Every time the Iranian population rises up and demands change, the Ahmadinejad regime creates a scenario that the west, in some form, threatens Iran....eg: the yellow cake incident, the refining of uranium, and on and on. This distracts the population from home grown issues, and the Ahmadinejad government totters on.....right now there is hope to "throw the beggars out" in the rest of the Arab world, and Iran is on the list. Why, with a little provocation, we can get Israel to liven things up....
Iran Super Thread- Merged
- Thread starter JasonH
- Start date
Every time the Iranian population rises up and demands change, the Ahmadinejad regime creates a scenario that the west, in some form, threatens Iran....eg: the yellow cake incident, the refining of uranium, and on and on. This distracts the population from home grown issues, and the Ahmadinejad government totters on.....right now there is hope to "throw the beggars out" in the rest of the Arab world, and Iran is on the list. Why, with a little provocation, we can get Israel to liven things up....
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
willellis said:
Your logic escapes me.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
CDN Aviator said:
I hope you don't seriously believe that Iran has the intent to attack Israel right now. I think that you might benifit from reading up on what the Alvand class is capable of before you suggest it is capable of being a threat.
A
aesop081
Guest
willellis said:
I have been a praticioner of naval warfare for the last 6 years. I even have the maritime warfare basic course. IDing ships, their capabilities and what their threat is.......thats my job. I also have the benefit of military edication that taught me what a threat is and isnt.
You ?
Iran may not want to attack Israel with these 2 ships but a stated goal of the regime is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth........that is intent.
Iranian warships anywhere near Israel represent a capability (as small as it is) to act on some of that.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
CDN Aviator said:
And even still you believe that a ship laid down in the 60's is a threat for a military that is armed by the most advanced in the world. A total of 4 SSMs vs Israel. Not really a match in my books. I have also mentioned numerous times that all my posts are regarding the CURRENT situation ( as should everyones ). I have no doubt that if Iran had the means, they would wage open war on Israel, but the fact remains that they don't RIGHT NOW.
Oh yea, as a NESOP, naval warfare, platform caps and lims, and platform identification are my bread and butter.
Also I think you need to look at what
A
aesop081
Guest
willellis said:
It doesnt have to be a match to be a threat. 4 SSMs are more than capable of causing damage and killing people. From an Israeli perspective this is a potential threat to their security as it comes from a nation that is openly hostile towards them.
Are you even out of fleet school yet ??
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I wasn't going to elaborate on the missiles but I guess I have to a bit. The C802 SSM is an active missile. This means that it uses an onboard radar to find a target and destroy it. This is also called a fire and forget missile. It is a very useful seaborne tool. The problem with launching this type of missile against a land target is that it will not be able to differentiate between military and civilian emitters. Also, if it locks onto an emitter, then looses contact with it, the missile will go balistic and detonate. Not to mention that the ship has to be in weapons release range.
And yes. I am just finishing up my 3s.
Hope that clears up any confusion.
And yes. I am just finishing up my 3s.
Hope that clears up any confusion.
A
aesop081
Guest
willellis said:
I'm familiar thanks...i have all the PLAN stuff right in front of me. So your assumption is that Israel has nothing on the water worth shooting at ? That must be your assumption because you are talking about attacking stuff on land and i never mentioned that.
The C802 does not "lock-on to emitters". It is not guided by passive means ( homing in to the target's radar emissions).
It is guided by inertial navigation until the terminal phase of flight, where it turns on its radar.
So the answer to my question is "No, i am not out of fleet school yet".
You are clearly the one that is confused.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
willellis said:
Do you really think Amadinnerjacket and his ilk would really care if the missile hit civilians? In all likelyhood if they could not find legitimate naval targets my guess would be find the largest population mass in range and let 'er buck........
A
aesop081
Guest
Larry Strong said:
This besides the fact that willellis cant seem to keep his missle modes straight.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
CDN Aviator said:
Good point about your posts regarding shore targets, my mistake. I would say though that there is nothing in the water worth shooting at that would warrant the implications of doing so.
I am aware of the missile operation. What would be the term you would use to describe a missile acquiring a target in the terminal homing phase and following a pre-programed flight path to that target.
As for fleet school, my mistake. I misread you question.
A
aesop081
Guest
willellis said:
You certainly can't properly describe it. Locking-on to an emitter as you desrcibed is a passive mode of operation ( such as used by HARMs). The C-802 in its basic form is an active homing missile. Wether it does it from launch or in the terminal phase only does not change that fact.
The C-802 that the Iranian navy has, AFAIK, is indeed purely a ship-to-ship weapon. What i am trying to tell you is that one does not have to strike land targets to strike at Israel.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I wasn't going to elaborate on the missiles but I guess I have to a bit. The C802 SSM is an active missile. This means that it uses an on-board radar to find a target and destroy it. This is also called a fire and forget missile. It is a very useful seaborne tool. The problem with launching this type of missile against a land target is that it will not be able to differentiate between military and civilian emitters. Also, if it locks onto an emitter, then looses contact with it, the missile will go ballistic and detonate.
Call me nuts, but that looks a lot like what you are trying to say. Oh, my mistake. I should have said "acquired" rather than the term "locking-on." :
Call me nuts, but that looks a lot like what you are trying to say. Oh, my mistake. I should have said "acquired" rather than the term "locking-on." :
A
aesop081
Guest
willellis said:
How about the oil indistry ?
http://www.oilinisrael.net/top-stories/offshore-gas-monster
How about trade in and out of the port of Haifa ?
http://www.haifaport.co.il/english.aspx
The Israeli Navy ?
Nothing worth shooting at eh ??
willellis said:it will not be able to differentiate between military and civilian emitters. Also, if it locks onto an emitter, then looses contact with it, the missile will go ballistic and detonate.
Call me nuts, but that looks a lot like what you are trying to say. Oh, my mistake. I should have said "acquired" rather than the term "locking-on." :
A target being locked-on to by an active missile is not an "emitter". The C-802 does not lock on to "emitters". Locking on to "emitters" is what passive guidance missiles do ( like an anti-radar missile does). The C-802 locks on to radar returns from the target in the terminal phase of flight. Radar energy from the C802 goes out, hit the target and returns to the C802.............it happens at 12.4 micro seconds per mile..........
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
For Journeyman re
M
How is it trolling when someone debates opinions and responds to questions regarding their posts?
As for MP, I have already made my opinion regarding them clear on another thread.
Back to topic at hand.
Again, improper word usage. Meant to use "targets". Substitute one word for another and the definition is accurate.
Which one of those targets would be worth war, given the current capabilities of the Iranian military in relation to the forces they would be up against.
Timing is a big deal here. If this were a few years to a decade down the road, and the Iranians built up a respectable force with nuclear capabilities, I would be agreeing with everything said contrary to my posts, for the most part. But as it stands, right now, IMO, there is nothing worth blowing up in relation to the severe beating that would come their way.
MHow is it trolling when someone debates opinions and responds to questions regarding their posts?
As for MP, I have already made my opinion regarding them clear on another thread.
Back to topic at hand.
Again, improper word usage. Meant to use "targets". Substitute one word for another and the definition is accurate.
Which one of those targets would be worth war, given the current capabilities of the Iranian military in relation to the forces they would be up against.
Timing is a big deal here. If this were a few years to a decade down the road, and the Iranians built up a respectable force with nuclear capabilities, I would be agreeing with everything said contrary to my posts, for the most part. But as it stands, right now, IMO, there is nothing worth blowing up in relation to the severe beating that would come their way.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I think this whole argument is just two people arguing about two completely different perspectives:
CDN Aviator says they are a threat because they can do damage to Israel and her people. (I agree)
willellis thinks they are not a threat because they cannot wipe out Israel with a single strike. (Silly perspective)
Following the same flawed logic we could say any country without Nukes is not a threat which, would be incorrect.
CDN Aviator says they are a threat because they can do damage to Israel and her people. (I agree)
willellis thinks they are not a threat because they cannot wipe out Israel with a single strike. (Silly perspective)
Following the same flawed logic we could say any country without Nukes is not a threat which, would be incorrect.
Similar threads
