It looks like the author took the entire sales brochure for the SSN22
as fact. who/what will provide mid-course guidance for their
attack?
going to war would be a bitch, no question. iran took eight years to
accomplish little against iraq. the addition of a couple new types of
weapons into their arsenal is not going to dramatically tip their
ability to hurt us, when they have these weapons but not the
infrastructure to effectively target enemies over the horizon. the
rense article seemed long on sage advice and short on real world
experience, and was written to be as fear-inciting as possible.
including warnings about why israel and the US should slink away from
our disagreements with iran was cute but i think showed the real
agenda of the author. just my two cents.
> It looks like the author took the entire sales brochure for the SSN22 as
> fact. who/what will provide mid-course guidance for their attack?
I wonder if it's the same brochure that the U.S. Department of Defense
got when we were buying Moskits and Kryptons as target drones, back
in 2000.
But then, once we got the more capable Orbital Sciences Coyote,
we didn't need to buy them any more.
We've not only been looking at the threat, but shooting them ourselves
for at least 10 years.
(Longer than that - before then, we used up the stock of Talos SAMS
as Vandal high speed sea-skimming targets by Y2K.)
-- Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system
> It looks like the author took the entire sales brochure for the SSN22
> as fact. who/what will provide mid-course guidance for their
> attack?
> going to war would be a bitch, no question. iran took eight years to
> accomplish little against iraq. the addition of a couple new types of
> weapons into their arsenal is not going to dramatically tip their
> ability to hurt us, when they have these weapons but not the
> infrastructure to effectively target enemies over the horizon. the
> rense article seemed long on sage advice and short on real world
> experience, and was written to be as fear-inciting as possible.
> including warnings about why israel and the US should slink away from
> our disagreements with iran was cute but i think showed the real
> agenda of the author. just my two cents.
If the missile is at 2000m then the radar horizon is 106nm. I'm sure
the Iranians will have passive sonar arrays, small unobtrusive drones
to provide some kind of targeting.
>> It looks like the author took the entire sales brochure for the SSN22
>> as fact. who/what will provide mid-course guidance for their
>> attack?
>> going to war would be a bitch, no question. iran took eight years to
>> accomplish little against iraq. the addition of a couple new types of
>> weapons into their arsenal is not going to dramatically tip their
>> ability to hurt us, when they have these weapons but not the
>> infrastructure to effectively target enemies over the horizon. the
>> rense article seemed long on sage advice and short on real world
>> experience, and was written to be as fear-inciting as possible.
>> including warnings about why israel and the US should slink away from
>> our disagreements with iran was cute but i think showed the real
>> agenda of the author. just my two cents.
> If the missile is at 2000m then the radar horizon is 106nm. I'm sure
> the Iranians will have passive sonar arrays, small unobtrusive drones
> to provide some kind of targeting.
Your hatred for the US is showing once again. Chances are, they won't have all the bells and whistles you claim they have. Even their navy isn't as scary as their "Fishing" fleet in a battle.
> It looks like the author took the entire sales brochure for the SSN22
> as fact. who/what will provide mid-course guidance for their
> attack?
> going to war would be a bitch, no question. iran took eight years to
> accomplish little against iraq. the addition of a couple new types of
> weapons into their arsenal is not going to dramatically tip their
> ability to hurt us, when they have these weapons but not the
> infrastructure to effectively target enemies over the horizon. the
> rense article seemed long on sage advice and short on real world
> experience, and was written to be as fear-inciting as possible.
> including warnings about why israel and the US should slink away from
> our disagreements with iran was cute but i think showed the real
> agenda of the author. just my two cents.
> > It looks like the author took the entire sales brochure for the SSN22
> > as fact. who/what will provide mid-course guidance for their
> > attack?
> > going to war would be a bitch, no question. iran took eight years to
> > accomplish little against iraq. the addition of a couple new types of
> > weapons into their arsenal is not going to dramatically tip their
> > ability to hurt us, when they have these weapons but not the
> > infrastructure to effectively target enemies over the horizon. the
> > rense article seemed long on sage advice and short on real world
> > experience, and was written to be as fear-inciting as possible.
> > including warnings about why israel and the US should slink away from
> > our disagreements with iran was cute but i think showed the real
> > agenda of the author. just my two cents.
> You better re-read the article.
I have been reading about Soviet missiles, including this one, for
almost three decades. On my website (thanks again, Bob at Coastal
Computers!), I have a photo of an SS-N-** that we found floating in
the ocean. I have had my hands on a Russian missile. So instead of
giving me a homework assignment, what did I miss in this guys opinion
piece..? The guy writes with a breathless awe that rivals a high
school kid writing about UFOs.
Actually, no...this is a very uninformed article. The author combines stats from different versions of the weapon to make it sound better than it is, he claims things are tied together that are not, and he just totally wrong on several items.
The topic of sunburn as some sort of unstoppable "carrier killer" comes up all the time, and its actually a pretty silly thought. Its a good weapon, but here are some facts.
The Sunburn was first deployed in 1980...32 years ago. The navy has had 32 years to prepare a defense...and they have. The navy actually bought several from Russia for testing purposes, so there is nothing about them that hasn't been known for a very long time.
The range he quoted for the weapons was for the air launched version only, and the speed he quoted was only for the high portion of the high-low profile. When launched from a ship or ground launcher its range is actually very short, and speed a bit slower. Getting a launch platform close enough to engage a carrier isn't going to happen unless its during peacetime when the carrier isn't looking for it...or if your launch platform is a sub. China's Sovremenny class destroyers would never have a chance to get within 300 miles, let alone the 65 miles they would need.
Any ramjet powered supersonic sea-skimmer is VERY hot and easy to detect via IR. If you lift an IR sensor high enough, like on a Hawkeye or sat, you can detected it well over the horizon (thus extending your reaction time). That 25 second response time only applies to the radar horizon on a ship without off-board sensors. The Soviets always knew this, and the Sunburn was intended for small ASW groups that lack fixed air cover, not for carrier groups (the Shipwreck was for the CVBGs).
Nevertheless, the Navy has...
...added IR seekers to the Standard missile to engage supersonic SSMs over the horizon.
ESSM and RAM were developed with supersonic SSM's in mind, and are now deployed on almost all USN combatants. Both systems react faster, and have fusing and warhead changes that allow them to be effective against very fast targets.
Improved versions of AMRAAM can also engage supersonic SSMs.
Finally, it isn't clear if any have actually BEEN sold to Iran. Iran claims they have some, but China and Russia both deny any such sale has taken place (China hardly has enough for the launchers they have). Iran has conducted launches of ASMs that they claimed were Sunburns, but they were subsonic C-802s. Iran has never test-fired any supersonic ASM.
ASMs from mobile land-based launchers ARE a threat to anything moving through the Strait of Hormuz, but given the terrain of Iran's coastline, it wouldn't be too difficult to clear them all out before transiting through. Keep in mind, those units need to turn on their own radar, to provide a firing solution to their weapon, and as soon as they do that, they announce where they are.
