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

[Mushroom]

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.
[/quote]

Wrong, because ships do this amazing thing known as "moving".

Between the notice of a launch, ships immediately make radical turns in direction, therefore making the expected location random and unable to predict. Only if the ship makes absolutely no change in course and therefore is in the exact same location as expected at launch is there a hop of hitting the target.

Of course, also taking into consideration the CEP, with at it's best for a SCUD class weapon is 50 meters. Hitting a target that is only 20 meters wide.

SCUD missiles were never intended to hit a moving target, they are "rocket artillery" for a reason. Made to hit area targets, not specific targets.

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.

Well, I never brought up GPS but we can run with this.

Here is something you may not know, no missile that I am aware of uses GPS for it's primary navigation. In fact, no military equipment I am aware of uses GPS for that. Other than missiles that target things like exhaust, electromagnetic emissions or RADAR returns, they all use inertial navigation. And that includes the SCUD series. In fact, the majority of the flight of a ballistic missile is entirely done simply by it's launch trajectory, altitude, and simple ballistics.

But there is no "visual imaging" on a SCUD, these are "fire and forget dumb missiles". They are not steered, they have absolutely no tracking or acquisition system, they are dumb even compared to some US rocket artillery like the COPPERHEAD.

So once again, why you are trying to give them these magical abilities they do not have, I have absolutely no idea. In fact, only 2 nations have even tried to claim they have made anti-ship ballistic missiles, China and Iran. Neither of them has ever been tested other than against a static land target, and nobody believes they would ever work.

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.

Actually, they did have the technology. But what they wanted and needed was a simple system that they could build in huge volumes, and train people with a grade school education how to operate.

Why people insist that the Soviets were some kind of backwards country that could not develop anything always puzzles me. Yes, many of their systems may be seen as "crude", but in most ways it was really just a matter of what is known as "Muntzing", where they made items as simple as possible. This was for many reasons, including ease and speed of production, ease to train operators, and to make repairs simple.

The AK-47 is a crude weapon, and often still has highly visible tool marks. That is simply because such things do not matter, it does not matter that it is not as smooth and "professional" on the outside as say an M-16, it works and that is all they cared about.

No, the Soviets actually were quite advanced in things like rockets and jet engines. They had been making high altitude rockets and rocket and jet powered aircraft way back in the early 1930's.

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.

"Wash out", except it has already ben done in combat.

There are no "counters" on ballistic missiles. Both the US and Soviets looked into it decades ago, and both dismissed it as useless.

"Sensory equipment on the anti-missile is going to be very easy to over ride"? That makes absolutely no sense.

Dummies? Nope, nonsensical. Why go to that kind of effort, when you can actually loft a real payload instead and increase the damage? The Soviets looked into it 40 years ago, and realized it was a silly idea. For the amount of weight required, better to just send another warhead. But I always love when people who try to sound like they know what they are talking about bring that up.

"Last minute maneuvering"? Ballistic missiles barely maneuver, and not in that way. They are still going to be falling in a highly predictable manner, dictated to the ballistic path that was determined when it was first launched. And the intercept missile has it's own tracking system, one that is designed to hit aircraft which can maneuver in 3 dimensions at a much faster reaction time and to a higher degree.

And no, you did not list "multi-stage SCUD" missiles. You just listed some missiles.

The Taepodong 1 was tested a single time, and was they were trying to make an IRBM. It failed.

The Taepodong 2 is an ICBM. It is liquid fueled, and looks like a rocket. But other than that, it is about as much like a SCUD as a SATURN V or MINUTEMAN missile is to a SCUD.

Hey, a Model T is a car, and a Tesla is a car, therefore they are both the same thing. A tTesla is no different than a Model T.

Sorry, but to be honest I have already grown bored of this entire attempt at discussion. You are simply a contrarian, and you make the same silly claims over and over again and I keep bursting them, yet you then go around and make them again. It was amusing at first, but now it is simply repetitive and without purpose.

"Hitting a ship is easy" indeed. With a ballsitic missile. Sure, if it is anchored at port, maybe. Ignoring any ABM systems on said ship and other ships (which you claim do not work), and giving allowance for the CEP in the first place (which is actually larger than the ship itself).

 

[Jitss617]

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?

Well I am
A Nazi lol

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong, because ships do this amazing thing known as "moving".

Between the notice of a launch, ships immediately make radical turns in direction, therefore making the expected location random and unable to predict. Only if the ship makes absolutely no change in course and therefore is in the exact same location as expected at launch is there a hop of hitting the target.

Of course, also taking into consideration the CEP, with at it's best for a SCUD class weapon is 50 meters. Hitting a target that is only 20 meters wide.

SCUD missiles were never intended to hit a moving target, they are "rocket artillery" for a reason. Made to hit area targets, not specific targets.

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.

Well, I never brought up GPS but we can run with this.

Here is something you may not know, no missile that I am aware of uses GPS for it's primary navigation. In fact, no military equipment I am aware of uses GPS for that. Other than missiles that target things like exhaust, electromagnetic emissions or RADAR returns, they all use inertial navigation. And that includes the SCUD series. In fact, the majority of the flight of a ballistic missile is entirely done simply by it's launch trajectory, altitude, and simple ballistics.

But there is no "visual imaging" on a SCUD, these are "fire and forget dumb missiles". They are not steered, they have absolutely no tracking or acquisition system, they are dumb even compared to some US rocket artillery like the COPPERHEAD.

So once again, why you are trying to give them these magical abilities they do not have, I have absolutely no idea. In fact, only 2 nations have even tried to claim they have made anti-ship ballistic missiles, China and Iran. Neither of them has ever been tested other than against a static land target, and nobody believes they would ever work.

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.

Actually, they did have the technology. But what they wanted and needed was a simple system that they could build in huge volumes, and train people with a grade school education how to operate.

Why people insist that the Soviets were some kind of backwards country that could not develop anything always puzzles me. Yes, many of their systems may be seen as "crude", but in most ways it was really just a matter of what is known as "Muntzing", where they made items as simple as possible. This was for many reasons, including ease and speed of production, ease to train operators, and to make repairs simple.

The AK-47 is a crude weapon, and often still has highly visible tool marks. That is simply because such things do not matter, it does not matter that it is not as smooth and "professional" on the outside as say an M-16, it works and that is all they cared about.

No, the Soviets actually were quite advanced in things like rockets and jet engines. They had been making high altitude rockets and rocket and jet powered aircraft way back in the early 1930's.

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.

"Wash out", except it has already ben done in combat.

There are no "counters" on ballistic missiles. Both the US and Soviets looked into it decades ago, and both dismissed it as useless.

"Sensory equipment on the anti-missile is going to be very easy to over ride"? That makes absolutely no sense.

Dummies? Nope, nonsensical. Why go to that kind of effort, when you can actually loft a real payload instead and increase the damage? The Soviets looked into it 40 years ago, and realized it was a silly idea. For the amount of weight required, better to just send another warhead. But I always love when people who try to sound like they know what they are talking about bring that up.

"Last minute maneuvering"? Ballistic missiles barely maneuver, and not in that way. They are still going to be falling in a highly predictable manner, dictated to the ballistic path that was determined when it was first launched. And the intercept missile has it's own tracking system, one that is designed to hit aircraft which can maneuver in 3 dimensions at a much faster reaction time and to a higher degree.

And no, you did not list "multi-stage SCUD" missiles. You just listed some missiles.

The Taepodong 1 was tested a single time, and was they were trying to make an IRBM. It failed.

The Taepodong 2 is an ICBM. It is liquid fueled, and looks like a rocket. But other than that, it is about as much like a SCUD as a SATURN V or MINUTEMAN missile is to a SCUD.

Hey, a Model T is a car, and a Tesla is a car, therefore they are both the same thing. A tTesla is no different than a Model T.

Sorry, but to be honest I have already grown bored of this entire attempt at discussion. You are simply a contrarian, and you make the same silly claims over and over again and I keep bursting them, yet you then go around and make them again. It was amusing at first, but now it is simply repetitive and without purpose.

"Hitting a ship is easy" indeed. With a ballsitic missile. Sure, if it is anchored at port, maybe. Ignoring any ABM systems on said ship and other ships (which you claim do not work), and giving allowance for the CEP in the first place (which is actually larger than the ship itself).

Ships are pretty easy to hit. Ever read about the Fritz-X the Germans used on the surrendering Italian admirals near the end of WWII?

{...
As of the morning of 8 September (before the armistice announcement), the Italian navy, based at La Spezia in northern Italy on the Ligurian Sea, was under orders to sortie to oppose the Allied landings that were anticipated at Salerno (so much for surprise). Only a few senior Italian navy commanders knew that the real purpose was to “defect” to the Allied side by sailing to Allied-held ports in Tunisia and Malta. Late on the 8th, the force of three battleships (Roma, Vittorio Veneto, and Italia), six cruisers, and eight destroyers sortied from La Spezia and Genoa, rendezvoused, and began a transit down the west coast of Corsica toward Sardinia and Tunisia. By dawn, the Germans had caught on to what the Italian fleet was up to and attacked. The initial German flights played cat and mouse with the Italian ships trying to get the right set-up for the glide-bomb attacks. At first, the Italians did not fire on the German aircraft (which maintained unusual distance and altitude), thinking they were Allied air cover (which had been promised but never showed).

When the concerted German attack by six bombers came later in the afternoon, it was devastating. The first bomb was a near-miss on the battleship Italia (formerly Littorio) that caused significant damage and jammed her rudder. The Italian AA opened fire, but the bombers were too high. The Italians struggled to understand the nature of the attack, since the bombers were not operating in a way any had seen before.

At about 1545, a Fritz X hit Roma, the largest ship in the Italian navy (45,000 tons, nine 15-inch guns) and the flagship of the fleet commander, Vice Admiral Carlo Bergamini (onboard with about 200 of his staff). The bomb hit Roma’s starboard side just aft of amidships, penetrating clean through the ship and detonating under her keel, flooding boiler rooms and her after engine room, knocking out two of her four propeller shafts, reducing her speed, and starting numerous electrical fires. Seven minutes later, a second Fritz X hit the battleship, detonating in her forward engine room and sparking a massive blast from a forward magazine that killed Bergamini, the ship’s captain, and a large number of her crew. The force of the blast blew the number two turret (three 15-inch guns) into the air and over the side. By 1615, Roma had capsized, broken in two, and gone down with massive loss of life: 1,393 sailors (many accounts do not account for Bergamini’s staff and thus give a lower figure). Nevertheless, Italia and much of the Italian navy successfully made it into Allied control. Bergamini was posthumously promoted to full admiral. All told, some 49 Italian combatants were destroyed by air attack, shore batteries, or were seized by the Germans—or were scuttled or sabotaged—during the period when Italy switched sides.
...}

H-021-1 Fritz X Guided Bomb

H-Gram 021, Attachment 1 Samuel J. Cox, Director NHHC September 2018 By the late summer of 1943, the Germans had developed and deployed two types of guided bombs, both of which used the same radio-control system. The first was the rocket-boosted Henschel Hs-293 bomb, intended for use against...

www.history.navy.mil

The Fritz-X was radio controlled from above, but the German bombers had to stay above the AA, so it would not have been easy, and the bomb was guided only by fins and powered by gravity, so it could not have had nearly the maneuverability we have now.
So I don't see ships as being difficult. They can not go fast or turn quickly.

GPS was originally intended for weapons targeting.
The idea was to be able to just punch in the coordinates of your target.
But people got too good at figuring out how to send false signals, simulating the satellites.
There was speculation that the US ship that collided in the Straits of Malacca had been the victim of a GPS spoof.

Inertial guidance is better in that it can't be effected from the outside, but can be slightly inaccurate. So an alternative is visual. I don't mean remotely controlled. But you have a spy plane take a series of images, process them into components, and then the onboard computer can do comparisons on the fly, to make absolute corrections. The only thing that can defeat that is multiple, bright, flashing lights that can blind the onboard video sensors.

SCUDS are a family of missiles that have morphed over time, and no longer are unguided.
And I agree the Russians may have had advanced technology but just did not have the time to use it in WWII.
And none of the Iranian missiles are ballistic. That would be a waste of a missile, since guidance is so easy, and artillery makes more sense for ballistic projectiles.
As for counter measures, they are easy.
That is what MIRVs were built for.

But you can add ablative and rotation for laser weapon defense, drastic trajectory changes for ABM defense, blinding energy bursts for radar or visual systems, etc.

 

[Mushroom]

Ships are pretty easy to hit. Ever read about the Fritz-X the Germans used on the surrendering Italian admirals near the end of WWII?

Which once again was not a ballistic missile!

Look, constantly trying to change or confuse the playing field does not make you any more right than you were before. You keep insisting that a cruise missile is the same as a ballistic missile, or a guided bomb is the same as a ballistic missile. They are not, they are not even close.

The way they operate is different, they are not even close to each other. Then you throw in a ton of other things, like guided ballistic missiles and MIRV, none of which apply at all to your claim. All you are doing is throwing in a ton of random ingredients and thinking that makes soup.

 

[Rigby5]

Ships are pretty easy to hit. Ever read about the Fritz-X the Germans used on the surrendering Italian admirals near the end of WWII?

Which once again was not a ballistic missile!

Look, constantly trying to change or confuse the playing field does not make you any more right than you were before. You keep insisting that a cruise missile is the same as a ballistic missile, or a guided bomb is the same as a ballistic missile. They are not, they are not even close.

The way they operate is different, they are not even close to each other. Then you throw in a ton of other things, like guided ballistic missiles and MIRV, none of which apply at all to your claim. All you are doing is throwing in a ton of random ingredients and thinking that makes soup.

But who cares about ballistic missiles?
Saddam used them, but only because he really was not very interested in missiles at all.
His main defense against Iran in the 1979 war was long range artillery designed by Gerald Bull.
No body would bother with ballistic missiles any more, since guidance systems can be so small and cheap.

The point of the Fritz-X guided bomb is that it is not hard to hit a ship even when in defensive maneuvers. Big ships just are not that maneuverable.

MIRV is relevant because if you detach the incoming warhead from the engine, tanks, etc., then you have multiple radar images that should make it much harder to hit any one particular warhead, with a tiny kinetic anti missile.