[wasser]

Well, I've seen articles about the anti-ship cruise missiles that the US doesn't actually seem to have a counter or defense for... These are mobile, so there's no fixed location to attack, and relatively cheap so any damage caused by them puts an overwhelming cost to the receiving side..

The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile

Although the author, Mark Gaffney, is a highly qualified expert in military matters:

Mark Gaffney is a researcher, writer, poet, environmentalist, peace activist, and organic gardener.

Biography

That's a steaming pile of propaganda. I'm not sure if he's trying to scare people or sell Sunburn missiles. It's full of out right lies. The US Navy has multiple layers of defense against this missile. He fails to address all the means of defense, only mentions them in part, and then derides them for never having been tested in combat. Guess what, the Sunburn hasn't been tested in combat either. That part doesn't seem to detract from the Sunburn being the "awesome" weapon that it is. Yes, that's in quotes as Mr Gaffney feels it's the "only word that does it justice".

These missiles pose nearly zero threat to US forces. At least, if they do pose a threat it's only at the US Navy's choice. Iran couldn't get anything close enough to surprise them. US forces would have to sail into their range for them to threaten them, and the US doesn't have to do that.

These missiles and every other anti-shipping missile Iran has does, however, pose a serious threat to shipping. That action, however, would quickly turn all it's neighbors against them. Allied/US forces would also quickly dominate the airspace and make it very challenging for land based missiles to operate. JSTARS, as mentioned above by boriscleto, in coordination with UAVs and other aircraft, would make it very challenging for land based missiles to operate. Which Mr Gaffney fails, btw, to mention is a part of the defense that the USN has against the most formidable weapon the USN has ever faced (I'm paraphrasing his propaganda there). I'm not sure if I should end that last bit with an exclamation mark or just have James Earl Jones say it.

[Nesster]

Thanks for the update on gaffney --- his wasn't the article I'd read (in the New Yorker, a year or more ago) but was the first one that came up on google. So while this guy may be a peace activist and gardener (and so what? we're amateur photographers, and some of us are pacifists...) there have been I'm sure more 'qualified' opinionators.

Can you link us to some of the multiple layers of defense against this missile? thanks

[jeffkrol]

Thanks for the update on gaffney --- his wasn't the article I'd read (in the New Yorker, a year or more ago) but was the first one that came up on google. So while this guy may be a peace activist and gardener (and so what? we're amateur photographers, and some of us are pacifists...) there have been I'm sure more 'qualified' opinionators.

Can you link us to some of the multiple layers of defense against this missile? thanks

actually I found some yesterday (out of curiosity) though this becomes a "he said she said" thread..

Actually it seems to boil down to quantities more than quality.........

do you have enough defensive ammo to counter a x number of launches?
do you have the capability to track and neutralize the source?

more than a single missile/single defense system......

Let's just hope that we don't really find out....

As a side note.. it is (if logic prevails) highly unlikely a country would sell a technology it itself doesn't have a defense against.....getting their co-operation is another matter..
The sunbeam hits mach 2.x and the newest missile threats (not on the market ) are hitting mach 10........ soooo it is likely the countermeasures are already in development for the old slow systems....
Winning the Air/Sea Battle | SLDInfo

WOULD WE really know what's out there????

F-35 cockpit enabled sensors linked with other combat systems networked because no platform will fight alone and employing the Wynne Doctrine-“If you are in a fair fight someone failed in planning,” – it s formula for combat success.

and if you can't go through them, go around them......... sorry to be so rah rah.....

no doubt it would be a bloody mess though.

addendum (remember they are talking about defense of Mach10 missiles);
http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2011/11/22/asbm-defense-isn%E2%80%99t-easy/

Think about the scope of the problem. Terminal velocity for the DF-21 family of missiles is estimated at Mach 10 to Mach 12, on the order of 8,000 to 9,000 miles per hour. That means the missile covers up to 150 miles each minute, or 2.5 miles per second. At such speeds, CIWS gets around a second to engage a maneuvering target, correct its stream of projectiles onto the target, and make the kill. That’s tough even for a computer-controlled weapon system. And even if the engagement succeeds, detonating the warhead, the debris from the explosion keeps coming along roughly the same trajectory. In all likelihood, some of the debris peppers the ship. Metal shards traveling at hypersonic velocities retain enormous kinetic energy, more than enough to penetrate the lightly armored hulls of modern warships and inflict all manner of havoc within. That’s why CIWS was the subject of much gallows humor when I was a weapons officer—and that was during the pre-ASBM days when the threat consisted “only” of manned aircraft and anti-ship cruise missiles.

That such a question came from such a distinguished group of policy and academic experts suggests that knowledge about naval technology and tactics remains rudimentary among even learned audiences in Washington. By no means do I mean to counsel despair about challenges like the ASBM. There are no permanent victories in peacetime strategic competitions like the one unfolding in the Western Pacific. I fully expect our navy to prosecute the strategic competition with China vigorously, and indeed certain promising hardware is already in the works.

Extended-range missiles like the ‘Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile’ currently under development would let the U.S. Pacific Fleet hold the Chinese surface fleet at risk at distances that would attenuate the missile threat to U.S. vessels. CIWS itself is undergoing improvements, including an extended-range “SeaRAM” destined for use aboard the navy’s new Littoral Combat Ships. And exotic technologies like electromagnetic “railguns” and high-energy lasers hold considerable promise over the longer haul, both as self-defense systems and for offensive functions.

But no, the ASBM threat will be far from easy to counteract if the technology pans out. True, the ASBM or its associated sensors may not live up to their hype. The Soviet Union tried—and conspicuously failed—to field such a system. I remain agnostic myself. If Chinese rocketeers can loft ASBMs toward U.S. carrier or amphibious groups, though, the laws of physics will be on their side—and decidedly against shipboard defenders.

http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2011/12/02/anti-access-goes-global/#more-1400

Iran has also jumped on the anti-ship missile bandwagon. In July, Iran tested a 186 mile range anti-ship missile with a 1,433 pound warhead. The missile is supposedly capable of reaching speeds up to Mach 3. At such speeds, vessels would have little time to deploy any defensive measures. If such a weapon were deployed in the narrow Strait of Hormuz, for example, Iran would have a viable method of shutting down most shipments of oil out of the Persian Gulf, as well as slowing the movement of an enemy surface fleet.

[jolepp]

...
Can you link us to some of the multiple layers of defense against this missile? thanks

The article I referred to earlier has a section on this beginning from page 110 (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IS3301_pp082-117_Talmadge.pdf). While it seems that the defenses are reasonably robust against the subsonic missiles Iran is known to posess, their effectiveness against the supersonic missiles Iran is rumored to have as well as whether Iran actually has them is left open though.

---

Last edited by jolepp; 12-29-2011 at 12:15 PM. Reason: typo

[stanleyk]

I glad to hear you don't own an automobile that burns that evil gasoline, Jogiba. Good for you.

Well I bet he doesn't own one that gets maybe 8-10 MPG. That's just fundamentally irresponsible and I might add unpatriotic since it requires me and many others to pay a lot of taxes to support these inefficient vehicles with military spending and it's cost the lives of countless Americans just so some yo yo can act macho in his big silly truck. I hope gas goes up the $4.00+ a gallon soon. My car gets 40+ MPG and I'll be laughing. Personally I think we ought to tax the heck out gasoline like they do in Europe. Last time I was in France it was approximately $8.00 a gallon. That's sounds about right. All the money raised off the taxes should go to pay off the huge war debt President Bush rang up invading Iraq. I'm sure the Chinese and the Russians who financed that stupid war will be glad to get their money back.

For the life of me I cannot understand how people can let our economy be so dependent on the a region of the world as unstable as the Middle East. Sheer f'ing stupidity at best.

When I lived in Dallas it used to just burn me up when this guy who lived across the street from got in his dual wheel drive truck every morning in his suit to drive to work. My tax dollars in supporting his ability to drive that stupid looking truck through military spending. And he was probably a Republican too, typical hypocrite. If you are using it on a farm OK, but I bet the vast majority of pick up trucks in this country never see a dirt road. Good thing they have brush guards on the front of them........

[Parallax]

. Personally I think we ought to tax the heck out gasoline like they do in Europe. Last time I was in France it was approximately $8.00 a gallon. That's sounds about right.

If you think gas should be $8.00 per gallon, fine. So what's the problem? Next time you get 10 gallons, hand the clerk $80.00 and walk out. You'll be happy because you paid $8.00 a gallon and I'll be happy because I didn't.

[pickles]

About two seconds and it won't be the USA necessarily giving them grief although I am assuming that the USA will get involved in some way or another, as usual. I'm thinking there are other nations there that use that area for oil shipment. They wouldn't just be blocking their own oil. They'd be working against their neighbors who I doubt would be too pleased. Besides which the sea is vast, they don't own it all and there are other ways to sail. I say screw Iran. Stop buying everything they make, not just their oil. They're acting like they want to start a war, have been for a long time now. It's almost like they want to provoke the USA so they can have an excuse to detonate one of those bombs they've been making and hiding. That's crazy behavior.

+1
There are some very interesting comments in this post.....particularly about the various missiles etc, that Iran might have.
I was watching a program the other evening about a MASSIVE U.S.Navy Aircraft Carrier (Ronald Raegan?).....& I was thinking, that for all its "Firepower", it MUST be vulnerable to missile attacks.....I do remember the Falklands episode.
But, would Iran actually launch a missile against a U.S. vessel, particularly a U.S. NAVY vessel?.......Surely, Iran would realize that the consequence would be HUGE retaliation from the U.S......and hopefully, their allies.
U.S. Airpower could inflict massive damage on Iran, with very little risk to itself, so my question is that knowing that,......Would Iran launch missiles at U.S. Navy vessels?
Cheers, Pickles.

[boriscleto]

+1
There are some very interesting comments in this post.....particularly about the various missiles etc, that Iran might have.
I was watching a program the other evening about a MASSIVE U.S.Navy Aircraft Carrier (Ronald Raegan?).....& I was thinking, that for all its "Firepower", it MUST be vulnerable to missile attacks.....I do remember the Falklands episode.
But, would Iran actually launch a missile against a U.S. vessel, particularly a U.S. NAVY vessel?.......Surely, Iran would realize that the consequence would be HUGE retaliation from the U.S......and hopefully, their allies.
U.S. Airpower could inflict massive damage on Iran, with very little risk to itself, so my question is that knowing that,......Would Iran launch missiles at U.S. Navy vessels?
Cheers, Pickles.

Those missiles were designed to be launched at US aircraft carriers. That's why aircraft carriers are escorted by Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke class ships. Aegis was designed to shoot down cruise missiles. Luckily for the US the carriers will be well out in the Arabian Sea and nowhere near the range of Iranian anti-ship missiles. Iran doesn't have any missiles with a range of more than 150 miles. The Straight of Hormuz is 34 miles wide. So any missile launcher will have to be within 120 miles or so of the coast.

[jogiba]

Well I bet he doesn't own one that gets maybe 8-10 MPG. That's just fundamentally irresponsible and I might add unpatriotic since it requires me and many others to pay a lot of taxes to support these inefficient vehicles with military spending and it's cost the lives of countless Americans just so some yo yo can act macho in his big silly truck. I hope gas goes up the $4.00+ a gallon soon. My car gets 40+ MPG and I'll be laughing. Personally I think we ought to tax the heck out gasoline like they do in Europe. Last time I was in France it was approximately $8.00 a gallon. That's sounds about right. All the money raised off the taxes should go to pay off the huge war debt President Bush rang up invading Iraq. I'm sure the Chinese and the Russians who financed that stupid war will be glad to get their money back.

For the life of me I cannot understand how people can let our economy be so dependent on the a region of the world as unstable as the Middle East. Sheer f'ing stupidity at best.

When I lived in Dallas it used to just burn me up when this guy who lived across the street from got in his dual wheel drive truck every morning in his suit to drive to work. My tax dollars in supporting his ability to drive that stupid looking truck through military spending. And he was probably a Republican too, typical hypocrite. If you are using it on a farm OK, but I bet the vast majority of pick up trucks in this country never see a dirt road. Good thing they have brush guards on the front of them........

There are a myriad of gas hogs here:
f650 pickup - Google Search

[jogiba]

While Toyota Priuses and other fuel-efficient automobiles are gaining popularity over the SUVs and Hummers that dominated our roadways for the past 20 years, gas guzzlers are still the fad for professional athletes. Little Rock's very own Joe Johnson has such a ride, toodling around town in a six-door Ford F650 Super Truck XUV.

The former Razorback, who led the Atlanta Hawks to the post-season this year for the first time this century, told Dime Magazine that after seeing a Super Truck owned by Phoenix Suns star Shaquille O'Neal, he was compelled to buy the specialty cruiser. It has front and rear cameras, three flatscreen televisions, a train horn and a seat that folds out into a bed (though judging from the video, we doubt that the 6-7 guard is able to use it much.)

The tank holds 200 gallons of diesel fuel. If Johnson wants to take his Joemobile to the cheapest station according to littlerockgasprices.com, he can fill that tank for the low price of $928 at the Love's truck stop off of the I-40 Galloway exit. If he wants to stick with the station closest to his downtown penthouse, he'll pay $970 at the Broadway Valero in North Little Rock. He'll have to be careful since some of those credit card companies will cut you off after the first $75.

According to this website, the F650 Super Truck package begins at $178,200. That's without most of the options. The Playstation 2 option, for example, will set you back another $400, but you do get a wireless controller.

The mudflaps are a nice touch though we wonder how often this monstrosity gets off-road. Our intrepid covert photographer snapped these photos in the parking lot of Johnson's Little Rock residence. You'd think he'd use the covered parking, but maybe with a ride like this, you want to show it off.

Atlanta Hawks' Joe Johnson Rides Up High in His Super Truck - ArkansasSports360.com

[Wheatfield]

Well I bet he doesn't own one that gets maybe 8-10 MPG. That's just fundamentally irresponsible and I might add unpatriotic since it requires me and many others to pay a lot of taxes to support these inefficient vehicles with military spending and it's cost the lives of countless Americans just so some yo yo can act macho in his big silly truck. I hope gas goes up the $4.00+ a gallon soon. My car gets 40+ MPG and I'll be laughing. Personally I think we ought to tax the heck out gasoline like they do in Europe. Last time I was in France it was approximately $8.00 a gallon. That's sounds about right. All the money raised off the taxes should go to pay off the huge war debt President Bush rang up invading Iraq. I'm sure the Chinese and the Russians who financed that stupid war will be glad to get their money back.

For the life of me I cannot understand how people can let our economy be so dependent on the a region of the world as unstable as the Middle East. Sheer f'ing stupidity at best.

When I lived in Dallas it used to just burn me up when this guy who lived across the street from got in his dual wheel drive truck every morning in his suit to drive to work. My tax dollars in supporting his ability to drive that stupid looking truck through military spending. And he was probably a Republican too, typical hypocrite. If you are using it on a farm OK, but I bet the vast majority of pick up trucks in this country never see a dirt road. Good thing they have brush guards on the front of them........

Conversely, you could run a normal country that doesn't use military force to take oil from other nations.
Just tossing it out as a random thought and all.

[CG-23 Sailor]

Nesstor posted about the Iranians having the SS-N-22 SUNBURN Anti-Ship missile.

Iran does NOT have them. They attempted to purchase some a while back and money even traded hands with Russia (Not Ukraine). The US went to Russia and explained why this would be a Bad Idea in US/Russian relations and Russia agreed. They refused to turn over the missiles (but kept the money...LOL).

Iranian IRGCN videos surfaced and can be found on YouTube supposedly showing the test firing of a SUNBURN missile (actually the missile is the 3M80 Moskit, SUNBURN is a NATO reporting code name.) by Iranian forces.

I about died laughing when I saw the video.
The Missile is decidedly NOT the Moskit/SUNBURN missile.
The missile in the video was a Silkworm or some other variant of the Chinese knockoff of the old (and obsolete) Soviet STYX missile.
The original STYX missile has been around from the mid 1950's and is obsolete. China extended the fuselage a bit and gave it a larger fuel tank, extending the range but basically it is the same missile.

The two missiles (Silkworm/STYX and the Moskit/SUNBURN) cannot be mistaken for each other as they look nothing alike.

IF Iran was to somehow acquire the SUNBURN, that would be a very significant threat. My job in the US Navy was Electronic Warfare. My primary concern was Anti-ship missile defense. The SUNBURN would give us nightmares if ever employed against us. At the time it came out, even our best defense systems (Aegis) had but slim chances of stopping it and anything less than that had no chance in hell. Rest assured though that steps have been taken and many critical upgrades and redesigns have been implemented to take into account the SUNBURN's capabilities. While it is no longer the nightmare it once was, the SUNBURN does remain a very formidable weapon system.

I have personally spent a great deal and significant portion of my "At Sea" deployed time transiting back and forth through the Hormuz Strait under the very noses of these Iranian Coast missile Batteries. Their BEST systems are on a par with early model US Made Harpoon missiles, and at worst, are 50's era hand-me-downs from Russia via China.

ANY attempt by Iran to close the strait would result in a few ships getting sunk, mostly Civilian shipping. But after the opening strikes, in a matter of hours only... Iranian Naval and coastal forces would quite simply CEASE TO EXIST. Iran's Naval military is only good for one or two sucker punches. After that... It'll be a USA win by a Knockout.

[pickles]

Sailor...G'day from Oz.
EXCELLENT, & very interesting post mate.....good to hear some FACTS.
Thanks, Pickles.

[CG-23 Sailor]

That's a steaming pile of propaganda. I'm not sure if he's trying to scare people or sell Sunburn missiles. It's full of out right lies. The US Navy has multiple layers of defense against this missile. He fails to address all the means of defense, only mentions them in part, and then derides them for never having been tested in combat. Guess what, the Sunburn hasn't been tested in combat either. That part doesn't seem to detract from the Sunburn being the "awesome" weapon that it is. Yes, that's in quotes as Mr Gaffney feels it's the "only word that does it justice".

These missiles pose nearly zero threat to US forces. At least, if they do pose a threat it's only at the US Navy's choice. Iran couldn't get anything close enough to surprise them. US forces would have to sail into their range for them to threaten them, and the US doesn't have to do that.

While I agree with you concerning the article by Mr Gaffney, I find your assessment to be, while well intentioned, to be completely lacking in actual knowledge. More of the Armchair quarterbacking variety.

The SUNBURN only poses a Near zero threat to the US Navy only because Iran does not have them. The Missiles themselves are actually a very dangerous threat if Iran was to have them.

Your post, specifically these lines:

Iran couldn't get anything close enough to surprise them. US forces would have to sail into their range for them to threaten them, and the US doesn't have to do that.

Shows me you haven't looked at a map much. The US Navy HAS to pass within point blank range of those things to get into the gulf. The strait is very narrow and even the older missiles have more than enough range to cross from the Iranian side all the way over to Oman and UAE. At the ranges they would be fired from in the strait, that would be classified as close enough to surprise us.

US Policy in the strait is to transit at high speed to minimize the time within the threat envelope, and to do so at full condition I readiness (Meaning at General Quarters). I should know... I have spent many a long fraking day at GQ to include spending all of one particularly memorable Christmas Day going through the strait. We don't do that for Missiles that posed almost zero threat to us.

I cannot go into details but I HAVE seen classified reports detailing the studies of the effectiveness of the SS-N-22 vs USN defenses. I had to as part of my primary responsibility of Anti-ship missile defense. I can and will tell you that the threat this missile represented at the time is not being exaggerated by Mr. Gaffey. What's being exaggerated is his claim of Iran even having them. Since that report, there have been numerous modifications and improvements on our defensive systems to combat the specific threat of the Moskit/SUNBURN missile. We have NOT reduced that threat to Near Zero however. Not even close by a longshot.


The one thing Gaffey did get absolutely correct is his assessment of our having allowed ourselves to get surpassed in the area of Anti-ship missiles. We (The USA) have but two missiles. and one of those is no longer really used in the Anti-Ship role anymore. leaving one missile across the board and that missile while pretty good, does have shortcomings which have been addressed and eliminated by other designs not used by the US.

The two Anti-ship missiles are Harpoon and Tomahawk. Thought the ASM version of Tomahawk (TASM) is no longer used. it now being primarily a Land attack missile. (TLAM)
Harpoon has been upgraded over the years and successive models have improved the range and guidance packages but it is still the same old 70's era missile.

Russia has whole families of various missiles.
The Yakhonts missile that was briefly mentioned is especially crafty in how they overcame a limitation of previous designs (to include the Harpoon)
Basically you have a choice in the motor of the missile and your choice has both an advantage and a disadvantage.

You want High speed like the SUNBURN? you can have it at the cost of range (Yes the SS-N-22 is short ranged compared to others including Harpoon)

If you want long range, then you have to sacrifice speed.

Rocket motors will hit mach speeds but burn out fast. limiting range
Turbojet motors will go a long time but are subsonic.

So you can have range but not speed, or speed but not range. You can't have both. Until the SS-N-26 Oniks/Yakhont missile.

Basically it is a two-stage missile. Having a main first stage that is turbojet powered and subsonic just like Tomahawk or Harpoon or Exocet or any number of missiles. It is capable of great range. On reaching the target area and locking on, the forward Sprint body housing the guidance package and warhead separates and a rocket motor propels the second stage to supersonic speeds for the terminal phase of the attack.

[CG-23 Sailor]

Ah Australia!
One of the very few countries I wanted to see but never got the chance too on multiple WESTPAC deployments. Been dang near everywhere else though!