Originally Posted by UtahBill

And as for the guy who debunked Scorpion Down, that might have been me.

Originally Posted by Tashah

Voila! I believe it was you Bill. You certainly punched a lot of holes in that particular story.

Originally Posted by UtahBill

Iranians.....who else? I say that based on past wars that they have been involved in....
I wonder if they still have plastic keys to heaven and wooden rifles to hand out to their children. I don't know if it is true, but supposedly the Iranians did that when they were fighting Iraq.

Originally Posted by Gladiator

Isn't that what the Germans thought about the Brittish in WWII. Just bob London, and the Brittish will give in.

Using the terrorism of cruise missles against Islamic Terrorism is not a sure fire formula for success. You need a few more factors. The Iranians are devoted to making the West look foolish. It is widely believed in Iran that the US CIA has manipulated the Iranian government in the past 60 years. A few cruise missles a day would be worth seeing the gas lines arouind the blocks in the West, and fist fights breaking out as tensions rise.

Is your license number even or odd? What days will you be able to purchase gasoline for which of your cars?



..

Originally Posted by Gladiator

How about 50 miles from a fighter jet?

"the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also "saw" the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles. "

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

" 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder "just in time."


Sunburn is not shoulder fired, but is tough to stop.

New Page 1

..

Originally Posted by Gladiator

2001, or therabouts, Iranian missle information





Name------------Range (km)-------Warhead (kg)
Mushak-90--------90-----------------150
Mushak-120------130--------------------
Mushak-160------160--------------------
Mushak-200------150--------------------
Zelzal-2---------100-125----------------
Shahin-2----------20----------------180
Fatch-110-------168.95-----------------
Iran-700----------700-------------------

Short range missiles - Iran Defence Forum

"Now, how does a comparatively backward country like Iran, certainly having nothing resembling either the wealth or the technical virtuosity of the United States, try to fight such a fleet? Talk to candid naval officers (I have) and they will tell you that their nightmare is a swarm of supersonic, stealthy cruise missiles, especially if fired at short range. The Russian Sunburn missile is most mentioned today, though there are others.

A well-designed missile can skim over the sea at very low altitude, at supersonic speeds, with intelligent guidance on board to choose its target. They are intended specifically to attack an advanced naval force. The Sunburn represents Russia's recognition that nobody can match the U.S. Navy ship for ship, but any country can buy cruise missiles.

In the kind of open-ocean war for which the Navy is really intended, the carrier's aircraft could try to destroy an enemy before it got close enough to launch such missiles. In the Persian Gulf, ships necessarily are so close to land that reaction time would be very short. Much would depend on the Navy's knowing where the missiles were and destroying them before they could be launched — which is very iffy. "


Washington Times - Missiles could cripple Navy

Technology sharing occured in the late 90's between Russia and the US on Krypton, the Russian small scale version of the Sideburn. The Sideburn is intended to defeat the Aegis ship defense systems.

How U.S. Helped Russia Improve Deadly Missiles



..

Originally Posted by Gladiator

Who is feeding CNN news clips over the past few days showing Iran testing missles?

Originally Posted by Gladiator

Sounds like a lead-up to military action to me.