DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Missiles » Russian Roots for Iran’s “Underwater Missile”

Russian Roots for Iran’s “Underwater Missile”

test-fire.jpgIn 1994, Russian mil­i­tary con­trac­tors were hand­ing out brochures tout­ing their “high-​​speed under­wa­ter mis­siles.” This weapon, called the Shkval, had a “high kill capa­bil­ity,” the con­trac­tors promised. Against it, “known anti-​​torpedo defense system[s]” were “not effec­tive.” Someone in Tehran liked what they read, appar­ently. Check out today’s New York Times.

Iran said Sunday that it had test-​​fired what it described as a sonar-​​evading under­wa­ter mis­sile [video of the test here]…
The new mis­sile is among the world’s fastest and can out­pace an enemy war­ship, Gen. Ali Fadavi of the country’s elite Revolutionary Guards told state tele­vi­sion.
General Fadavi said only one other coun­try, Russia, had a mis­sile that moved under­wa­ter as fast as the Iranian one, which he said had a speed of about 225 miles per hour.

shkval_drawing.jpgThat’s because this Iranian weapon — called the “Hoot,” or “whale” — is based on the Russian Shkval, accord­ing to for­mer Naval Intelligence Officer Edmond Pope. “I was informed in late 1990’s by a Russian gov­ern­ment offi­cial that they were work­ing with Iran on this sub­ject,” he tells Defense Tech. “A coop­er­a­tive demonstration/​program had already been con­ducted with them at Lake Issy Kul in Kyrgyzstan.“
The Shkval goes so fast because it cre­ates an air bub­ble around itself, essen­tially. The process, known as super­cav­i­ta­tion, keeps fric­tion to a min­i­mum. “Instead of being encased in water,” New Scientist noted, the weapon “is sim­ply sur­rounded by water vapour, which is less dense and has less resis­tance.” (Pope has more about the tech­nol­ogy on his web­site. The Airborne Combat Engineer blog rounds up super­cav­i­ta­tion spec­u­la­tion here.)
As the AP notes, the Russian-​​Iranian coop­er­a­tion could have major strate­gic con­se­quences for the U.S. navy, pos­si­bly keep­ing American ships from oper­at­ing freely in the Persian Gulf. “The U.S. and Iranian navies have had brush-​​ups dur­ing the past.”

During the “Tanker War,” when U.S. war­ships moved into the Gulf to guard oil tankers.
In 1988, the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts was badly dam­aged by an Iranian mine. In response, the U.S. Navy launched its largest engage­ment of sur­face war­ships since World War II. Two Iranian ships were destroyed, and an American heli­copter was shot down, killing the two pilots.

(Big ups: NH, RC, Kathryn)
UPDATE 12:22 PM: As Aaron and Hambling both note, Darpa has its own super­cav­i­ta­tion project — an ultra-​​fast tor­pedo for shoot­ing SEALs through the seas. Defense Technology International has the scoop.
UPDATE 1:39 PM: Kathryn clues us into the fact that Iran is plan­ning to test-​​fire another new tor­pedo later today.

“Because of its high speed, this tor­pedo is able to strike any type of sub­ma­rine at any depth,” Rear Admiral Mohammad Ibrahim Dehghani told the state-​​run news agency Fars.
“This tor­pedo will be fired from mini-​​warships to com­bat pre­tend enemy sub­marines in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz,” Dehghani said.

Meanwhile, ACE digs through Ed Pope’s site, and finds that “a con­certed effort to develop an under­wa­ter super­cav­i­tat­ing vehi­cle was begun here in the US and the Russians obtained key doc­u­ments from us and report­edly bought at least one patent from a com­pany in the US.“
ACE also echoes a com­menter below, who says that the Germans have “devel­oped a super­cav­i­ta­tion tor­pedo which is able to inter­cept and destroy a Shkval.“
UPDATE 4:05 PM: Nick flags a quote from Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman, who reminds reporters, “Iranians have also been known to boast and exag­ger­ate about their state­ments about greater tech­ni­cal and tac­ti­cal capabilities.”

Share |

April 3rd, 2006 | Missiles | 3117164 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2006/04/03/russian-roots-for-irans-underwater-missile/Russian+Roots+for+Iran%27s+%22Underwater+Missile%222006-04-03+16%3A20%3A35david_axe You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Glowing Planes, Hidden Bombers | Battle Ball for Sailor Training » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. retsel says:
    April 3, 2006 at 11:47 am

    so what about an under­wa­ter missle defence sys­tem… can u imag­ine these missles and under­wa­ter umanned mobile plat­forms that are remote oper­ated or have some pri­ma­tive AI… it could wreck havoc on a sur­face fleet…
    and why cant a sub have super­cav­i­ta­tion… using some heat­ing ele­ment from the reactor…

    Reply
  2. Frank says:
    April 3, 2006 at 12:04 pm

    The infor­ma­tion is not cor­rect.
    There is indeed a coun­ter­mea­soure. A shk­val is only able to move straight ahead. And per­son­ally i don’t that the Iran has evolved beyond the russ­ian design. But, and thats the point, the ger­man firm “Diehl BTG Defence” has devel­oped a super­cav­i­ta­tion tor­pedo which is able to inter­cept and destroy a shk­val. That is pos­si­ble not only because it is faster (around 800km/​h) but also able to steer under­way.
    It is named “Barracuda”.
    Further infor­ma­tion only in ger­man, on this site for eyam­ple: http://​www​.mor​gen​welt​.de/​6​0​9​.​h​tml

    Reply
  3. Charles says:
    April 3, 2006 at 12:13 pm

    Underwater torps would work best fit­ted to CAPTOR mines; though the navy has dol­phins to find these kinds of things (or are they only trained to locate tether mines?)
    Inability to move might be a prob­lem, but that’s why in WW2 sur­face ships had quad launch­ers.
    Then again, the Soviets prob­a­bly put a nuclear war­head into the Shkval, just as we had atomic depth charges and a nuclear war­head for the Tomahawk cruise mis­sile.
    The fact that the Iranians are get­ting this will drive the “From the Sea” crap that the Navy is stick­ing with, and will only encour­age the rail gun pro­gram. We’ll strike from afar and use LCS/​Streetfighter to attack, where a Shkval’s speed advan­tage will not be as drastic.

    Reply
  4. JeffC says:
    April 3, 2006 at 2:18 pm

    Supercavitation would have very lit­tle use for a sub. Why? Because cav­i­ta­tion is noisy, and a sub sur­vives on stealth. The Iranians talk big about sink­ing a sub, but the truth is that you can­not sink what you can­not find. And they do not have the abil­ity to find US Submarines.
    Surface ships, how­ever are another mat­ter. And their sur­vival is going to depend on what kind of range this thing has. If it can only go straight, and the sur­face ship has time to react, then it should be easy to avoid.

    Reply
  5. C-Low says:
    April 3, 2006 at 3:10 pm

    I think this pic will be the result of these missles. Hard to Port!!! Hold Onnnn!
    http://​www​.strange​mil​i​tary​.com/​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​i​t​e​m​/​8​2​9​4​.​h​tml

    Reply
  6. Will Collier says:
    April 3, 2006 at 3:54 pm

    Where’s the seeker? Without some kind of guid­ance, this thing would be visual aim-​​and-​​shoot, at best. Pretty low Pk there.

    Reply
  7. C-Low says:
    April 3, 2006 at 4:18 pm

    I would find it hard to believe one of these things on a sub or small craft get­ting close enough to try a US Super Carrier but I would imag­ine there is a real good chance of some escorts doing some fancy foot­work.
    The Iranian’s really believe their own hype and mis­un­der­stand­ing of kind­ness as weak­ness. The US and West in gen­eral are overly kind but are we so weak to the point were we can be scared off with threats sword rat­tling and weapons shows. If any­thing it is prov­ing just how insane it would be to allow Iran to get nukes and even more deadly weapons in more num­bers.
    I guess the next thing will be Chem/​bio test to show just how scary they are.
    Iran is the big show boys if we fal­ter all actions lead­ing to here were in vain. What both­ers me is now that Iraq (a unbe­liev­able suc­cess by his­tor­i­cal com­par­i­son) has been made into a fail­ure with unac­cept­able sac­ri­fices by the media and oth­ers result­ing in the bar being set so high that our ene­mies may just be right.
    Has the US and the West in gen­eral become no longer able to sur­vive in the real world? Have we become so weak that we fear so much accept­ing sac­ri­fices on the bat­tle­field today that instead we would rather wait till tomor­row when we are either forced to make mas­sive sac­ri­fices and do hor­rific acts to sur­vive (think WW2 with todays tech­nol­ogy and wide­spread WMD nukes) or are we so far gone to the point that even then we would rather test our luck at sur­ren­der to our ene­mies rather than fight for our way of life?
    Its past time to put Partisan Political dif­fer­ence to the side and be what our founders intended many races but only one that one being AMERCA all AMERICANS hell its on the freekin money.

    Reply
  8. Gandi says:
    April 3, 2006 at 5:24 pm

    Can we all get along?? lol
    the best war is the one that the lead­ers of the 2 sides get in front of each other ( like the old day) and fight.. why would they send some­body elsses son to die and not their own son??
    I am an Iranian and sure don’t want to see my peo­ple die, the same way American’s don’t.
    I wish you all Americans a good life and just remem­ber History repeats itself… thus no sin­gle race can be the boss of the world..

    Reply
  9. amna says:
    April 3, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    Okay guys I’m an inno­cent mum of four liv­ing in Kuwait. Give the run-​​down, are those Iranian mis­siles and tor­pe­does dead accu­rate. Cos if they aren’t my fam­ily are dead meat. Amna

    Reply
  10. PierreM says:
    April 3, 2006 at 11:29 pm

    a) The US Navy bought some shkval’s from Yeltsin’s govt in the 1990’s.
    b) There is no guid­ance: straight line only. They were designed for a Russian sub to per­form a sui­cide attack on a US air­craft car­rier by sneak­ing in close enough for the missle to be effec­tive (but too close for the sub to escape sup­port ships).
    c) I would imag­ine (since these are so noisy) that even a con­ven­tional topedo lauched from the tar­geted ves­sel could find and kill the shk­val, since it’s mov­ing towards the con­ven­tional tor­pedo.
    d) The Russians conned the Iranians into pay­ing hard cash for an almost use­less weapon sys­tem.
    I too wish the Iranian peo­ple good luck. But we may be fac­ing an August 1945 sce­nario where the only way a fanat­i­cal gov­ern­ment can be removed is by threat­en­ing the mass of the state’s forces (not the party mili­tia) to take things into their own hands or face national anni­hi­la­tion.
    Unpleasant, but it it’s Ahmadinejad with nukes or a bar­be­qued Iran, bet­ter them than me.

    Reply
  11. Andrej says:
    April 4, 2006 at 3:26 am

    1. Russia views Iran as a threat (and it has more rea­sons to do so than either the US or Israel) and that is why it does not sell any use­full equip­ment. US should be more wor­ried over its sales of lat­est wea­pory to Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt. Regimes and pol­cies in those coun­tries can change in 24 hours. Remember, cou­ple of decades ago Bin Laden was US friend.
    2. Shkval is no replace­ment for an ordi­nary tor­pedo and nobody nor­mal is claim­ing that.
    3.Iran seems to be recit­ing Russian adver­tis­ments for lat­est Russian weapons.
    4. Iran has only recently begun invest­ing in its sci­ence and engi­neer­ing. Acutally the Islamic rev­o­lu­tion led to a pro­longed sus­pen­sion of their tech­ni­cal devel­op­ment. (Iran has some quite well known peo­ple in elec­tron­ics for exam­ple).
    5.Yes, it was again the Russians that copied from US the tor­pedo the US does not have. Yes and that is why Pope was spy­ing to obtain the open source lit­er­a­ture. I also must point out that tech­ni­cal knowl­edge of mil­i­tary inteligence offi­cers (from any coun­try) is ridi­colous from what I have seen up to now. The fact is, that Russians are ahead in cer­tain areas of tech­nol­ogy (as is the US/“Western” Europe in oth­ers). In gen­eral, Russians are great in the­o­ret­i­cal work (be it fluid mechanics,mechanics (includ­ing robot­ics), .…)while the imple­men­ta­tion is often their prob­lemetic area.

    Reply
  12. Briggs says:
    April 4, 2006 at 6:56 am

    I doubt the Iranians are going to really use it against Submarines but rather against what­ever big mil­i­tary ship (prefer­ably air­craft car­ri­ers) resides in the Persian gulf. As noted on DiD this weapon is fired at point blank range; in a ‘sui­cide mis­sion’ style where the escorts can sink the sub­ma­rine.
    Firing from sur­face ships doesnt seem ‘sound’, but from a sub­ma­rine it does. The noise would expose the sub­ma­rine but we’re for­get­ting 2 ele­ments: Iranian FAC’s and air­craft.
    FAC’s and air­craft engag­ing the remain­der of the fleet, with the air­craft pro­vid­ing addi­tional air support/​cover. Could not only have fur­ther dev­as­tat­ing effect but (per­haps) could cover the submarine’s escape.
    Whats the sta­tus of the Iranian air force?
    Their F-14’s; long range AAMs?

    Reply
  13. pedestrian says:
    April 4, 2006 at 8:20 am

    Edmond Pope? Is it the per­son who was released from prison due to his ill­ness? Is he still alive? That’s news.

    Reply
  14. pedestrian says:
    April 4, 2006 at 8:25 am

    >and why cant a sub have super­cav­i­ta­tion… using some heat­ing ele­ment from the reac­tor…
    Boil the water to make it steam? That sure sounds like some­thing to release heat signuatures.

    Reply
  15. Wembley says:
    April 4, 2006 at 8:35 am

    “Iranians have also been known to boast and exag­ger­ate about their state­ments about greater tech­ni­cal and tac­ti­cal capa­bil­i­ties“
    Lucky we never see any­thing like that over here from man­u­fac­tur­ers etc :)

    Reply
  16. Vestalon says:
    April 4, 2006 at 8:41 am

    Hi!
    Here is a link to the offi­cial web­site of “Diehl BTG Defence” (in English) which shows the “Barracuda” that may have the abil­ity to inter­cept a super­cav­i­ta­tion tor­pedo. Unfortunately you don’t get much infor­ma­tion about it.
    http://​www​.diehl​-bgt​-defence​.de/​i​n​d​e​x​.​p​h​p​?​i​d​=​5​5​0​&​a​m​p​;​L=1

    Reply
  17. JSAllison says:
    April 4, 2006 at 9:12 am

    Sounds like it is short-​​ranged, and loud. Expect that the launch vehi­cle won’t have a great life expectancy post launch. And this is all assum­ing that said vehi­cle can sur­vive the trip to get into launch posi­tion. There is per­haps some poten­tial as some form of under­sea remote mine…

    Reply
  18. koxinga says:
    April 4, 2006 at 10:35 am

    The Germans also have an active pro­gram for such super cav­i­ta­tion sys­tems, as I under­stand, con­ducted at WTD 71.

    Reply
  19. fronten says:
    April 4, 2006 at 11:43 am

    ummm, can’t they do a 2-​​stage-​​rockedo? (hehe)
    i mean a supercavitation-​​rocket on top of a propelled-​​torpedo stage, which releases the high-​​speed war­head up on reach..
    any­way, i want sharks with lasers.

    Reply
  20. Briggs says:
    April 4, 2006 at 12:27 pm

    Perhaps; Doesnt the SS-​​N-​​27 carry a torpedo?

    Reply
  21. esotericist says:
    April 16, 2006 at 11:04 am

    seri­ous ques­tion.
    What’s to stop the Iranians (in the Straits of Hormuz exam­ple) from using a fast (but sui­cide) sur­face attack boat to get within 5kms of a tanker or air­craft car­rier. Forget about subs ( I under­stand all that stuff).
    What do you use against 1/​2 dozen fast, light sur­face attack craft? Planes? Outside of 1 mile the Phalanx is use­less. What can take out mul­ti­ple 5–10 kms dis­tant tar­gets IN TIME.…

    Reply
  22. Gary says:
    April 18, 2006 at 2:26 pm

    »What’s to stop the Iranians (in the Straits of Hormuz exam­ple) from using a fast (but sui­cide) sur­face attack boat to get within 5kms of a tanker or air­craft car­rier.
    No men­ac­ing ship is going to get within 10 kms of a car­rier. That’s why it has an air, sur­face and sub­ma­rine com­bat screen. Helos, subs, destroy­ers, and frigates will take care of them.
    Remember how the destroyer got it’s name? It’s ori­gin was as a “tor­pedo boat destroyer” when the first tur­bine engines appaeared at the end of the 19th cen­tury. It still can do that job, espe­cially against boats car­ry­ing weapons of even shorter range than tor­pe­dos such as these.
    Tankers are another mat­ter. Of course, the Iraninan econ­omy depends on tankers, so I doubt they would want to start a tanker war.

    Reply
  23. Philip says:
    April 26, 2006 at 5:43 am

    That’s why the Germans are great peo­ple, and we must ensure that the Germans stick to our side. I still think the Iranians were stu­pid for even show­ing off to the world that they tested such weapons. If I was Iran, I would keep that crap quiet. Now, it’s going to be a cake walk when Iran refuse to lay down there Neclear Program, and America Invade.
    The only ques­tion that remains, is which Media Network will jump to Tehran first and tele­cast live Images of Anti Aircraft fire under the cover of night (green glow fil­ter to see the anti air­craft bat­tery eas­ier) as impor­tant tar­gets are blown to bits by the new F-22’s? My money is on CNN.

    Reply
  24. roskolnikov says:
    May 9, 2006 at 12:30 am

    super­cav­i­ta­tion weapons require high launch speeds; think of them as lift­ing body designs that cre­ate the vapor bub­ble in which they travel, a con­ven­tional tor­pedo would have to do some pretty amaz­ing tricks to pull this off, there is a rea­son this is launched in air (off a boat) and then into water. I sup­pose a dual stage could work if you had the tor­pedo aim for the sky, rocket stage then tak­ing the same path you see from the boat launch. If you had such tech­ni­cal capa­bil­i­ties you would most likely not use russ­ian help as its likely this is what did in the Kursk. think about a two stage under­wa­ter first; sub launched then pop up to air flight cruise mis­sile radar doesn’t see it com­ing til it pops up, if it pops up high enough for radar.…..

    Reply
  25. BOB says:
    July 1, 2006 at 12:33 pm

    YOU KNOW FOLKS EVERONE IS SPECTATING ON A USA ATTACK ON IRAN, I HAVE BEEN TOLD (ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO BY VERY NOTED PERSON AND NO I WANT REVEAL HIS NAME ‚I JUST SENT HIM A EMAIL ASKING HIM TO MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT)THAT IRAN AND RUSSIAN HAVE A TREATY OF MUTUAL DEFENCE IF EITHER WERE ATTACKED.THIS COULD TRIGGER WW3.

    Reply
  26. Choscura says:
    January 28, 2007 at 5:58 am

    a treaty between iran an rus­sia doesn’t seem like it would be worth much. I’m will­ing to bet– not much, but still will­ing– that the treaty is only there because the two coun­tries share a bor­der. the whole iran con­tra thing where the US embassy was over­run was such a big deal because we were using iran back in the day to spy on the russ­ian mis­sile sites, for exam­ple. from the north­east end it had a clear view to the test area, sup­pos­edly, and it made things eas­ier for us to avoid diplo­macy to find stuff out that way. then the shah fell and iran was plunged deeper into a self-​​imposed dark age, with con­tin­ued insane secret police and con­sid­er­ably more restric­tions to life in gen­eral.
    the best way I can think of to describe the likely depth of rus­sia and iran’s rela­tion­ship would be to look at the state’s rela­tion­ship with it’s own bor­der­ing coun­tries. if mex­ico was attacked and there wasn’t much chance of reper­cus­sions to the states, how much inter­est would we take? some, granted, but not too ter­ri­bly much. not with the cur­rent administration.

    Reply
  27. Cryptographer says:
    March 26, 2007 at 4:44 pm

    In the noisy, crowded waters of the Persian Gulf ultra-​​quite Iranian Kilo class sub­marines ahve a very real chance of get­ting close to a U.S. car­rier of sveral sub­marines are deployed. The U.S. surv=face fleet fails mis­er­ably to find our own larger ‚nois­ier nuclear sub­marines (noiser beca­sue nuclear boats require pumps to be work­ing at all times). Even with active sonar the larger sub­marines are hard to find because the water lay­ers are so com­plex– dif­fer­ent ther­mal and haline lay­ers, which all defract sound­waves. An Irania “com­bined arms” attack with sub­ma­rine launched super­cav­i­tat­ing tor­pe­does, mach 3 “Sunburn”-type sea-​​skimming anti-​​ship mis­siles launched from var­i­ous direc­tions (over­whelm­ing Aegis even if the msisiles could eb detected and shot down– which impos­si­ble at the moment), sii­cide air-​​cushion boats .….. I think a super­car­rier task force with the stan­dard one or two Aegis cruis­ers and oen or two Aegis destroy­ers could very well be overwhelmed.

    Reply
  28. Buckshot says:
    September 29, 2007 at 10:12 pm

    u guys lives on an other planet

    Reply
  29. Sexcam kostenlos says:
    October 20, 2007 at 8:50 am

    inter­esst­ing stuff! saved it

    Reply
  30. yellowpages says:
    November 13, 2007 at 10:34 pm

    Great to know about this, thanks a lot.

    Reply
  31. ader says:
    March 23, 2008 at 12:31 am

    GW gold
    guild wars gold
    buy guild wars gold
    guild wars money
    hell­gate lon­don
    hell­gate lon­don gold
    hell­gate lon­don pal­la­dium
    buy cheap hell­gate lon­don pal­la­dium
    2moons
    2moons dil
    SWG
    swg cred­its
    Star Wars Galaxies
    Star Wars Galaxies credits

    Reply
  32. Kunstforum says:
    March 25, 2008 at 7:42 am

    Thanks for very use­ful arti­cle. I really enjoyed read­ing all of your posts. It

    Reply
  33. merten says:
    May 14, 2008 at 7:26 am

    I think, here is a lot of spam„,

    Reply
  34. seks shop says:
    June 30, 2008 at 9:19 am

    seks shop

    Reply
  35. rf money says:
    August 13, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    So I know my par­adise Nana, and some friends. Bu then, I added AQQI. And a vari­ety of rea­sons, and the sum­mer of cake, magic rab­bit, blue shocks, such as sev­eral friends built a new coun­cil: Return of the King. And I rec­og­nized the beier­tuo broth­er­hood. As the help of this friends and will help in grow­ing, and this time sheikhs left the group B, the new pres­i­dent rose, lead us to defend the B group. We Society of Friends also actively par­tic­i­pated in the mine war­fare, win­ning glory for the fam­ily. Later, because a num­ber of rea­sons I left the RF. And I took my all RF money send my friends.

    Reply
  36. buy rupees says:
    August 13, 2008 at 8:37 pm

    Leave for three years, I have quite repeat­edly returned to the Rappelz game. I con­tinue for good equip­ment to buy rupees. Three years of time I have played many games, but no a game can let me real input. By now I have found that the orig­i­nal is the lack of a per­son accom­pa­ny­ing me.

    Reply
  37. iro zeny says:
    August 13, 2008 at 8:40 pm

    95 lev­els, to me this had been a friend of the peo­ple around, the new ser­vice first hand the hand of a per­son to man­u­ally 95, it is really dif­fi­cult for my them­selves, but I have been have a lot of iro zeny.

    Reply
  38. Abe says:
    September 22, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    The ger­man navy is also work­ing on an own ver­sion of the shk­val — since they had access to GDR (DDR) data of the for­mer sozial­ist brother state.
    They are work­ing on it — since approx. 10 years. A Test fir­ing was 2–3 years ago…since then I didnt hear any­thing.
    Just as info

    Reply
  39. sex shop says:
    March 29, 2009 at 3:41 pm

    thanks for all

    Reply
  40. http://www.linksoflondons.co.uk says:
    May 20, 2009 at 9:29 pm

    Links of London
    Links of London Jewelry
    Links of London Charm
    Links of London Necklace
    Links of London Bracelets
    Links of London Earrings
    Links of London Rings
    Designer from UK
    Diamond
    Gold&Silver
    Links Jewelry
    Links Necklace
    Links Charm
    Links Earrings
    Links Rings

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Today's Hottest Topics
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • BREAK-BREAK: Units to Get New Camo Revealed
    Recent Comments
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      I'm disappointed. When are they going to make clothes...
      Nadnerbus
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
      Part II : * USMC attempts to make a single seat (no...
      freefallingbomb
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
      Part I : I think we're not the only ones on the...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part III : Guided missiles will also be programmed to...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part II : If a tank shoots at another tank at only 5...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part I : To the poster "Will" : You wrote:...
      freefallingbomb
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
      Yeah, I don't get it. The "Dragon...
      Ptsfp
    • Pinnacle’s New Armor
      Should wikipedia Ned Kelly.He used armour that worked in...
      Nick
    • UPDATED: Details on Army’s New Afghanistan Duds
      Marines win agin hoo rur
      greg
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
      To the poster "batvette" : You wrote:...
      freefallingbomb
    Recent Articles
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • BAE to Market Mantis UAV to North America
    • Pinnacle’s New Armor
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
    • Northrop Invests Own Money In Fire Scout
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Super Cavitation and the Truth
    • Mantis Begins Search For Prey
    Recent Hot Topics
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • The Osprey has Landed
    • UPDATED: Details on Army's New Afghanistan Duds
    • Iraq Cyber Attack and the DigiSEALs
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • (Proof) The Osprey Has Landed
    • Grim Wanat Footage
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage