Comments on: Navy Owns First Wave of Iranian Strikes

By: Bijan

Bijan — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:27:47 +0000

You are all just off the road.While there is money in the middle east this game of politic vocal war is on. the way U.S or Russia & Europe plays differs. Iran is not like Iraq or Afghanistan.All of the things all sides talking about is just game playing.When money is given ‚the other side barks like a dog.

By: SomeDude

SomeDude — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 00:39:00 +0000

Your all very stupid… Terrorists ahahahahaha, I need a minute to finish laughing… What are you all scared of? A country that’s half way across the world and has never threatened a soul? A sanctioned country that can’t even buy COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT PARTS to keep its citizens safe? You’re all watching too much Fox news my friends. A country that was torn by a war for 8 years that WE FUELED (IRAQ and IRAN war)? If god forbid any sort of attack was to happen, most of you couldn’t even put gas in your cars… Do you realize that? An attack on the second largest oil reserve IN THE WORLD… I say no and so should you! We have to solve our problems through dialogue and REAL leadership not through oppression and anger. Most of the problems in the mid-east are because of Iran-US relations.

By: Brock

Brock — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:49:49 +0000

Sunburn missiles
The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also “saw” the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.
The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.
The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.“
The Sunburn’s combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat. Implications For US Forces in the Gulf
The US Navy’s only plausible defense against a robust weapon like the Sunburn missile is to detect the enemy’s approach well ahead of time, whether destroyers, subs, or fighter-bombers, and defeat them before they can get in range and launch their deadly cargo. For this purpose US AWACs radar planes assigned to each naval battle group are kept aloft on a rotating schedule. The planes “see” everything within two hundred miles of the fleet, and are complemented with intelligence from orbiting satellites.
But US naval commanders operating in the Persian Gulf face serious challenges that are unique to the littoral, i.e., coastal, environment. A glance at a map shows why: The Gulf is nothing but a large lake, with one narrow outlet, and most of its northern shore, i.e., Iran, consists of mountainous terrain that affords a commanding tactical advantage over ships operating in Gulf waters. The rugged northern shore makes for easy concealment of coastal defenses, such as mobile missile launchers, and also makes their detection problematic. Although it was not widely reported, the US actually lost the battle of the Scuds in the first Gulf War termed “the great Scud hunt” and for similar reasons.
http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:55:44 +0000

I just realized that,terrorists are willing to kill their own and some how without bothering them, they will attack foreign countries on a whim!They operate in severe blindness of obscure
conciense etc.Who knows,what kind of signals their
brains are producing? It’s:“The mystery man.”

By: IRIS

IRIS — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:02:42 +0000

In response to Kent’s comment about history:
The U.S. ousted the democratically elected government in Iran and replaced it with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, as he was known from that point onward.
The 1979 revolution was in response to policies of the Shah, the dictator that the U.S. and many other NATO members (as you stated) supported. When he was ousted, they re-established a democratic government. But of course, since the new does not “friendly” to the United States (for obvious reasons—the Shah was rather cruel), it is branded a rogue nation for looking after its own citizens. It probably sponsors terrorism, but then I’m sure the terror organizations headquarters inside the United States and England are just for cookie parties. Isn’t that right? (I can name a few if you are interested.)
There is growing reason (and correctly so) to dislike American policies. America is a threat to world peace. Never mind that kids from a relatively younger age are indoctrinated how it defends Freedom and all, but at the end of the day, it’s just what it is—propaganda.
Why should European nations play into America’s national interests, as it so put? They have their own interests to preserve. Europe SHOULD deal with Iran. Unlike the United States, Iranian missile strikes could hit most of the European nations. They have a reason to favor cooperation over confrontation, aside from economic interests.
Next time you want to refer to history, try not to interpret it selectively.

By: Jesus (NAVY)

Jesus (NAVY) — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:12:41 +0000

I don’t undestand why all this madness in between the nations, if by any chance U.S.A goes into IRAN it will be for valuable reasons and don’t mistaken my friends it will not be easy, deffinitely a lot of blood will be lost and the iranians will have wished this never happened, the iranians are been fooled by their dictator and he will be responsible for all their deaths. It is sad to loose these many lives. The U.S.A has too many strategies to fight and will not let this war be another IRAK!

By: Jesus (NAVY)

Jesus (NAVY) — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:11:54 +0000

By: RHYNO327

RHYNO327 — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:09:47 +0000

those F-14’s have no spare parts, they are not in shape for combat at all. the Iranian air defense system will be dismantled, command and control cut off, not to mention the cyber war our geeks are capable of waging. in the air, on the water, it will be a slaughter. they want a ground war, coz thats the ONLY way they will be able to inflict casualties. i think Pakistan is a much bigger problem. the T-ban is not far from seizing power, with the help of the rogue, traitors of the ISI, they will have nuclear weapons. make contingencies for that. even thier population is hostile. nuke p-stan, the world will be a better place.

By: Sceptic

Sceptic — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:16:48 +0000

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
Sir Winston Churchill
I think the current “situation” in Iraq is yet another example proving Chruchill’s words. Vietnam would be another.
Beware the predictions of “quick and easy victory”.
Add to the mess the unknown and unpredicatable blowback that may occur long after the armed conflict is won.
Even if the planned attack on Iran goes off as planned — then what? What will disgruntled Iranians and their sympathizers get up to for revenge in the next several decades?
Given that development of a nuclear weapon is years away, the best approach now is the diplomatic one.

By: H M Sohel

H M Sohel — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:09:49 +0000

I think Iran is gonna take a part of the battle in to Iraq. As usually the might of US will bring them initial military success but then …?? what next steps US gonna do when an uprise ll be in southern Iraq led by Muktada Al Sadr?? Today Iran-Syria had an military pact. what are its implications?? Iranian Military infrastructures will be crippled but their paramilitary and IRGC those will be transform in to unconventional force equipped with quite credible homemade weapons need to be thought of. Does Iran has got Sunburn Missile with Nukes. I dont think Russians will be that stupid. But US might lose some of their key surface combatant in Navy. Any unplanned break out by US force may cause huge loss of US soldiers. They need to clear all IRGC/Iranina ground force position by successive air strikes. And US to Remember, Iran is a country of 100 millions and its not a flat country as Iraq. Lets wait for another CNN breaking News—