Or how about turning the enemy into a load of raving poofters by denonating a fag bomb?Braddock wrote:
What about sharks with fricking laser beams on their heads?FEOS wrote:
And the US has mind-reading death rays.
See how bullshit propaganda works?
Back in the 30's the believed there was no defence against the bomber eitherrammunition wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 496765.stmFEOS wrote:
You OVERestimate the power of Iran's missiles.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
You underestimate the power of Iran's missiles.
Those a not a bunch of scud like saddam had.. they are accurate and deadly.
Your fleets are sitting ducks in the Persian Gulf... and your leadership knows it.
Why do you think you didnt attack yet?
They are basically Iran's version of the al-Hussein...a pimped-out Scud produced indigenously. Neither accurate nor deadly...unless you happen to be where it randomly lands (kind of like getting struck by lightning)
The PG isn't exactly a small place...it's not like those ships can't maneuver...or defend themselves.
Why haven't we attacked yet? Because diplomacy is still being attempted.
Iran has also got something called the "sunburn missile", apparently there is no defence to it
google it up
um.. remember the USS StarkATG wrote:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship … -label.jpgAutralianChainsaw wrote:
You underestimate the power of Iran's missiles.S.Lythberg wrote:
Isn't this the same shit Saddam spewed right before A-10 Thunderbolts reduced his tank armies to molten puddles?
You overestimate the effectiveness of 70's era soviet surplus weaponry...
Those a not a bunch of scud like saddam had.. they are accurate and deadly.
Your fleets are sitting ducks in the Persian Gulf... and your leadership knows it.
Why do you think you didnt attack yet?
No weapons were fired, then how does that mean the CIWS couldn't shoot it down? They weren't fired so you won't know.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
No weapons were fired in defense of Stark. The Phalanx CIWS remained in standby mode.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-07-09 08:23:21)
In that particular case, the CIWS was suppose to fire automatically at any incoming missile.. it failed.. doesnt mean it will fail every time but my point is that if it failed to detect a exocet who is cruising almost at the speed of sound, how will it react when 2 or 3 sunburn will come at 2 and 3 times the speed of sounds.M.O.A.B wrote:
No weapons were fired, then how does that mean the CIWS couldn't shoot it down? They weren't fired so you won't know.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
No weapons were fired in defense of Stark. The Phalanx CIWS remained in standby mode.
One ship. Ya, bla bla bla one ship is too much but considering how many ships we have. And the boat didn't even sink.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
In 1987, it became the victim of the only successful anti-ship missile attack on a U.S. Navy warship."
lol, MiG 19s from the Chinese. If they have this shit, I do not think their missiles have a great enough capability to do anything.Uskowi on Iran wrote:
It appears that the fighter was an IRIAF Chinese-made FT-7. Iran started receiving these MiG-19 type fighters in mid-80s and it is believed to have more than 25 in service today.
ridiculous. If it ever comes to an armed conflict between the US and Iran, the US military would destroy any existing iranian missile launcher, ship, or plane before they'd even be able to fire anything.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
In that particular case, the CIWS was suppose to fire automatically at any incoming missile.. it failed.. doesnt mean it will fail every time but my point is that if it failed to detect a exocet who is cruising almost at the speed of sound, how will it react when 2 or 3 sunburn will come at 2 and 3 times the speed of sounds.M.O.A.B wrote:
No weapons were fired, then how does that mean the CIWS couldn't shoot it down? They weren't fired so you won't know.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
No weapons were fired in defense of Stark. The Phalanx CIWS remained in standby mode.
Who knows what will happen but i expect some US ships going down for sure.
That was also 21 years ago, ship defence systems will have vastly been improved in that time, especially their computer and electrical systems that make them more reliable and accurate. Better radar will also have been established. If they attacked a carrier battle group,AutralianChainsaw wrote:
In that particular case, the CIWS was suppose to fire automatically at any incoming missile.. it failed.. doesnt mean it will fail every time but my point is that if it failed to detect a exocet who is cruising almost at the speed of sound, how will it react when 2 or 3 sunburn will come at 2 and 3 times the speed of sounds.M.O.A.B wrote:
No weapons were fired, then how does that mean the CIWS couldn't shoot it down? They weren't fired so you won't know.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
No weapons were fired in defense of Stark. The Phalanx CIWS remained in standby mode.
Who knows what will happen but i expect some US ships going down for sure.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-07-09 09:38:12)
You overestimate the power of the USA.. Iran have a pretty good anti-air defense too.. c'mon you really think that the US can destroy every launcher on a country the size of Iran in one strike?B.Schuss wrote:
ridiculous. If it ever comes to an armed conflict between the US and Iran, the US military would destroy any existing iranian missile launcher, ship, or plane before they'd even be able to fire anything.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
In that particular case, the CIWS was suppose to fire automatically at any incoming missile.. it failed.. doesnt mean it will fail every time but my point is that if it failed to detect a exocet who is cruising almost at the speed of sound, how will it react when 2 or 3 sunburn will come at 2 and 3 times the speed of sounds.M.O.A.B wrote:
No weapons were fired, then how does that mean the CIWS couldn't shoot it down? They weren't fired so you won't know.
Who knows what will happen but i expect some US ships going down for sure.
Yep, they destroyed the 5th largest tank force in a few days.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
You overestimate the power of the USA.. Iran have a pretty good anti-air defense too.. c'mon you really think that the US can destroy every launcher on a country the size of Iran in one strike?B.Schuss wrote:
ridiculous. If it ever comes to an armed conflict between the US and Iran, the US military would destroy any existing iranian missile launcher, ship, or plane before they'd even be able to fire anything.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
In that particular case, the CIWS was suppose to fire automatically at any incoming missile.. it failed.. doesnt mean it will fail every time but my point is that if it failed to detect a exocet who is cruising almost at the speed of sound, how will it react when 2 or 3 sunburn will come at 2 and 3 times the speed of sounds.
Who knows what will happen but i expect some US ships going down for sure.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-07-09 09:50:36)
Like i posted, i agree that techology have improved on both side since 1980.M.O.A.B wrote:
That was also 21 years ago, ship defence systems will have vastly been improved in that time, especially their computer and electrical systems that make them more reliable and accurate. Better radar will also have been established. If they attacked a carrier battle group,AutralianChainsaw wrote:
In that particular case, the CIWS was suppose to fire automatically at any incoming missile.. it failed.. doesnt mean it will fail every time but my point is that if it failed to detect a exocet who is cruising almost at the speed of sound, how will it react when 2 or 3 sunburn will come at 2 and 3 times the speed of sounds.M.O.A.B wrote:
No weapons were fired, then how does that mean the CIWS couldn't shoot it down? They weren't fired so you won't know.
Who knows what will happen but i expect some US ships going down for sure.
1. they'd be detected long before they get in range
2. they'd have to face off with aircraft from the carrier patrolling the skies
3. considering they actually make it to launch range, the missiles would be faced with jmaming systems as well as the CIWS, and an aircraft carrier has more than one CIWS.
He reminds me of Spawn sometimes.m3thod wrote:
lol ramm ur a nutter.
I actually meant US aircraft nailing the Iranian one before it got anywhere near launch range, after all, the new jets have beyond visual range missiles.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
Like i posted, i agree that techology have improved on both side since 1980.M.O.A.B wrote:
That was also 21 years ago, ship defence systems will have vastly been improved in that time, especially their computer and electrical systems that make them more reliable and accurate. Better radar will also have been established. If they attacked a carrier battle group,AutralianChainsaw wrote:
In that particular case, the CIWS was suppose to fire automatically at any incoming missile.. it failed.. doesnt mean it will fail every time but my point is that if it failed to detect a exocet who is cruising almost at the speed of sound, how will it react when 2 or 3 sunburn will come at 2 and 3 times the speed of sounds.
Who knows what will happen but i expect some US ships going down for sure.
1. they'd be detected long before they get in range
2. they'd have to face off with aircraft from the carrier patrolling the skies
3. considering they actually make it to launch range, the missiles would be faced with jmaming systems as well as the CIWS, and an aircraft carrier has more than one CIWS.
1. The target have 20-25 seconds response time so like i said, forget about evasive maneuver
2. No aircraft will have the time to shoot down a missile going at 2 and 3 times the speed of sound. forget it
3. Lets hope that the CIWSs will not react the same way that the one on the USS Stark. ie not doing anything at all
And you underestimate our power severely. Our Air Force and Navy are just about the most powerful in the world.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
You overestimate the power of the USA.. Iran have a pretty good anti-air defense too.. c'mon you really think that the US can destroy every launcher on a country the size of Iran in one strike?B.Schuss wrote:
ridiculous. If it ever comes to an armed conflict between the US and Iran, the US military would destroy any existing iranian missile launcher, ship, or plane before they'd even be able to fire anything.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
In that particular case, the CIWS was suppose to fire automatically at any incoming missile.. it failed.. doesnt mean it will fail every time but my point is that if it failed to detect a exocet who is cruising almost at the speed of sound, how will it react when 2 or 3 sunburn will come at 2 and 3 times the speed of sounds.
Who knows what will happen but i expect some US ships going down for sure.
Oh ok.. yea i have no doubt that the Iranian air force will be destroyed pretty quickly.. i was more thinking about launching site on the ground.M.O.A.B wrote:
I actually meant US aircraft nailing the Iranian one before it got anywhere near launch range, after all, the new jets have beyond visual range missiles.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
Like i posted, i agree that techology have improved on both side since 1980.M.O.A.B wrote:
That was also 21 years ago, ship defence systems will have vastly been improved in that time, especially their computer and electrical systems that make them more reliable and accurate. Better radar will also have been established. If they attacked a carrier battle group,
1. they'd be detected long before they get in range
2. they'd have to face off with aircraft from the carrier patrolling the skies
3. considering they actually make it to launch range, the missiles would be faced with jmaming systems as well as the CIWS, and an aircraft carrier has more than one CIWS.
1. The target have 20-25 seconds response time so like i said, forget about evasive maneuver
2. No aircraft will have the time to shoot down a missile going at 2 and 3 times the speed of sound. forget it
3. Lets hope that the CIWSs will not react the same way that the one on the USS Stark. ie not doing anything at all
I know you have the best air force and Navy, and i know that not one single iranian aircraft will be able to get close to your fleet...i'm talking about hundreds of missile heading toward your ships in the persian gulf.. I realize that Iran will be defeated but you may lose a lot of ships .. there is no way you can destroy all the launching site of Iran .. As soon as the first bomb hit the Iranian soil, they will launch the missiles.Poseidon wrote:
And you underestimate our power severely. Our Air Force and Navy are just about the most powerful in the world.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
You overestimate the power of the USA.. Iran have a pretty good anti-air defense too.. c'mon you really think that the US can destroy every launcher on a country the size of Iran in one strike?B.Schuss wrote:
ridiculous. If it ever comes to an armed conflict between the US and Iran, the US military would destroy any existing iranian missile launcher, ship, or plane before they'd even be able to fire anything.
What makes you so sure the Sunburn can take out a ship? Just because it flies at Mach 2 or 3?AutralianChainsaw wrote:
I know you have the best air force and Navy, and i know that not one single iranian aircraft will be able to get close to your fleet...i'm talking about hundreds of missile heading toward your ships in the persian gulf.. I realize that Iran will be defeated but you may lose a lot of ships .. there is no way you can destroy all the launching site of Iran .. As soon as the first bomb hit the Iranian soil, they will launch the missiles.Poseidon wrote:
And you underestimate our power severely. Our Air Force and Navy are just about the most powerful in the world.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
You overestimate the power of the USA.. Iran have a pretty good anti-air defense too.. c'mon you really think that the US can destroy every launcher on a country the size of Iran in one strike?
And no anti-missile system is perfect, like i said in my previous posts... That was for those who think that shooting down a sunburn missile is easy.
Because it was designed for it.icecold2510 wrote:
What makes you so sure the Sunburn can take out a ship? Just because it flies at Mach 2 or 3?AutralianChainsaw wrote:
I know you have the best air force and Navy, and i know that not one single iranian aircraft will be able to get close to your fleet...i'm talking about hundreds of missile heading toward your ships in the persian gulf.. I realize that Iran will be defeated but you may lose a lot of ships .. there is no way you can destroy all the launching site of Iran .. As soon as the first bomb hit the Iranian soil, they will launch the missiles.Poseidon wrote:
And you underestimate our power severely. Our Air Force and Navy are just about the most powerful in the world.
And no anti-missile system is perfect, like i said in my previous posts... That was for those who think that shooting down a sunburn missile is easy.
aegis.rammunition wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7496765.stm
Iran has also got something called the "sunburn missile", apparently there is no defence to it
google it up
It hasn't been proven in combat. So you can't be so sure about it. Just because it is said to do something doesn't mean it can.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
Because it was designed for it.icecold2510 wrote:
What makes you so sure the Sunburn can take out a ship? Just because it flies at Mach 2 or 3?AutralianChainsaw wrote:
I know you have the best air force and Navy, and i know that not one single iranian aircraft will be able to get close to your fleet...i'm talking about hundreds of missile heading toward your ships in the persian gulf.. I realize that Iran will be defeated but you may lose a lot of ships .. there is no way you can destroy all the launching site of Iran .. As soon as the first bomb hit the Iranian soil, they will launch the missiles.
And no anti-missile system is perfect, like i said in my previous posts... That was for those who think that shooting down a sunburn missile is easy.
http://www.missilethreat.com/cruise/id. … detail.asp
