Home » Sea » AirSea Battle » Next-Gen Coastal Artillery

Next-Gen Coastal Artillery

by Greg on April 27, 2010

That was then.

This is now.

Above, an Iranian produced version of the C-802 anti-ship missile, concealed inside a commercial truck, from Iran’s Great Prophet 5 military exercises.

Having puffed its chest mightily during the just concluded Great Prophet 5 exercises, Iran figured it would continue in that vein and issued another one of its periodic threats asserting it holds the keys to the Strait of Hormuz. Mohammad-Nabi Habibi, secretary-general of Iran’s conservative Islamic Coalition Party, put it rather artfully: “If America goes lunatic, the children of the nation in the Islamic Republic’s armed forces would choke the West’s throat at the Strait of Hormuz.”

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Iran earlier this month, Joint Chiefs vice chair Gen. James Cartwright said if export-import dependant Iran brought Gulf shipping to a halt, they’d be choking themselves. The military leadership believes they could keep the Strait open, he added.

Some aren’t so sure. CSBA’s Andrew Krepinevich, in his report, “Why AirSea Battle?” (.pdf), says U.S. ships transiting the Gulf would face a “hornets nest” of Iranian precision weapons that can easily range the Strait, creating a potential maritime “no-go zone.” Iran is adding missiles to its “anti-access” arsenal and the Gulf’s geography favors the Iranians. For example, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy has tunneled into a cluster of islands near the Strait, building underground missile bunkers, what they call “static warships.”

Iran is thought to have several hundred anti-ship cruise missiles, including the very capable Chinese made CSS-N-2 Silkworm, with a range of 60 miles, and the CS-802 Saccade, with a range of 75 miles. Some hundreds of these missiles have been mounted on trucks. Looking at past U.S. truck hunting campaigns, 1991’s Scud missile hunt comes to mind, such weapons pose a potentially game changing challenge.

The Navy and Air Force are jointly working on a new warfighting concept called AirSea Battle intended to beat back Iranian, and of course Chinese, anti-access capabilities. To begin with, I’ll be very curious to hear how the concept defines access. Is it steaming through the Gulf in the face of Iranian anti-ship missiles or is it the ability to influence events on shore by accessing that shore?

Are traditional Marine Corps concepts of amphibious operations even operative in the face of the new generation of coastal artillery? If an enemy can dot a coastline with a few hundred missiles like the one below that can take out a small vessel or amtrac, is it even realistic to think about putting costly platforms within range of those missiles? What are the implications of these weapons on the Navy’s seabasing concept? Lots of questions in need of answers.

– Greg

Share |

{ 132 comments… read them below or add one }

DForscey April 27, 2010 at 4:10 pm

I think we clearly need a carrier launched, heavily armored ground support fighter like the Thunderbolt to deal with these missiles. Small size, camo and mobility means high altitude aircraft will have a touch time mitigating the threat. We need low level aircraft that can hug the ground, take damage, and destroy this missiles lining the coast. Our current aircraft do not fit the bill.

Reply

Alliedfighter May 4, 2010 at 3:02 pm

But our f-117, b-2, and f-22s are capeable of handling this mission with ease. Also cruise missile strikes are also an option for time sensitive targets.

Reply

Chesty Puller USMC May 5, 2010 at 6:09 am

Just nuke Iran for morbid & solve many of the problems in the middle east
they are like mad dogs & should be put down before they bite someone
enough nice guy stuff

Reply

brian April 27, 2010 at 12:16 pm

I find it deplorable using civilian transport for cover. This is clearly a violation of the laws of wars to be using unmarked military vehicles disguised as civilian transports to attack your opponents. It leaves your opponent no choice but to attack civilians to defend itself since they can't tell the military from the civilians.

Reply

Joe April 28, 2010 at 4:53 am

I will respond with a quote from JP Morgan…”Law what do I care about the law?”

Since one will be facing victor’s justice anyway and might as well be hanged for a cow as for a sheep, what use does an independent state unwilling to live under american economic, political, and social domination to do in response?

Does the FBI have a clue how many Quds force members are in deep cover in the US and or Europe? Everyone was flapping over a few guys with steel toed boots. How would they respond to coordinated terror attacks across the nation in response to an attack on Iran by Israel?

Reply

Alex -DC April 28, 2010 at 10:31 am

FBI so thoroughly infiltrated anything that even resembles any terrorist cell in the US, that there’s exactly ZERO chance of any coordinated anything from the US soil. Every time there’s an arrest, one of the memebers of the group or the guy selling them weapons and explosives is either an agent or informant. The only thing they can’t stop is an individual hellbent on one-way trip to fame and glory.

Reply

Slender Fungus May 2, 2010 at 1:00 am

Maybe they'll just hire trigger-happy mercenaries working for "security agencies" to do their bidding in unmarked SUVs. That seems to be how warlike countries do it these days…

Reply

John May 4, 2010 at 3:59 pm

Our enemies are no longer concerned with the laws of armed conflict or the Geneva/Hague Conventions. We now live in an unconventional world, and those who would violate those conventions need to be destroyed. We need to, once again, be the most feared and respected country on the face of the Earth, but we will get nowhere with a leader who bows to kings, and apologizes for what we, as a country, have accomplished.

Reply

JIMBO May 7, 2010 at 5:49 pm

I feel like a douche saying this, but how is it different from U.S military units using unmarked civilian transports (my unit used expeditions)…and that truck doesn't really look all that civilian with the giant missile and radar sticking out of the top…and there will be no civilian/military targeting issues…as soon as they try to target anything with that system any ship with an EWS will be able to counter battery target it. for the record I'm not some anti American whacko, I'm an American veteran and patriot who just saw some errors with your argument

Reply

George Gauthier April 27, 2010 at 4:30 pm

The US Marine Corps can forget about amphibious operations. High time it was folded into the Army.

Reply

CWOFOUR April 28, 2010 at 12:20 pm

Looks to me like the current Obama administration, as well as the Bush Administration, had plans to fold all the Armed Forces into the Navy – witness the military service affiliation of the last few Chairmen/Vice-Chairmen of the JCS. (Include USMC CJCS as Navy as they are part of the Department of the Navy). Of course, when you blend the service colors together you get Lavender – another stated goal of the Yobama Administration.

Reply

AlphaZJ April 28, 2010 at 4:26 pm

Wrong answer George, sorry. If it weren't for the Marines and Navy's ability to get off the ass in <12hrs and take the fight to the enemy with massive force, we'd never win a single conflict. The Army is still a 1980's Cold War artifact loaded down with buracracy and designed to fight in a different way. Their not bad, jsut not currently setup to do what the Marines and Navy do every single day all over the world.

Reply

Soupusmc April 28, 2010 at 4:16 pm

Right lets take the most highly regurded Military Branch in the US and destroy its Esprit de Corps by mixing it in with the Army. Good plan? The Army still accecpts recruits that are forced to decide between the military and jail/ prison time, the Marines no longer allow that. The world of Amphibious operations has changed, no doubt but it will never be entirely obsolite

Reply

parry April 28, 2010 at 5:50 pm

George,

The truth is the Army can't and will not deploy without their PX and comfort/quality of life log train. Maybe the Army should be re-tooled to do the job half as well as the Marines. I find your statement deplorable and disrespectful and i am glad that you have put your full name so when marine meet you thay can spit in your face you commie B4st4rd.

Reply

Riceball April 29, 2010 at 3:46 pm

Half true, what makes the Marine Corps so much more deployable than the Army that we can get a reinforced battalion sized force to anywhere with a coast line within (I believe) 48 hours that is completely self sufficient, hence the Expeditionary in Marine Expeditionary Force/Brigade, and combat ready with its own artillery, armor, and organic air support. The Army Airborne can deploy to more places and do it in about half the time that the Marines can but without the heavy equipment and armor and with only enough supplies to last a few days at best before needing to resupplied; basically a show of force and against a real enemy nothing more than a speed bump.

Reply

cruz ricardo May 4, 2010 at 6:12 am

we in the army as well can send a brigade force any where in the same amont as time as for the airborne we can be in the air in 18 hours and one more ant on airborne unit is not a speed bump it a steel wall the marines may need all the armor all the airborne needs is what we can carry

Reply

kyle May 5, 2010 at 8:54 am

the air borne are very limited when it comes to scope. You can secure a town, bridges, defensive positions. airborne don`t win wars or even battles… hard to win when you are surrounded and outnumbered… In the air in `18 hours? ok so what is the maximum range of your transport? enough to get to iran??? with out fighter escort? and then you get there with no tanks or aircraft. You are retarded

cruz ricardo May 4, 2010 at 6:04 am

are u sure cause last i check the marines as of right now are only doing half of what the army dose marines do there little 6-8 month tour while the army doing 12+ month tours it the army that take the most of the load in this war it the army has more boots on ground then all 3 of the othere brancs of the military it must be easy to sit at home and speak of what you nothing about dumb ass so before u write something know what u are talking about

Reply

Guest May 4, 2010 at 8:28 pm

Yes but you forget there is only 185,000 Marines total active duty and reserves. As well as deploying to Iraq and Afganistan there are 3 Marine Epidionary units forward deployed 24 hours a day 365 days a years as well as protecting every diplomatic post in the world.

Reply

Texas May 4, 2010 at 10:08 pm

You should refrain from commenting, before you step on your own tail..

Reply

donald101010 May 4, 2010 at 1:45 pm

The army can't organize a bake sale. They couldn't use the marine corps. They would just turn it into a bunch of cannon fodder like the rest of the army.

Reply

Tom O'Brien May 4, 2010 at 10:58 am

George,
Sounds to me you my be jelous or intimidated by my beloved gun club.
The truth of the matter is, MacArther and Truman tried to disband the Corps……and you see what happened.
As it stands each branch has a mission, and yes there is a little overlap, however to take the Corps and place it under the Department of the army would be fool hardy,certain missions would not be performed if this were to happen.

Reply

old130fe May 4, 2010 at 5:57 pm

georgie, georgie, georgie… You may want to get to the doctor's office ASAP and see if the doc has something to cure that awful case of penis envy! Your high level of penis envy has made ya blind and has severely effected your logic!! No doubt, our Army brothers can do the jobs they're assigned, they just aren't given the jobs that the Marines do better, simple as that.

A Marine took the ol' lady or the girl friend? Had to be something like that to give ya such a full blown case of pee-pee envy. Try to move on with your life, georgie, she's gone….

Semper Fi georgie… Oops, I forgot, you know nothing about the Marines! That means "Always Faithful", georgie, something that you should try to remember pal…

Reply

MP Flynn May 5, 2010 at 1:39 am

You are out of your Gohdam mind, The Marines are more than an amphibous force, they represent the best trained and largest special operation force in the world. If the shit goes down I would rather have 10 Marines than Green Berets.

Reply

Tim May 8, 2010 at 6:24 pm

Truth.

Reply

chesty puller May 5, 2010 at 6:07 am

screw u loser

Reply

Mike May 5, 2010 at 7:38 am

You're obviously not very well read.

Reply

Mike May 5, 2010 at 11:38 am

You're obviously not very well read.

Reply

Motivator May 5, 2010 at 1:46 pm

Or how about we fold the Army into the Marine Corps and actually teach them how to firght!!

Reply

Tim May 8, 2010 at 6:24 pm

Waste of time, don't need them muppets.

Reply

Dennis Joyce May 5, 2010 at 3:25 pm

are you on drugs the Marines are the Best fighting unit in the US right after the Seals.The Army is a bunch of Pussies.

Reply

Sea Shadow May 6, 2010 at 4:59 am

hahahaha, you so funny! XD

Reply

dragon May 6, 2010 at 2:54 am

Get rid of the Marine Corps? Are you ****** retarded?

Reply

kaliber50 May 8, 2010 at 8:02 pm

Another Marine Corps hating butterfly. We need the Marine Corps, we need the Navy, we the Air Force, and we need the Navy. I can understand the jealousy towards Marines and why many would like to see it "folded" into the Army. Bottomline, support the troops and support all the branches of our military. No need to envy the USMC. If you get rid of the Marines, you will only further their prestige. People will talk of "how once upon a time, the most fearsome warriors in the world got absorbed by the Army because of jealousy. But the Marines will live on regardless. You will see the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor everywhere"

Reply

Ron May 8, 2010 at 8:12 pm

Wow, this must come from someone who never wore the Eagle, Globe and Anchor. There is no way the Marines could ever be integrated with the Army. Marines have a very specific thing that they do better than the other services. Locate, close with, and destroy the enemy. Something that the Army seems to have issues with, especially when faced with a fast moving, constantly changing battlefield.

Reply

Crazy77 April 27, 2010 at 4:37 pm

With the constant political rhetoric B.S. spewed out by the illustriuos leader [wack job] of Iran is it actually a surprise that they would disguise military equiptment as civilian equiptment–this is from the same country that says their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.We need to end this s**t now.

Reply

Crazy77 April 27, 2010 at 4:55 pm

If Iran even sinks a couple of oil tankers we will have to take out a second mortgage to fill the car.DRILL BABY DRILL.

Reply

0311 & 11B4- ret April 27, 2010 at 1:00 pm

A little premature to roll up a seasoned offensive fighting force; don't people realize that the rivalry makes both services better?
Also, if you loose the USMC, there would be no amphib threat, and the Iranians would just be highlighting their abundance of SAMs.
In football, you run to set up the pass, and/or pass to set up the run; but only works if both run & pass are equally powerful, and therefore worth defending.

I suggest some remote control fiberglass EFV's (new AMTRAKs) that are nested like Russian dolls, so you can quickly fill their radar with perfectly obvious threats, they waste missiles, while we jump the Army in looking a lot like Normandy in function and task.

Reply

Pat April 27, 2010 at 5:19 pm

How effective are RAMs and Phalanx systems at defending against these sorts of threats? Also, how effective is their air defence system? I don't have that much familiarity with either. Would an airborne operation preceding an amphibious landing be a viable option (a la Normandy '44)?

Reply

Alex -DC April 28, 2010 at 10:03 am

Phalanx is very effective against this old crap. And Raytheon gets new orders for Phalanx all the time, meaning they are improving them. Essentially Silkworm has about as much chance of significantly damaging a US Navy ship that is in a defensive posture as a real silkworm. However, that’s not the point they are making.

Reply

Locarno April 29, 2010 at 9:17 am

C-802 is Saccade, not Silkworm – it's a damn sight more modern and has been compared, favourably, to Harpoon, and it's also being improved all the time. The one field of military equipment that ex-soviet and chinese designers have a very good performance history in is rocketry and missiles.

Writing it off as 'old crap' is asking to get an unexpected bloody nose.

However, as you noted, it's not shooting them at a USN ship that's really the concern, it's shooting them at the thing said USN ship is escorting. Especially if the ship is being asked to protect an unarmed, unarmoured merchantman rather than itself – Phalanx is, as noted, very good at point defence when its sitting on the point in question but I'm not aware of it having much history for deflection shooting on behalf of another ship.

Reply

Locarno April 29, 2010 at 9:17 am

Remember only the big boys currently carry RAM point defence missiles, and that in the ranges involved in the straits, the launcher will quite possibly already be inside a Standard's minimum range at the point of launch if it's coming from bunker-ed up islands.

As to effectiveness – the short answer is we don't know. The Israeli ship Hanit certainly carries a modern air warfare fit, and it certainly didn't stop a C-802, but the Israeli navy claims its defences were turned off at the time. Read what you want into that.

Reply

Chris May 4, 2010 at 5:18 pm

The CIWS is a close in weapons system, so it's a last ditch defense, missiles would be used before the CIWS was deployed or large guns. The CIWS system carries enough ammo for about 6 bursts, after that you need to reload, and that takes some time. If you throw enough missiles at a ship, some WILL get through. The CIWS is not designed to stop a missile rather to detonate it's warhead before it reaches it's target, so even when it's successful the target ship will take collateral damage, not enough to sink a ship, but definitely enough to foul up your electronics etc.

Reply

Chuck May 5, 2010 at 6:03 am

Don't forget the RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow. That missiles can be put in quad packs on the Mk 48 Vertical Launch System. A new destroyer carries around 32 ESSM missiles per ship. ESSM can defend a much larger area also. At least 10 miles according to Jane's. Add in RAM with 21 missiles per launcher, and you can begin to handle a lot of in-coming missiles. An F/A-18E with 12 AIM-120C and -120D AMRAAMs and AESA radars are capable of handling cruise missiles also. Of course, once a missile is launched we can track back to the launcher to eliminate it with naval gunfire or bombs if needed. I suspect any radars would be prime targets for Block IV TLAMs, so they would need visual aiming. Of course we could just fry the electronics on the missiles with the SPY-1 radar or the AESA radars on the F/A-18s.

Reply

Jeff N April 27, 2010 at 5:20 pm

Thats just silly. The marine corp have a specialized function that the army just isn't organized to deal with. If anything the Marines should be spun out from the Navy. The Navy made entirely a blue water fleet. Giving the marines direct control of litoral ships and operations, giving them direct and complete organizational control of their battlefield. This would end the Navy's neglect of the Marines mission while solving the Navy's fleet size and mission schizophrenia thats left it trying to do too much.

Reply

Riceball April 28, 2010 at 3:17 pm

Just to clarify a common misconception, the Marine Corps is NOT part of the Navy, it is a separate branch of the US military under the DEPT. of the Navy. This means that the Commandant of the Marine Corps answers the Secretary of the Navy, not the Chief of Naval Operations.

Reply

Jeff N April 27, 2010 at 5:22 pm

They can't really afford to. They import nearly everything; any blockade would choke them. They'd be cutting off their nose to spite their face while shooting themselves in the foot. Would it be expensive for companies, yes, but it wouldn't take much to wait them out.

Reply

JanZizka April 27, 2010 at 1:42 pm

"If Iran even sinks a couple of oil tankers…."

I really doubt they are that stupid…but who knows. If they start interrupting the flow of oil they'll be sorry they did. Drilling is not going to get us off the Middle East oil tit…..that's like one more hit for a heroin addict. Time to find an alternative period. That way we can finally tell them to all get f"ckd and leave them to killing each other.

Reply

BAJ April 27, 2010 at 6:50 pm

Yet another reason to develop our own oil fields in our own backyard. Heck, we can spend a portion of the savings having to protect everyones elses butts in the Gulf on enviromental protections to save the spotted owl and blue whales. Double heck, spend the savings on the next evolution of energy independence.
Cut this embilical cord for good. Let them drink their oil.

Reply

0311 & 11B4- ret April 27, 2010 at 3:21 pm

A little premature to roll up a seasoned offensive fighting force; don't people realize that the rivalry makes both services better?
Also, if you loose the USMC, there would be no amphib threat, and the Iranians would just be highlighting their abundance of SAMs.
In football, you run to set up the pass, and/or pass to set up the run; but only works if both run & pass are equally powerful, and therefore worth defending.

I suggest some remote control fiberglass EFV's (new AMTRAKs) that are nested like Russian dolls, so you can quickly fill their radar with perfectly obvious threats, they waste missiles, while we jump in the Army, looking a lot like Normandy.
That is of course we ever are presented with the actual need. I get the feeling they are really trying to appear strong, because they are militarily weak, and know they would see the big white battle flags of the Iraqi Army being used by their own divisions.

Reply

Bret April 27, 2010 at 7:24 pm

This seems to be the consensus. Actually, when one examines a map of Iran and it's neighbors, one will notice that none of Iran's allies are bordering with them; if they are blockaded, they're in big trouble. Thus, I am beginning to agree with this view (unless they increase their presence in the Caspian).

Reply

Bret April 27, 2010 at 7:26 pm

This is a good question, but I do not know the answer. Iran's recent wargames emphasize small craft. Could a Phalanx be modified to wipe these seacraft out?

Reply

Alex -DC April 28, 2010 at 10:08 am

Phalanx CIWS is a fast-reaction terminal defense against low- and high-flying, high-speed maneuvering anti-ship missile threats that have penetrated all other defenses.

All other defenses will take care of extrememly vulnerable small, relatively slow boats.

Reply

MikeE April 27, 2010 at 8:47 pm

Nobody could afford to start WWI, either, but that didn't stop them…

Reply

Matt Holzmann April 27, 2010 at 10:25 pm

we still have a fairly large inventory of B-52's. The mix of these, tactical strike aircraft and smart weapons would sort of accomplish what we did in 1991 in Iraq.

After the first couple of waves, their defenses would probably be sufficiently degraded to enforce some sort of peace settlement. Maybe we could take out a few large concentrations of Pasdaran; just enough to give the opposition a fighting chance.

Reply

Bob April 27, 2010 at 10:31 pm

They can strangle the straits and traffic through them. There is not much we can do about it. We no longer have a 1000 ship navy like WW2. It would not be worth the casualities. We need to wean ourselves of oil anyway. Solar and wind driven energy are the way to go, and much more earth friendly. Global warming is a bigger threat than Iran.

Reply

praetorian April 28, 2010 at 5:24 pm

You mean the natural warming and cooling of the earth that has been going on for 4.5 billion years. Or are you saying that the volcano in Iceland was man made? Scientists cant even prove global warming is man made let alone agree with one another on the subject. The biggets threat would be from the goverment taxing U.S. citizens for climate control, when other countries like China & India will be on status quo. Anyway back to D.T.

Reply

John May 4, 2010 at 3:54 pm

Bob:
How do you lubricate those wind and sea-wave energy-producing turbines? Oil. How do you make plastics? Oil. How to you keep any metal objects from overheating when rubbed together? Oil. I can just see it now: The Indianapolis Solar 500. Wow, that would be exciting now, wouldn't it? I believe that we can reduce our needs from the middle east by drilling here, but we will never be rid of our dependence on oil in some shape or another.

Reply

Bret April 27, 2010 at 7:26 pm

Good point.

If conflict existed, these methods would frustrate the people of Iran.

Reply

mmacc April 27, 2010 at 11:57 pm

solar & wind- you are kidding right? They cost far more than any alternative & cannot power a modern state. Even ignoring cost you can't get more than 20% of your grid from wind (ask the Danes). Better hope a breakthru in extracting shale oil occurs.

Reply

Ross April 28, 2010 at 12:40 am

pffft…inexpensive little boats with phalanx on and sensors for that stuff.

send a bunch of them into the straights, let the iranians expend their ammunition – missiles arent cheap or quick to produce and stock.

i should so totally be in the Pentagon. lol.

More seriously though; the energy issue discussed by bob and mmacc:

Wind is mostly useless at this time (example here in the UK barely anyone can have personal ones supplying their homes unless u are in only some coastal areas). Solar is however becoming more and more feasible every year and even with relatively low amounts of sunlight can generate decent amounts of energy for personal consumption.

Reply

pleuris April 27, 2010 at 10:59 pm

My guess is that the secondary mission of the Phalanx system is to destroy small vessels. The newest systems have IR tracking so I think that it's easier to track small boats speeding at 60kp/h then small diameter supersonic missiles. For example the patriot system has a homing on jam function on its PAC 2 missiles, IIRC.

Reply

Sev April 28, 2010 at 3:13 am

Why dont we just go nuclear. Of all energy sources its by far the most practical and economical. And when the fuel is used up, make some bombs and stockpile em. Iran is asking for a whooping. We are the graetest militayr force in the world for a reason. We just need to cut the PC bs and get some leaders with balls and we can wipe Iran out. We could level the entire country if we damn well wanted to

Reply

Alex -DC April 28, 2010 at 10:12 am

We can’t go nuclear precisely because of the PC bs. Going off on a completely unrelated tangent, look at the debt and deficit, everyone knows that you need to raise taxes and cut spending DRAMATICALLY. Why has not it happened? Because it’s political suicide. So is pushing hard for nuclear reactors in your constituents backyard.

Reply

sail4evr April 29, 2010 at 3:40 am

It's called genocide when you wipe out the entire civilian population

Reply

Tim April 28, 2010 at 3:15 am

This stuff is silly. Looking at the way the missile leaves the container and how the driver could be toasted makes one wonder if this is just Iranian version of Russian bravado.

Reply

MDB April 28, 2010 at 5:58 pm

Actually, it is a very clever design and not to be sneered at. The Argentinians did a similar, if more basic, conversion of an Exocet fired from the shore on a truck that heavily damaged a British destroyer.

Reply

rickardh May 4, 2010 at 2:44 pm

Did not the Argentinians sink a large (900ft) vessel full of tents. This was done as I remember with an Exocet. The Brits turned to vessel broadsides to the exocet while the carrier turned away reducing its profile. Nice bit of seamanship if it was intentionally done.

Reply

Pat April 28, 2010 at 6:18 am

I'm pretty sure there's a flip-down blast shield over the front of the truck. Look closely at the photo, there appears to be something there.

Reply

Locarno April 29, 2010 at 9:32 am

Yup, the normal looking 'top flap' from the truck folds down over the windscreen as a blast shield at the same time the sides unfold to reveal the missile launcher.

Clearly the IRG has selected the appropriate M.A.S.K. operatives for this mission….

Reply

Dave April 30, 2010 at 3:00 pm

A M.A.S.K reference! I've never commented here before but epic reply!

Reply

Chimp April 28, 2010 at 6:27 am

Solar energy is:
a) useless for most purposes (not grid friendly, *far* too low density)
b) not now used as a crude oil replacement (and when we talk energy and the Straits of Hormuz, we're talking oil).

Any viable means of replacing Middle Eastern crude oil is decades away. Problems in the region impact oil supplies for the US. Oil supplies are a critical issue for the US.

Any military threat to oil supplies IMHO constitutes casus belli.

Reply

Alex -DC April 28, 2010 at 10:17 am

Does not mean we can’t be working hard to eliminate foreign oil dependency. There’s another 300 mile range $90k sports car coming online soon out of Cali. Both them and Tesla are planning to use that as a foothold to start selling electrics for broader market. There’s leaf and Volt as well. And by the way, since when solar/wind and oil started being interchangeable? Oil is gasoline and chemicals, I yet to hear about a wind powered car. Our electricity is gas/coal/nuclear.
And NASA and DOE are now building buildings that take NO ENERGY from the grid. Look it up.

Reply

Ross April 28, 2010 at 1:15 pm

Indeed Rudy. The US is actually one of the nations with the smallest reliance on the ME for its oil. It has traditionally been a market for the europeans.

However even a small percentage is still large, and even if you are not *that* involved it will still harm you as Iran has the ability to ruin oil prices on an international level.

Reply

usmilitaryretired April 28, 2010 at 9:28 am

What defines a "military" truck? Although the cab of the one pictured is white, the rest of the truck appears to be sand colored, just like many of our combat vehicles. The Iranians have merely adapted a commercial truck for military use just like our own military has. Remember the CUCV (commercial utility cargo vehicle) pickups and Chevy Blazers? The vehicle pictured also has a blast shield lowered in front of the windshield, which is normally stored over the cab. Another adaptation for military use as a missile launching platform. What color is a military truck supposed to be? Look at the militaries around the world and you'll find all sorts of colors.

Reply

usmilitaryretired April 28, 2010 at 1:28 pm

What defines a "military" truck? Although the cab of the one pictured is white, the rest of the truck appears to be sand colored, just like many of our combat vehicles. The Iranians have merely adapted a commercial truck for military use just like our own military has. Remember the CUCV (commercial utility cargo vehicle) pickups and Chevy Blazers? The vehicle pictured also has a blast shield lowered in front of the windshield, which is normally stored over the cab. Another adaptation for military use as a missile launching platform. What color is a military truck supposed to be? Look at the militaries around the world and you'll find all sorts of colors.

Reply

usmilitaryretired April 28, 2010 at 1:29 pm

I'm more in agreement, though, with the General who said Iran would be strangling themselves if they shut down the Strait of Hormuz. And it works both ways. Why wait for the Iranians to shut it down? We could shut it down ourselves and strangle Iran. Sure, oil prices would spike, but the Iranians wouldn't be receiving the money. They also wouldn't be receiving refined gasoline, which would affect them rather quickly. Iran may be flush with oil but they don't have the refining capacity to support their own needs. That has to be re-imported, and guess how? Through the Straits of Hormuz.

Read more: Next-Gen Coastal Artillery | Defense Tech

Reply

usmilitaryretired April 28, 2010 at 1:29 pm

In order for an anti-ship missile to lock on to a target over the horizon, it has to receive targeting coordinates from another source. If it is fired "in-the-blind," then it will lock onto the first target of opportunity that comes into its view (which may be one fo their own ships), meaning it will be emitting a radar signal that can be detected, alerting the US ship to the threat, and then countermeasures can be deployed. Orbiting Predators and other eyes-in-the-sky may detect the launch, further alerting ships in the gulf. Once detected, the launcher can be targeted and destroyed, preventing a reload and further use.

Reply

Wiccanwolf April 28, 2010 at 2:02 pm

We do have the A-10 Thunderbolt II, great at taking out tanks, camel jockeys and other scum.

Reply

Thunderhead April 28, 2010 at 4:51 pm

Had a coworker who'd served in the USN. They had an anti-ship missile up on the launch rail doing a PM. The guy doing the tech got on the wrong pins of the circular connector and managed to launch the missile. No one got hurt, but the ship went out looking for debris. The pulled into several ports and making discreet inquires into any recently gone missing fishing boats.

Reply

SkysoldierRecon April 28, 2010 at 7:07 pm

airpower will destroy these trucks, and any other SAM threat. We can kill the Iranian "navy" b 4 it leaves harbor. No doubt there will be Spec. Ops teams on the ground also. Bomb thier 1 gas refinery, and they are DONE. Hope 4 the best, prepare 4 the worst.

Reply

Jeff April 28, 2010 at 7:13 pm

I think Iran might be crazy enough to try it (any follower of the 12 Iman isn't necessarily logical) but the US would only need ~ week to destroy most of their Navy, Airforce, and coastal defenses with precision weapons. Bunker busters should be used on all High Command (military and civilian). Plus an airborne assault would probably be necessary to permanently shut down their island forts.
As for energy we should convert 100% of coal, oil, and gas generated electricity to nuclear power (Recycling the waste eliminates ~98% of it the rest decays away in ~200 years) . Use the saved coal to make synthetic diesel via the Fischer–Tropsch process (cost ~$0.80 a gallon) for vehicles. The synthetic fuel is ultraclean emmision. Only allow diesel cars to be made after 2015. Heck with this plan it would lower total US carbon emission ~50% but the environmentalist nuts hate nuclear and coal so it will never happen.

Reply

rickardh May 4, 2010 at 3:10 pm

So much thought; so little time.

13th Imam, maybe?

Re: coal. Illinois has more coal energy underground than all the oil energy in the Persian Gulf. Bring on the conversion process.

I just read an article somewhere about the 'energy density' of electric batteries. The physics says that we NEVER will be able to put enough batteries in a car to power up and get anywhere. So the author said.

There was a brief news micro-burst about a cancer scientist who put salted water in a microwave over. What he got was ‘disassociated’ ??? hydrogen. The doctor was in Eire, Pa. The idea was transferred to Penn State and the U.S. military is picking up the tab to study the possibility of scaling up production.

Reply

Alex -DC April 28, 2010 at 4:02 pm

In other news today Iranian authorities threatened to start arresting tanned women. Possibly to avert some kind of a natural disaster.

Reply

MDB April 28, 2010 at 6:05 pm

Actually, a visual bearing in reasonable visibilty will do fine if no radar is available. If it is against a VLCC 10 miles offshore, very easy. Against a warship, much more difficult given the decoys, jamming and CIWS systems available today – however the danger of a missile 'fly through' when the warship seduces the missile away from itself but into the path of a commercial target is ever present.

Reply

Chieftain April 29, 2010 at 1:32 pm

I can only thing of one acronym. HARM.

Updated to respond to any acquisition by the fire control of the missile/rocket's launch site, and take it out. It worked for anti aircraft, it should work for ground based guided missiles.

The Scuds in Iraq I is used as the example. It is not analogous. The SCUDs were unguided, hence no capability to counter on that capability.

Iran and North Korea, both led by Despots with serious personal psychiatric problems. That is exactly why they are so dangerous.

Go figure.

Reply

gdw2 May 4, 2010 at 10:44 am

Here we go again with a bunch of filthy rich, uneducated, camel turd chasing idiots acting like children with a loaded gun. These clowns have no idea what we and some of our allies are really capable of and if they are then I say give them what they want and send them all to Alla's house. They are still thinking in the WWII-Cold War era. We are a couple of levels ahead of them in that game. Trust me, if these guys were to try to cut off the EU's oil then EVERYONE over there and here too would be pointing everything at them and pulling the trigger.

Reply

The Olddog May 4, 2010 at 1:38 pm

I'd call this thing a single shot MLRS, because the launcher could be pulled and replaced in 10 minutes (even if the connections and hard-points are a half-aXX design.)
It was very nice of their media to provide such a good photo. It shouldn't be too hard ID from a Predator. The blast sheld rigid pivot arms are mounted on the front of the roof and will be easy to see. The container top appears to be accordioned to the rear (it may be fabric). The sides are folded to the rear. (All these joints should be easy to see in IR an hour after sundown).
And the hydraulic leveling jacks are mounted below the cargo bed. Once you ID the vehicle it will be fairly easy to track it's location.
The satelite up link suggests that the missle would get it's launch targeting info from a remote radar, which has to be line-of-sight and thus easy to find.

Reply

Frank May 4, 2010 at 2:02 pm

It is past time to develop a retaliatory weapon to artillery, be it old style or missile. Well over 50 years ago, before my nine years service, high school physics class taught projectile motion. With all the improvements in infra-red, radar and computers since that time, there still not a proper return fire weapon in use. During the battle of Kosovo we could have placed a radar and computer that would have tracked an incoming round, targeted the coordinates and had a return round on the way before it hit.
It is in the realm reality that it can be designed and built in months. With this new threat from Iran. It should be done and put on every warship. It would simply be a you launch one and you receive one before you move type of thing.
There is no great mystery to this, MIT or GA Techs Physics department can give the need info to the Engineering Dept the week after given the problem and it could be built from things now in inventory. All we need is some one in charge that knows that there are enemies and don't mind offending them to the point of death.

Reply

Steve May 4, 2010 at 2:53 pm

If they start anyting, their ability to traget & coordinate attacks will be the first to go. Once they are reduced to "fire & forget" mode, they just become a nuisance.

Hopefully it will never come to that, but dumber things have been done before.

Reply

glebur May 4, 2010 at 3:05 pm

Compare the anti-ship Iranian capability to the anti-tank Hamaz capability. A small, decentralized force wit hhigh tech weaponary fighting against a conventional-war organized national military. Just as the Israeli Merkava suffered a non sustainable attrition rate, so would ANY Navy sailing into such a small, non manuaverable AO suffer a similiar fate. Dug in, 2-3 person anti-ship missile sites would be impossible to detect.. Landing ground forces to dig out these positions would result in bayonet vs. bayonet, resulting in a high casuality rate, with little to nothing to show for it.
Stop Iran NOW, before it is too late
Unfortunately, the ONLY winnable scenario is to resort to bypassing the "front" of these decentralized forces, and to strike mightt, you have no might. When a country goes as far as Iran, it is time to use that might in the interests of the greater good.
What is the difference of the U.S. nuclear umbrella holding the Soviet Union at bay for 50 years, and preventing Iran from achieving a threat level to the U.S. and the world? None.
In this case, there is no "mutually assured destruction". It is just IRANIAN assured destruction.
.

Reply

TargetWeary May 4, 2010 at 3:53 pm

Before we call their bluff, let's make sure we have some unmanned amall surface vessels that display like tankers on the Iranian radar screens. They would be a bargain if they only diverted a single missle from a high value target.

Reply

Nick May 4, 2010 at 4:29 pm

Not only is tracking radar available and in use, but, we have the capability to counter enemy tracking by lobbing, for lack of a better term, curveballs of rocket artillery to throw them off. They counterfire that and they're off target by at least a kilometer or two.

Reply

old130fe May 4, 2010 at 6:20 pm

Iranian's please note…. It ain't like we didn't have some real tough threats when we decided to destroy the Iraqi army. Obviously, we're well aware of this little "speed bump". I'm quite certain that you'll be thoroughly surprised when the Marines get to Iran and have the cold steel of their gun barrels in contact with any/every Iranian head that cannot or will not understand this EXCELLENT advice, "Do NOT fuck with the United States Marines. You WILL die poor and tired"

Please refer to Iraq & Afghanistan for further information…

Reply

blight May 4, 2010 at 8:50 pm

Yes, we shall be in Richmond before supper! Advance on Manassas!

Reply

glebur May 4, 2010 at 3:09 pm

Compare the anti-ship Iranian capability to the anti-tank Hamaz capability. A small, decentralized force wit hhigh tech weaponary fighting against a conventional-war organized national military. Just as the Israeli Merkava suffered a non sustainable attrition rate, so would ANY Navy sailing into such a small, non manuaverable AO suffer a similiar fate. Dug in, 2-3 person anti-ship missile sites would be impossible to detect.. Landing ground forces to dig out these positions would result in bayonet vs. bayonet, resulting in a high casuality rate, with little to nothing to show for it.
Unfortunately, the ONLY winnable scenario is to resort to bypassing the "front" of these decentralized forces. When a country goes as far as Iran, it is time to use might in the interests of the greater good.
What is the difference of the U.S. nuclear umbrella holding the Soviet Union at bay for 50 years, and preventing Iran from achieving a threat level to the U.S. and the world? None.
In this case, there is no "mutually assured destruction". It is just IRANIAN assured destruction.
.

Reply

rickardh May 4, 2010 at 3:20 pm

US forces in Viet Nam had counter battery fire artillery radar in country in 1967-68. Use to hear it go off all the time "back in the day." The 155s would open up and blast 'em.

Reply

Sarge May 4, 2010 at 7:34 pm

Firstly, Iran won't act or react the way we would generally or logically imagine in any given situation. This is because they are "different" than us in so many cultural, social, economic, spiritual and political ways that it defies debate amongst ourselves to grasp even the least common denominator. Therefore, defeating or neutralizing this adversary is quite beyond the scope of a supressive action of military or political nature. Furthermore, the person or culture that resolves this would take a very high place on the very short list of epochal shapers.

Reply

Sarge May 4, 2010 at 7:34 pm

Firstly, Iran won't act or react the way we would generally or logically imagine in any given situation. This is because they are "different" than us in so many cultural, social, economic, spiritual and political ways that it defies debate amongst ourselves to grasp even the least common denominator. Therefore, defeating or neutralizing this adversary is quite beyond the scope of a supressive action of military or political nature. Furthermore, the person or culture that resolves this would take a very high place on the very short list of epochal shapers.

Reply

Sarge May 4, 2010 at 7:34 pm

Firstly, Iran won't act or react the way we would generally or logically imagine in any given situation. This is because they are "different" than us in so many cultural, social, economic, spiritual and political ways that it defies debate amongst ourselves to grasp even the least common denominator. Therefore, defeating or neutralizing this adversary is quite beyond the scope of a supressive action of military or political nature. Furthermore, the person or culture that resolves this would take a very high place on the very short list of epochal shapers.

Reply

Terry L. Burgess May 4, 2010 at 4:16 pm

Sorry Guys! Won't happen with this President. [IF] it does he will apologize to the World for it, blame it on George W. and then tell our enemies where they are and how to destroy them.

Good luck with all thoughs dreams till 2012! Maybe even 2016?

Reply

blight May 4, 2010 at 4:46 pm

It's the key reaction in the pure sodium + water explosion. Pure sodium and water gives you sodium hydroxide and hydrogen gas. Highly exothermic and highly explosive.

I've yet to hear of using mere sodium chloride, so I'm a little skeptical.

Reply

blight May 4, 2010 at 8:46 pm

It's the key reaction in the pure sodium + water explosion. Pure sodium and water gives you sodium hydroxide and hydrogen gas. Highly exothermic and highly explosive.

I've yet to hear of using mere sodium chloride, so I'm a little skeptical.

Reply

blight May 4, 2010 at 4:55 pm

To Ranger-12: Gonna buy me a Geiger counter and some scalping knives, yeehaw!

Why are you people so eager to fire off nukes again? Should be glad the Soviets weren't as trigger happy as you yeehaws seem to be. Depending on the quantity of nuclear weapons, I imagine the fallout cloud landing on Dubai and Saudi Arabia will not be well-received.

I think they'll just conceal anti-ship missiles in coastal villages, or maybe even fishing boats and oil rigs, then fire them on passing American vessels. They will start the war at the moment of their choosing, and use surprise to cause maximum damage.

I suppose one could invade Iran from Afghanistan, but I imagine Pakistan and the other 'stans we get our supplies through will cut us off.

Reply

blight May 4, 2010 at 8:55 pm

To Ranger-12: Gonna buy me a Geiger counter and some scalping knives, yeehaw!

Why are you people so eager to fire off nukes again? Should be glad the Soviets weren't as trigger happy as you yeehaws seem to be. Depending on the quantity of nuclear weapons, I imagine the fallout cloud landing on Dubai and Saudi Arabia will not be well-received.

I think they'll just conceal anti-ship missiles in coastal villages, or maybe even fishing boats and oil rigs, then fire them on passing American vessels. They will start the war at the moment of their choosing, and use surprise to cause maximum damage.

I suppose one could invade Iran from Afghanistan, but I imagine Pakistan and the other 'stans we get our supplies through will cut us off.

Reply

trooperG May 4, 2010 at 9:30 pm

To Ranger 12. Are you stupid? You don't nuke an oil field. That oil would be radioactive for centuries.

Reply

jake May 4, 2010 at 5:45 pm

It looks like the rear doors when opened cover the tarp enclosure. Thea's enclosures are quite common. the shield that covers the windshield will be the dead giveaway from aerial reconnaissance, and second will be the hydro-lick rams that are mounted to the frame. But do not think for one minute that they will not have other variations that are not known. It is always good not to under estimate ones adversary.

Reply

N. Glenn May 4, 2010 at 6:12 pm

Here we go again–hiding military armament in civilian disguise! How to ensure we must totally annihilate their country and people, rather than just the military, when/if we must take action! They keep making veiled threats against us and less veiled so against Israel, as if we are the cause of all the world's ills.

As far as the nuclear materials they desire, I think we should give them all they want, USAF special-delivery style! A bunker-buster to proceed and ensure on-the-spot accurate delivery down to the level most practical! Then, see if they wanna rattle them sabers any more!

Reply

N. Glenn May 4, 2010 at 10:12 pm

Here we go again–hiding military armament in civilian disguise! How to ensure we must totally annihilate their country and people, rather than just the military, when/if we must take action! They keep making veiled threats against us and less veiled so against Israel, as if we are the cause of all the world's ills.

As far as the nuclear materials they desire, I think we should give them all they want, USAF special-delivery style! A bunker-buster to proceed and ensure on-the-spot accurate delivery down to the level most practical! Then, see if they wanna rattle them sabers any more!

Reply

Sarge May 4, 2010 at 7:34 pm

Firstly, Iran won't act or react the way we would generally or logically imagine in any given situation. This is because they are "different" than us in so many cultural, social, economic, spiritual and political ways that it defies debate amongst ourselves to grasp even the least common denominator. Therefore, defeating or neutralizing this adversary is quite beyond the scope of a supressive action of military or political nature. Furthermore, the person or culture that resolves this would take a very high place on the very short list of epochal shapers.

Reply

Sarge May 4, 2010 at 7:34 pm

Secondly, after the evidence of Viet Nam, all of the middle east conflicts, and all of the insurgencies ever documented, we can be assured of never knowing what the results or developments of human conflict will be. This is because we are a clever species with a strong will to survive and prevail, and usually have to be killed to be stopped with certainty. Plus, the contagious nature of human emotional response to the ecstasy and horror of conflict ensures that we will never run out of enemies and champions. Therefore, we will find that unless we kill all of our enemies (a social calculus suggests that only one human would thus remain alive) we cannot assume a secure situation in any scenario.

Reply

Sarge May 4, 2010 at 7:35 pm

Finally, we have certainly strayed too far into the habit of BOOB (believing our own bullshit). Our warriors (God bless them, I am a 23-year vet) are not always the best, smartest, bravest, most honorable, or most heroic. Therefore, much of the battle with Iran would be assessing and mitigating our own shortcomings. A famous soldier stated 2000 years ago that he "… feared more our own mistakes, than any plans of the enemy…" In summary, we cannot claim victory on any level (tactical, or strategic) if we simply continue to shuffle the deck of problems. For instance, reducing the threat of Iranian missles, but increasing the threat of Iranian unconventional power, occupation as invaders who commit mistakes and atrocities and alienate the indigenous populations, or declaring limited military goals and allowing the survivors to regroup and respawn stronger and smarter.
When we decide as a nation it is time to eliminate problems, then we will have a lasting peace–we certainly will never see it if we wait our enemies to just give us victory.

Reply

Helorider May 6, 2010 at 5:18 pm

Sarge. You've listed all the things you say you are not. But I say you are enough of all the things you have listed. Good comments well said.

Reply

Ranger-12 May 4, 2010 at 8:00 pm

Build up the inventory of cruise and other long range missiles that can be programmed launched and sent to the target; we could use a few warheads that will make them glow in the dark. Clean out the shore installations. When this is done use some of five thousand plus nuke war heads on their land base and naval port. Them send them a message and ask them if they want to talk peace if not continue working on their country until it looks like it did about 5000 BC.
This is how I would solve the problem once and for all

Reply

raptor001 May 4, 2010 at 8:10 pm

We have been at war with Iran since 1979 when these Dumbasses attacked our EMBASSY an Act of war for any country but MR Peanut says i am so sorry.
Well now we have to pay the piper for being cowards at that time. Iran is twice as dangerous as any other 3rd world country in the world. only 2 ways to deal with these idiots Nuc em till they glow and turn them over and use the for run way lights. 2. just bomb the shit out of them until all they have left is sticks and stones. LEVEL THEM

Reply

blight May 4, 2010 at 8:46 pm

It's the key reaction in the pure sodium + water explosion. Pure sodium and water gives you sodium hydroxide and hydrogen gas. Highly exothermic and highly explosive.

I've yet to hear of using mere sodium chloride, so I'm a little skeptical.

Reply

blight May 4, 2010 at 8:55 pm

To Ranger-12: Gonna buy me a Geiger counter and some scalping knives, yeehaw!

Why are you people so eager to fire off nukes again? Should be glad the Soviets weren't as trigger happy as you yeehaws seem to be. Depending on the quantity of nuclear weapons, I imagine the fallout cloud landing on Dubai and Saudi Arabia will not be well-received.

I think they'll just conceal anti-ship missiles in coastal villages, or maybe even fishing boats and oil rigs, then fire them on passing American vessels. They will start the war at the moment of their choosing, and use surprise to cause maximum damage.

I suppose one could invade Iran from Afghanistan, but I imagine Pakistan and the other 'stans we get our supplies through will cut us off.

Reply

john r May 4, 2010 at 9:50 pm

A few nukes in the right places will get their Hearts and Minds on the right path.

Reply

MIGUEL A MARTINEZ M May 5, 2010 at 12:12 am

the importance of a well prepared costal defence air sea detwction first responce conter,
against all tipes of treats.
is the well prepared.

Reply

Mr ED May 5, 2010 at 12:49 am

Yah sure, 'Merucans. Go USA!! You clowns still don't get it. Israel is pushing you into another war and you go for it every time. SUCKERS!!!!!

Remember Iraq and WMD. No, 'cause you memory is as thin as your wallets.
How's that job going for yah!!!! What no job. Keep watching the Tele Vitz!!

Reply

amgrnt May 5, 2010 at 1:54 am

all this from a country whose president swears the holocaust didnt happen and that breasts cause earthquakes

Reply

Chuck May 5, 2010 at 6:37 am

Seems like money spent on about 40 more B-2s and another 120 F-22s would have been well spent. Probably less than $60 billion all told. Spread over 10 years, we wouldn't have to worry about Iran then. And to think we wasted $875 billion on the stimulus package. I also think that aptly named "Slender Fungus" probably isn't thankful that not one of our diplomats protected by then-Black Water were killed in Iraq. He probably is not familiar with the SECRET SERVICE which typically deos not wear uniforms as with much of Diplomatic Security. Which begs the question, what does he know?

Reply

Bill Edwards May 6, 2010 at 1:03 pm

Predator drones? done & over.

Reply

Mack May 7, 2010 at 10:22 am

IRAN is a threat and will continue on their road to nuclear weapons. Their massive under ground tunnels and military power are growing. They do have chinese and russian missles and are spending the money on improving their weapon systems and technology at a rapid pace. To diss Iran would be foolish, as would be to diss China. To just stat that the US can thrawt anything is unrealistic. We are a great power, but nothing is absolute.

Reply

Ullr May 8, 2010 at 11:35 am

I can't believe almost everyone here is worried about Iran's new anti-ship missile defense. When the bigger picture here is North Korea. Where still technically at war with them! They sunk 1 of S.K's frigates in March killing 44sailors. N.K. has a stockpile of thousands of missiles of different types & kill radius. They test fired a nuclear warhead underground a few months ago. To show the world there act of defiance against the West (meaning us in America). Plus, there scientists are building several more. I say Iran can wait, lets start a blitzkrieg type tactic on N.K. (how Germany did in ww2 on France).

Use a combination of special forces, 82nd airborne & the marines. Supported by naval fire & 24/7 aerial bombing by the USAF. Eventually Kim Jong-il will surrender to us.

Reply

blight May 8, 2010 at 10:40 pm

Most people don't envision having to die for their country during a war until it comes to their doorstep. If the South doesn't do anything, then the United States won't either. It's that "[Asian country name] boys dying for their country" argument all over again.

Reply

Jim May 13, 2010 at 7:59 am

"How effective are RAMs and Phalanx systems at defending against these sorts of threats? "

As a former Navy sailor stationed on an aircraft carrier armed with Phalanx systems, I can tell you they are VERY effective. 20mm shells aren't exactly what one might call puny. And when they are being fired at a target at a rate of 6000 rounds per minute, whatever the radar locks onto is, in layman's terms, screwed. I am now currently serving in the Army and we have the same system for missle defense at our bases in the Middle East. Very effective there, too. Similar role.

Reply

Battlefield 4 Naval Strike Keygen March 29, 2014 at 9:25 am

I got this website from my pal who informed me
regarding this web site and now this time I am visiting this website and reading very informative posts at this place.

Reply

brian April 27, 2010 at 8:09 pm

Right because mad men are known to be perfectly reasonable things, like crack down on skimpy outfits to reduce earthquakes. I think that your arguments have merits if the actors are somewhat sane, but that's a rather big assumption. Sane people don't run their country the way Iran is. For them impoverishing their people by blocking the straits may even be a plus.

Reply

Dave April 30, 2010 at 3:07 pm

Iranian agent spotted

Reply

Shang May 4, 2010 at 1:56 pm

I agree with you Superraptor! also The question of Where IS the Warriors in the US Military? Lets show them how we can really KICK BUTT!!

Reply

joe May 4, 2010 at 6:53 pm

Iranian agent spotted

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: