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
  • 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 » Ammo and Munitions » Iran’s Kooky, Incendiary Arsenal

Iran’s Kooky, Incendiary Arsenal

Super-​​fast under­wa­ter mis­siles — they ain’t the half of it. Iran’s armed forces are rolling out a slew of new mil­i­tary hard­ware this week, as part of its “Great Prophet” naval war games. Some of the gear seems down­right com­i­cal. Others, down­right dan­ger­ous.
iran_flying_boat.jpg(Most of these links are crimped from Kathryn Cramer and Airborne Combat Engineer. Make sure you show ‘em a lit­tle click-​​love.)
First, the com­i­cal — a “fly­ing boat,” which moves at low alti­tude above the water. “The ves­sel appeared to be a more-​​advanced mil­i­tary ver­sion of the com­mon sea­plane,” Iran Focus observed. “Because of its hulls advanced design, no radar at sea or in the air can locate it. It can lift out of the water. It is wholly domes­ti­cally built and can launch mis­siles with pre­cise tar­get­ing while mov­ing,” the Mullahs’ Defense Ministry mouth­piece crowed. Mayyybe. But ACE notes that “you can buy your own such boat/​plane (in kit or fin­ished form).” He finds some pic­tures of awfully sim­i­lar craft over here.
Next, the dan­ger­ous. The Times takes a look at Tehran’s embry­onic satel­lite pro­gram. The orbiters the Iranians are launch­ing are crude. “But some Western ana­lysts note that such tech­nolo­gies can also have atomic roles and that a cru­cial ele­ment of a cred­i­ble nuclear arse­nal is the abil­ity to launch a mis­sile accu­rately and guide a war­head to its tar­get,” the Times says.

While Iran now depends on Russia to launch its satel­lites into orbit [and we know how help­ful Moscow is feel­ing these days — ed.], it has vowed to do so itself, and is devel­op­ing a fam­ily of increas­ingly large rock­ets. In the­ory, the biggest could hurl not only satel­lites into space but war­heads between con­ti­nents.
“The real issue is that they have a very large booster under devel­op­ment,” said Dr. Anthony H. Cordesman, a mil­i­tary ana­lyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington who wrote a recent report on Iran’s nuclear effort.

Closer to home, Tehran is brag­ging about an “advanced shoulder-​​launched rocket ‘Mithaq 1′ — which can be car­ried by IRGC fast ships and used on shore and on islands — was suc­cess­fully test-​​fired,” Iran Focus quotes a mil­i­tary spokesper­son as saying.

The Mithaq 1 anti-​​aircraft rock­ets have a heat track­ing device and are “fast” and “manoeu­vrable,” the report said, adding that they were par­tic­u­larly good at tar­get­ing light heli­copters…
Iran also has the Mithaq 2 on its pro­duc­tion line. The more advanced rocket is [almost iden­ti­cal to the Chinese shoulder-​​fired mis­siles and is] capa­ble of destroy­ing chop­pers and jet fight­ers which fly at low alti­tude. Tehran claims that it is good for use in elec­tronic war­fare and it can also hit fake targets.

misagh-2_crowd.jpgOn Friday, Iran “tested the Fajr-​​3, a mis­sile that it said can avoid radars and hit sev­eral tar­gets simul­ta­ne­ously using mul­ti­ple war­heads,” the Associated Press noted. Again, it appears to be based on a Chinese model.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies’ Jason Alderwick, reminds Reuters about the Iranian habit of “mil­i­tary bravado and pos­tur­ing.“
But Tim Ripley, with Jane’s, adds that, “You don’t actu­ally need lots of weapons to close (the Strait of Hormuz), you just need lots of threats… “You don’t even have to sink a ship, you just have to dou­ble the insur­ance rates (for ship­ping) and it has a knock on effect on the price of oil.“
And Kathryn Cramer notes that the man behind Tehran’s new tech­nolo­gies is a seri­ously bad dude — the man “respon­si­ble for recruit­ment of sui­cide bombers in Irans armed forces.” Not coin­ci­den­tally, Brigadier General Hossein Salami also crafted Iran’s doc­trine of “the mas­sive use of sui­cide oper­a­tions to tar­get U.S. and Western inter­ests around the world, and the use of weapons of mass destruc­tion.“
UPDATE 5:12 PM: “For months, I have told inter­view­ers that no senior polit­i­cal or mil­i­tary offi­cial was seri­ously con­sid­er­ing a mil­i­tary attack on Iran. In the last few weeks, I have changed my view,” says Joseph Cirincione, with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “In part, this shift was trig­gered by col­leagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the exec­u­tive branch who have con­vinced me that some senior offi­cials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran.“
(Big ups: Kevin Drum)
UPDATE 04/​05/​06 3:12 PM: Well, now we’ve got the sneaky mis­sile hat trick. “Iran said Wednesday it has suc­cess­fully test-​​fired a “top secret” mis­sile, the third within a week, state-​​run tele­vi­sion reported.” To which Kathryn asks, “If it’s so secret, what’s it doing on TV?”

Share |

April 4th, 2006 | Ammo and Munitions | 3121107 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2006/04/04/irans-kooky-incendiary-arsenal/Iran%27s+Kooky%2C+Incendiary+Arsenal2006-04-04+18%3A41%3A39david_axe You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « China’s R&D: Don’t Freak | Federal Bureau of Luddites » »

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. Ali Soltani says:
    April 4, 2006 at 2:43 pm

    I really dont think by using state­ments like may­bee and kooky you seem wise. Discrediting oth­ers is the sim­plest task. The Iranian author­i­ties as you say usu­ally do brag, and as my per­sonal past expe­ri­ence shows usu­ally can not make any­thing that is accu­rate. But lets just say that it throws ten Fajr 3 mis­siles at a US navy ship. 9 will explode by them­selves. What if the last one does make con­tact? Really, mak­ing fun of such dan­ger­ous con­cepts is not the best thing to do. Iran will not be the same as Afghanistan or Iraq. The world has to have a united response to pres­sur­ize the regime not only to give up nuclear weapons pro­grams, but more impor­tantly to democ­ra­tize the coun­try. By far Iran is the most likely of the regions coun­tries to have a true democ­racy, after Israel.

    Reply
  2. Joseph C. says:
    April 4, 2006 at 3:49 pm

    Ali: While I think you are cor­rect in stat­ing that the threat Iran poses should not be laughed at, I don’t think the orig­i­nal inten­tion was to ignore the threat so much as put it in per­spec­tive. Iran will not be the same as Afghanistan — in fact if they’re much more likely to become demo­c­ra­tic we may have an eas­ier time there if we decide to go. Iran’s bra­gado­cious demon­stra­tions of “mil­i­tary power” amounts to cheap hov­er­craft and Russian tor­pe­dos prone to sink the sub­marines that LAUNCH them. It’s a pretty funny com­pen­sa­tion tac­tic if you ask me. They threaten to cut off sea travel and assert dom­i­nance in the region with that?
    I think the proper thing to do is make fun of it, and then flip some test switches to ensure that you can blow it out of the water /​ air /​ both (when it comes to the hov­er­plane) before it even knows you’re there. One of these days the Iranians will be called on their bluffs and see what they’ve brought upon them­selves by ignor­ing the warn­ings and the envoys.

    Reply
  3. TR Lavigne says:
    April 4, 2006 at 3:55 pm

    I dont think the fly­ing boat is really related a con­ven­tional sea­plane. It looks, and is described, more along the lines of a “wing in ground effect” (WIG) vehi­cle. Not really all that kooky. The Soviet navy did lots of work with WIG ships/​planes in the 1980s, mostly in terms of fast cargo-​​lift. More info can be found at wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​G​r​o​u​n​d​_​e​f​f​ect.

    Reply
  4. bespoke says:
    April 4, 2006 at 3:58 pm

    Why is a Ground Effect Vehicle (or Wing in Ground vehi­cle) com­i­cal? It’s effec­tively a super fast attack craft. Why use a hydro­foil that goes 50 knots when you can have a GEV that can pos­si­bly go as fast as 200 knots?
    The Soviets called them Ekranoplans and tested them dur­ing the cold war: http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​C​a​s​p​i​a​n​_​S​e​a​_​M​o​n​s​ter
    Granted, “com­i­cal” is what peo­ple said about sub­marines, heav­ier than air vehi­cles and tanks, too.

    Reply
  5. Hawthorne says:
    April 4, 2006 at 4:43 pm

    Just notic­ing that their top-​​secret won­der­plane has an unshrouded engine on stilts above the body and a huge radar-​​reflecting pro­peller, a con­fig­u­ra­tion that’s as stealthy as a bun­ga­low.
    Compare it to actual stealthy planes like the F-​​117 and B-​​2 or low-​​observable ships like the Skold or Visby, and ask your­self if there’s not a dis­con­nect between what Iran’s claims are and what this thing is actu­ally capa­ble of…

    Reply
  6. Eagle1 says:
    April 4, 2006 at 5:41 pm

    Looks like a WIG. A bad WIG.

    Reply
  7. Cernig says:
    April 4, 2006 at 5:56 pm

    Iranian Rear-​​Admiral Morteza Saffari told HIS press con­tin­gent (before the the air force chief of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards started mak­ing his claims) that Iran would be launch­ing a Shahab-​​2 as the first move in those exer­cizes and cer­tainly what was launched seems to fit that des­ig­na­tion — and it’s not stealthy or MIRVed!
    The Fajr-​​3 name has until now been used by the Iranian mil­i­tary to des­ig­nate a type of artillery rocket car­ry­ing only a 45kg pay­load up to 43 Km. That’s not stealthy or MIRVed either.
    It takes about 5 min­utes with Google to find the rel­e­vant facts, but for the lazy of mind here’s a link to the col­lec­tion I made: http://​cernigsnew​shog​.blogspot​.com/​2​0​0​6​/​0​4​/​i​r​a​n​s​-​s​t​e​a​l​t​h​-​m​i​s​s​i​l​e​-​a​p​r​i​l​-​f​o​o​l​.​h​tml
    The “Stealthy MIRV” mis­ile is a mirage — and until fur­ther evi­dence arises than the same Gen. Hossein Salami who announced this hoax’s say so I will assume ALL the other claims from his mouth are the same — chimeras.
    Regards, Cernig @ Newshog
    (PS, that machine shown, whether fly­ing boat or WIG machine, isn’t stealthy either… that’s two down for Gen. Salami)

    Reply
  8. Joseph says:
    April 4, 2006 at 6:29 pm

    No, noth­ing com­i­cal about them but the one they show a pic­ture of doesn’t resem­ble the ones the Russians devloped. But who knows, pics can be deciv­ing, still if I remem­ber right there not to agile and they should be quite large. That could make them much eaiser to find and hit then a trad­tional patrol boat. I think it’s just a bluff, it might be some­thing there work­ing on but I don’t think it’s effec­tive, yet.
    Is that a cheap and easy to use SAM, that would be a very dan­ger­ous weapon if it’s spread through­out Iraq and Afganistan. Seems like that is a trump there hold­ing on us.

    Reply
  9. Cernig says:
    April 4, 2006 at 6:51 pm

    Now the World Peace Herald and Washington Times are repeat­ing a Pentagon state­ment that the “Stealthy MIRV” was a lie.
    http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20060404–102939-4495r
    ” An Iranian gen­eral said the Iranian mil­i­tary test-​​fired a new mis­sile Friday that had the capa­bil­ity to evade enemy sen­sors and car­ried mul­ti­ple war­heads.
    A defense offi­cial con­firmed that the Iranians’ test was a Shahab-​​2, Tehran’s des­ig­na­tion for the Scud-​​C mis­sile, which has a range of up to 310 miles. It was not a new mis­sile as Iranian press reported.“
    Which is what I said on the day, and emailed Noah to give him the link.
    It may actu­ally be more wor­ry­ing that the cur­rent gusto for war with Iran, whipped up by the Bush admin­is­tra­tion and the neo­cons, has even the big media com­pa­nies repeat­ing these claims of Iran’s whole­sale with­out a sin­gle crit­i­cal thought or even 5 min­utes on Google to fact-​​check.
    Regards, Cernig @ Newshog

    Reply
  10. oz says:
    April 4, 2006 at 7:25 pm

    “Just notic­ing that their top-​​secret won­der­plane has an unshrouded engine on stilts above the body and a huge radar-​​reflecting pro­peller, a con­fig­u­ra­tion that’s as stealthy as a bun­ga­low.
    Compare it to actual stealthy planes like the F-​​117 and B-​​2 or low-​​observable ships like the Skold or Visby, and ask your­self if there’s not a dis­con­nect between what Iran’s claims are and what this thing is actu­ally capa­ble of…“
    First of all you can’t com­pare it to the planes or ships you’ve listed. It’s not exactly designed for bomb­ing runs at 20,000+ ft and it’s nowhere near the size of those ships. Its small size and extremely low fly­ing would, under my under­stand­ing of sea based RADAR, cause it to be dif­fi­cult to dif­fer­en­ci­ate between it and the sea. Strap a Shkval to it and it would be quite a potent anti-​​ship weapon in my opin­ion.
    –oz

    Reply
  11. Benito says:
    April 4, 2006 at 9:42 pm

    Ground Effect Plane is what that ‘kooky boat’ looks like. As oth­ers have noted it is effec­tively a super-​​fast patrol boat — a tech­nol­ogy the Soviets exper­i­mented with dur­ing the Cold War. Given the Iranians don’t have to chal­lenge the United States in the open ocean, but instead merely have to deny oil tankers use of the gulf these things shouldn’t be dis­missed out of hand, espe­cially if they have a lot of them.
    Imagine 100 of them armed with a cou­ple of surface-​​to-​​surface anti-​​ship mis­siles each dart­ing in and out of of the Persian Gulf from the Iranian’s long coast line. They could lose 80% of them but if they are able to take out a few super­tankers or, god for­bid, a sur­face war­ship or a multi-​​billion dol­lar air­craft car­rier then Tehran would eas­ily come out ahead.
    The com­bi­na­tion of fast patrol craft like this cou­pled with hard-​​to-​​locate land-​​based anti-​​ship mis­siles could make the Persian Gulf an seago­ing ver­sion of the Baghdad air­port highway.

    Reply
  12. ShepUK says:
    April 5, 2006 at 5:52 am

    oh come on Defense Tech — post­ing a com­ment by the ‘Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’ ‚yeah and i guess they havnt got an agenda have they? A group of Peaceniks like these say that and you actu­ally take them seri­ously????? I’m utterly baf­fled, do you hon­estly think they would say any­thing other then some dumb Peacenik mes­sage. Look sorry to be rude but grow a brain will you! Sheesh some of the utter twad­dle that group of peaceniks comes out with is mind­blow­ing and you present it as real impor­tant ‘news’. I’m stunned that you let your slef and this site down like that — what next, com­ments from George Gallaway and his ‘respect’ party, Cindy Sheehan telling us were all wrong. Please use com­mon sense in future instead of post­ing crap from a bunch of ded­i­cated Peaceniks.

    Reply
  13. Charles says:
    April 5, 2006 at 1:19 pm

    Oh no, he posts a snip­pet that ends with ” They want to hit Iran”. He must be a big bad Hanoi Jane in our midst! :p
    (Though it’s cred­ited to Kevin Drum…maybe you should fire off a quick flame in his direc­tion)
    Iran is pos­tur­ing again. The demon­stra­tion is meant to make the civil­ian pop­u­la­tions think that war against Iran will be dif­fi­cult due to the “won­der weapons” being thrown out. The prob­lem is, is that some­where out there an American sub is prob­a­bly observ­ing the tests, or a AWACS or an inno­cous “fish­ing trawler”, as the Soviets did dur­ing the Cold War.
    As I’d stated before, these kinds of things will only encour­age the Navy’s “Beyond the Sea” doc­trine, and per­haps they’ll push a few more dol­lars to the rail gun pro­gram. If Iran’s land-​​to-​​sea strike capa­bil­ity increases enough in range, we’d have to revert to Operation Desert Fox-​​esque Tomahawk strikes, and we all know how pis­spoor long range mis­sile strikes are with­out good intel.
    We’ll have to wait for LCS to come out and see how it fares against Iran’s secret ground-​​effect planes. Didn’t some of them have a Phalanx; that might help against mis­sile attacks.

    Reply
  14. Brian says:
    April 5, 2006 at 11:36 pm

    Ground effect planes don’t work with a crap unless they’re BIG. There’s a rea­son the sovi­ets stopped mess­ing with them. If this is a ground effect craft, Iran just flushed a bunch of money down the crap­per. If they send 100 of these things fly­ing around the gulf (which they won’t, because they can’t afford that many), all they’ve got is 100 really slow plane/​boat things that don’t get very good gas mileage.
    This arti­cle should make you happy. The more they spend $$$ on this crap, the less they have to spend on weapons that work.

    Reply
  15. soccerbrain says:
    April 6, 2006 at 1:18 am

    it was said the Japanese toys were cheaply made and were shoddy. the Iranians might not have wokred all the bugs out mit der wun­der weapons. look what we went thru with the F111 and recently the Osprey. none the less ; never under­es­ti­mate your opponets. sur­prise can get in a lucky or accu­rate hit from time to time. the Iranians have picked the worse time to test bed their weaponry on the out­ter world. pretest­ing for war is the best train­ing next to actual war. war is a severe test area with a high risk of some­thing thats going to and we know ( Murphs Law ) go wrong. war is not a good place to find your men and equip­ment are not up to par. its flirt­ing with death to pick a fight with the stongest naval power on earth. fire power is total with expert gun­nery prac­tice and the best financed tech­nol­ogy of a 4th gen­er­a­tion U.S. Naval power ? this is not a drill. Iran should reac­cess and buy the enriched ura­nium from Momma Russia. mys­ti­cal sen­sei say ” best fight is one that didn’t happen. ”

    Reply
  16. lester says:
    April 12, 2006 at 3:24 pm

    speak­ing of agen­das, iran­fo­cus is very much the mouth­piece for the old iran­ian guard circa the shah. The neo con stroking cha­l­abis of ex pat Iran.

    Reply
  17. jOSH says:
    May 3, 2006 at 1:27 am

    Iranian strat­egy seems to be based on the Chinese swarm doc­trine. Sow a cou­ple of thou­sand mines across the strait of Hormuz, cover it with many bat­ter­ies of advanced SAMS and silk­worms…
    THe sovi­ets used to use the bas­tion tech­nique.… Iran can use the same doc­trine, with­out hav­ing to pro­tect SSBN’s. As long as they can say who goes past Hormuz they are the mas­ters of the universe

    Reply
  18. Ops says:
    June 19, 2006 at 11:38 am

    Actually the hover craft is the most dan­ger­ous cause USa has no effi­cient method to launch an attack to faster than helicopter(wich cant aim that hig speed tar­gets well) how­er­ing object. It cant be tor­pe­doed either. Thats why the mil­i­tary is now testind with the old car­ri­ers. Eguipped with super­fast tor­pe­does few of these can remove the full mediter­ranean fleet in cou­ple of hours. Thats why Australia devel­oped em. Because they are unlim­it­edly hard to hit. Well not? Ok say one.. just ONE workin mis­sile other long dis­tance defense. Remember No radar/​emission/​laser aimed or seek mis­siles allowed(actually all mis­siles not hit­ting straigth are bound to sink). No heli­we­ponary ect either caus these things move too fast for those and helis CAN be hit when radar is this low:)

    Reply
  19. notany says:
    July 17, 2006 at 11:40 am

    Iran has Russian made Moskit and Yakhnot cruise mis­siles. US Navy does not cur­rently have any defence against them. Soviets designed them to pen­e­trate AEGIS defence. See http://​red​dit​.com/​i​n​f​o​/​8​w​4​k​/​c​o​m​m​e​n​t​s​/​c​8​wx7 for for more information.

    Reply
  20. flabbergested says:
    September 1, 2006 at 7:36 pm

    in response to Ali Soltani: with all due respect US has no inter­est in have a democ­racy in Iran they had it but then had the govt over thrown and brought the shah back, as to isreal being a demor­acy, what dream world planet are you liv­ing on?, how can a country(US) thats not a democ­racy its­self con­vince oth­ers to become one??

    Reply
  21. Alex says:
    October 11, 2006 at 9:50 pm

    No offense, but I’m not too wor­ried… and do you seri­ously think the US hasn’t updated AEGIS to counter cruise mis­siles? and what about our Phalanx CIWS? THat should counter cruise mis­siles, with its own inde­pen­dent radar… just like their new shk­val based tor­pedo 223 mph… but only a 5 mile range. and that mis­sile… yea , right… a huge scud-​​like mis­sile is gonna be radar-​​evading.… and does any­one besides me remem­ber (or at least know about) Operation Praying Mantis in the 80’s? Iran’s arse­nal is worse than that of North Korea.

    Reply
  22. arash says:
    April 26, 2007 at 11:07 pm

    BRAVO IRAN
    of course Iran is the super power of mid­dle east.
    and they have very INTELLIGENT engi­neers.
    i think it’s just a small part of their power.
    if a coun­try must be the power of mid­dle east,that coun­try is IRAN.

    Reply
  23. Count Iblis says:
    November 11, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    Israel could not deal very well with Hezbollah’s mis­siles which were sup­plied to hezbol­lah by Iran.
    If it comes to war, Iran will fire 11,000 mis­siles in the first minute of a US attack, see here
    I guess that the mis­siles will be fired auto­mat­i­cally. Just send a sig­nal to the mis­siles so that when the sig­nal is cut, the mis­siles are launched. Then place the device send­ing the sig­nal at places the US will bomb, e.g. at early warn­ing radar sites, air defense assets etc. :)

    Reply
  24. abubakary says:
    November 29, 2007 at 5:17 am

    The world does not want to see another mid­dle east war, so nego­ti­a­tions are nec­es­sary to avod mass destruc­tions in the region.

    Reply
  25. abubakary says:
    November 29, 2007 at 5:30 am

    Israel is belived to own more than 1000 nuclear war heads, capa­ble of destroy­ing the whole mid­dle east region..!! Why the U S A, E U, and the inter­na­tional com­mu­nity says noth­ing to Israel? Instead threat­en­ing to invade coun­tries will­ing to own and develop nuclear tech­nolo­gies for peace­ful purposes?

    Reply
  26. Wayne Goose says:
    January 10, 2008 at 1:45 am

    Isaiah 33:19 and Proverbs 17:11

    Reply
  27. Ahmat says:
    September 8, 2008 at 5:59 am

    I hope some time Iranian use the weapons against amer­i­can cit­i­zens because American used their weapons against Iranian may be a con­flict between Iran and the US could learn the US that killing inno­cent peo­ple at their home is not cor­rect. i hope iran­ian make advance weapons to attache amer­i­can and israelies and we help them too.

    Reply
  28. Rooster says:
    April 27, 2009 at 2:30 pm

    LMAO Iran, tech­no­log­i­cal devel­op­ment… “Yes we be hab­bing very good inke­neers here”. LOL
    Perhaps the true insight here is the qual­ity of the radar used to test the stealth­i­ness of this boat (sic).
    Fe Fi Fo Fum, we have reli­gion and you got none… lol

    Reply
  29. regaification says:
    May 7, 2009 at 7:28 pm

    If your Iranian or like I Iranian’s your a peace of shit!!!

    Reply
  30. diencg says:
    September 1, 2009 at 11:04 pm

    ????
    ????
    ??
    ????

    Reply
  31. diencg says:
    September 1, 2009 at 11:06 pm

    [http://​maruoto​.com/ ????]
    [http://​maruoto​.com/ ????]
    [http://​maruoto​.com/ ??]
    [http://​maruoto​.com/ ????]

    Reply
  32. diencg says:
    September 1, 2009 at 11:07 pm

    [link=]http://maruoto.com/????[/link]
    [link=]http://maruoto.com/????[/link]
    [link=]http://maruoto.com/??[/link]
    [link=]http://maruoto.com/????[/link]

    Reply
  33. diencg says:
    September 1, 2009 at 11:07 pm

    Welcome to ????
    Welcome to ????
    Come to ??
    Come to ????

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      All the Muslims in the USA should be immediately rounded up and shot. We...
      Zandor
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
      Yeah, and every president since Reagan has proposed a Mars...
      jmatt
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
      Awesome. Now to be a *real* military contract we have to spend $40...
      jmatt
    • Keep it Simple
      Anybody who went to basic training will never forget about weight. Like...
      Big Daddy
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
      It had been a while since I came by the site- and now I...
      Mod
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      In DTI this article is credited to Sharon...
      Wembley
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Jews wasn't a threat for anyone, that's why this was a tragedie
      A.g.
    • Quick-Deploy 120mm Mortar
      The 120 is mounted in the back of a mortar track and...
      SSG Knapp 11C3O
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I am a New Yorker, and have seen the holes in the ground where...
      Sam
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "This is not the first Muslim soldier to commit treason against his...
      Sam
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • 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