because of sanctions (and the willingness of nations to sell them such weapons) they can not get any more, and have had to resort to trying and make their own copies. And at one time they did have a huge stockpile of missiles like the SILKWORM, but those are all long past their expiration date, and they are reduced to making their own.

And as many nations, their biggest bottleneck is actually in launchers. Which is why they

I very much disagree with this weapons assessment.
That sounds like about 30 years ago.

We never needed them anyway, since they are only good for offense, and worthless for defense.

OK, I am now done with this discussion. You are either completely making things up, or completely changing the discussion.

You specifically talked about anti-ship missiles that could "sink destroyers". Then you turn right around, say I am wrong and list a slew of ballistic ground attack missiles.

And on top of that, you listed all of the anti-ship missiles that I had just described. So thank you there for confirming what I said. But are you capable of sticking with a single type of missile instead of simply vomiting up every missile, if it applies to your claim or not?

The point was NOT to discuss anti ship missiles, but I only used the example of sinking a destroyer to describe the explosive power of the payload size. The point was to leave out missiles that were intended only for smaller targets like a tanks or truck.
If we attacked Iran and they retaliated, you can bet they would target our ships with all missiles they had, including ground attack missiles.

 

[Mushroom]

The point was NOT to discuss anti ship missiles, but I only used the example of sinking a destroyer to describe the explosive power of the payload size. The point was to leave out missiles that were intended only for smaller targets like a tanks or truck.
If we attacked Iran and they retaliated, you can bet they would target our ships with all missiles they had, including ground attack missiles.

Attacking a ship with a ground attack ballistic missile would be the ultimate exercise in futility. You might as well try to shoot a fly in flight from across the room with a pistol. And even if you include all of their ground attack missiles, only by including such basic missiles like their version of the Katyusha would you come anywhere even close to "tens of thousands:".

And the Katyusha is literally the most basic-simple-stupid missile still in use. Quite literally they are not much more difficult to make then a Sten gun, anybody with a decent machine shop can make one. The Soviets made and used them by the millions in WWII, they are still popular today because they are easy to build and make a great terror weapon.

And no, discussing things like fuel tanks being different to hit from the warhead on a SCUD is irrelevant, because it is an idiotic claim. The correct term is "missile body", although the fuel tank is included in it. And I do not care who makes it, all SCUD missiles (and those developed from them) are a combined warhead and body system.

And no, they do not have "thousands of launchers". In fact, the missile is actually not all that hard to make, it is the launcher and associated hardware that is the real challenge. This is why one of their main air defense systems is the 1950's era HAWK system (when they ran out of air to air missiles for their F-14s they even modified the HAWK to be air launched using the system in the Tomcat). And while they still have quite a few of them from when they were allies of the US, all they have been doing is upgrading those they already have and making new missiles to replace the old ones. And all of their ballistic and other ground based missiles still operate off of the original TELs that they bought from Russia and China.

In fact, even without sanctions both Russia and China had pretty much cut off selling systems to Iran because of their love of simply buying some launchers and missiles, then copying the missiles instead of buying new ones from them. For 20 years Iran was trying to buy TELs from anybody they could buy them from. That is the one piece that they have yet been able to make domestically for anything other than their most basic artillery rockets.

And yes, the actual term is TEL, I have just been saying "launcher" because that is what most people know and understand. The main thing that has been "locking" Iranian missile development has not been their ability to create a better rocket, it has been in making missiles that can operate with the launching equipment they already possess. This is why so many of their systems still literally use 1950's era launchers.

And now to get a bit technical. The BMOAs of Iran are very well known, and under almost constant observation. Much like the Soviets of the Cold War, whenever Iran tests a new missile system the US knows about it almost immediately. We know where they set up their TELs for shows of force, we even have the vast majority of them assigned specific names to signify each individual one.

BTW, TEL is "Transporter-Erector-Launcher", and BMOA is "Ballistic Missile Operating Area". There are almost no secrets in the Iranian missile sector. Like China, they boast of their systems, praise them to the stars, and love to show off their equipment, if they have even tested it or not. Which has led to some interesting things, like when they photoshopped a photo claiming to have been a "perfect test launch".

And finally, here is a bit about my own background. I spent over 5 years in Missile Defense, including spending over a year sitting in the desert watching Iran from across the Gulf. For me, one of the most interesting things about discussions like this is that I actually have to resort to mining data I find from online sources because I actually can not discuss things I "know", but things I can gather from public sources because of security.

But trust me, I can go on for hours about things like this. I spent a year literally watching Iranian capabilities and locations, even knowing when they moved their systems around and which ones were a threat that particular week.

My photo here? Taken at the White Sands Missile Range, a month or so before I deployed to that area of the world. On other forums I actually use another photo I had taken there, of me sitting on a copy of the Fat Man bomb. So you see, I do actually know and understand these things, because that was my job for several years. And even though I now have another job in the military, I still track things like that because I find them very interesting. Plus a bit of "know your enemy", because if a conflict was to break out with Iran again, I am positive missiles will be their key weapon.

 

[Mushroom]

SCUDS are a family of missiles originated by the Soviets, but still being improved upon.

Actually, it was originated by the Germans. The SCUD is a smaller and more basic variant of the V-2 rocket. Typical of the Soviet design, they took out most of the overly-complex things that the Germans designed into their original rocket, and actually improved it. And they made it smaller, so it could be used as a mobile system.

But like the similar US PERSHING system, it was never intended as a "point missile", but instead to be used with many others as a form of heavy rocket artillery. And no matter the claims of "accuracy", those were always more theoretical than anything else. Accuracy is not important when you are sending a barrage of a dozen missiles at a target a square mile in size.

And yes, the missile is still being made and improved upon, but not by the Russians. They had stopped using them over 30 years ago, and in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union they became a large export item. They had around 300 launchers still in inventory, and they were high in demand as an export item. They sold off around 300 of them world wide over the next 2 decades, but by 2010 had pretty much stopped doing so.

Seeing their use in countries like Afghanistan and Yemen as well as how most operators were not buying the missiles from them but instead either buying them from North Korea (prior to sanctions), or making them locally pretty much ended their SCUD export business. They still sell the missiles to countries like Syria, but these are primarily remanufactured SCUD-D missiles. Most believe their remaining 300 TEL systems in storage will just remain in permanent storage.

No, the "improvements" are being done by other nations, primarily North Korea and Iran. Russia has no interest in "improving" the SCUD series, they shelved it decades ago. And with so few customers for it there is also no reason to invest that kind of money. But they do continue remanufacturing the missiles they have in storage for sale, but not as many as they used to.

 

[Mr Natural]

I trained on one of those when I was in the Army.

It was called the M61 Vulcan weapon system.

6 barrel 20mm electric rotary cannon mounted on top of an APC

3,000 High Explosive rounds a minute.

Every 10th round was a tracer. ...

Thank you for your service

When are you going to join up and do something useful?

 

[Rigby5]

The point was NOT to discuss anti ship missiles, but I only used the example of sinking a destroyer to describe the explosive power of the payload size. The point was to leave out missiles that were intended only for smaller targets like a tanks or truck.
If we attacked Iran and they retaliated, you can bet they would target our ships with all missiles they had, including ground attack missiles.

Attacking a ship with a ground attack ballistic missile would be the ultimate exercise in futility. You might as well try to shoot a fly in flight from across the room with a pistol. And even if you include all of their ground attack missiles, only by including such basic missiles like their version of the Katyusha would you come anywhere even close to "tens of thousands:".

And the Katyusha is literally the most basic-simple-stupid missile still in use. Quite literally they are not much more difficult to make then a Sten gun, anybody with a decent machine shop can make one. The Soviets made and used them by the millions in WWII, they are still popular today because they are easy to build and make a great terror weapon.

And no, discussing things like fuel tanks being different to hit from the warhead on a SCUD is irrelevant, because it is an idiotic claim. The correct term is "missile body", although the fuel tank is included in it. And I do not care who makes it, all SCUD missiles (and those developed from them) are a combined warhead and body system.

And no, they do not have "thousands of launchers". In fact, the missile is actually not all that hard to make, it is the launcher and associated hardware that is the real challenge. This is why one of their main air defense systems is the 1950's era HAWK system (when they ran out of air to air missiles for their F-14s they even modified the HAWK to be air launched using the system in the Tomcat). And while they still have quite a few of them from when they were allies of the US, all they have been doing is upgrading those they already have and making new missiles to replace the old ones. And all of their ballistic and other ground based missiles still operate off of the original TELs that they bought from Russia and China.

In fact, even without sanctions both Russia and China had pretty much cut off selling systems to Iran because of their love of simply buying some launchers and missiles, then copying the missiles instead of buying new ones from them. For 20 years Iran was trying to buy TELs from anybody they could buy them from. That is the one piece that they have yet been able to make domestically for anything other than their most basic artillery rockets.

And yes, the actual term is TEL, I have just been saying "launcher" because that is what most people know and understand. The main thing that has been "locking" Iranian missile development has not been their ability to create a better rocket, it has been in making missiles that can operate with the launching equipment they already possess. This is why so many of their systems still literally use 1950's era launchers.

And now to get a bit technical. The BMOAs of Iran are very well known, and under almost constant observation. Much like the Soviets of the Cold War, whenever Iran tests a new missile system the US knows about it almost immediately. We know where they set up their TELs for shows of force, we even have the vast majority of them assigned specific names to signify each individual one.

BTW, TEL is "Transporter-Erector-Launcher", and BMOA is "Ballistic Missile Operating Area". There are almost no secrets in the Iranian missile sector. Like China, they boast of their systems, praise them to the stars, and love to show off their equipment, if they have even tested it or not. Which has led to some interesting things, like when they photoshopped a photo claiming to have been a "perfect test launch".

And finally, here is a bit about my own background. I spent over 5 years in Missile Defense, including spending over a year sitting in the desert watching Iran from across the Gulf. For me, one of the most interesting things about discussions like this is that I actually have to resort to mining data I find from online sources because I actually can not discuss things I "know", but things I can gather from public sources because of security.

But trust me, I can go on for hours about things like this. I spent a year literally watching Iranian capabilities and locations, even knowing when they moved their systems around and which ones were a threat that particular week.

My photo here? Taken at the White Sands Missile Range, a month or so before I deployed to that area of the world. On other forums I actually use another photo I had taken there, of me sitting on a copy of the Fat Man bomb. So you see, I do actually know and understand these things, because that was my job for several years. And even though I now have another job in the military, I still track things like that because I find them very interesting. Plus a bit of "know your enemy", because if a conflict was to break out with Iran again, I am positive missiles will be their key weapon.

You clearly are not paying attention.
I specifically said I was NOT talking about targeting ships, but just used a destroyer as a size comparison for the amount of damage.
But hitting a ship is EASY.
And missile that can be used on land targets can more easily hit a ship because ship are not camouflaged by terrain.
Typically a missile will NOT use GPS because that is too easily jammed or spoofed. One of the most common methods of targeting will be to use visual imaging. And that is much easier with a ship than a land target.

And we are not talking about WWII Soviet Katyushas.
Obviously in WWII the Soviets did not have the technology or time to make guidance systems, and instead relied on volume.
That is no longer true.
All missiles have some sort of guidance system these days, except the home made Palestinian rockets.

I already quoted you a passage showing a multi stage SCUD.

Iranian missiles to not need mobile launchers.
They do not have to be able to hide from an attack because they are designed as a deterrent.
They are preprogrammed ready for launch at the first sign of incoming.
They are not intended to survive.
And as you already pointed out, the Iranians have reverse engineered the Russian and Chinese ones they purchases, so now can make all the copies they want.
Their attempt to buy more from other sources likely are an intent to diverge with more different technologies than they are about being scarce.

HItting incoming missiles with kinetic anti missiles is pretty much a wash out.
It can be done like a parlor trick, but that is without any counter measures, which are easy to do.
Any sensory equipment in the anti missile system is going to be very easy to over ride.
And incoming can easily deploy multiple dummies.
Last minute maneuvering can easily render them missing.
There are hundreds of possible means of defeating any such attempt.