Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Iran Says U.S. Defense Missiles Easily Defeated

2010-02-07

A senior Iranian military official is warning Gulf Arab nations not to buy U.S. missile defense systems, saying they can easily be thwarted. The chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, General Hassan Firouzabadi, was quoted Thursday by Iranian state news as saying the Patriot missiles can be made ineffective through simple tactics.
And who would know more about the Patriot system than the Iranians?
Iran has accused the United States of trying to create divisions between Tehran and its Arab neighbors by deploying U.S. missile defense systems in Gulf nations.

On Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defended U.S. efforts to bolster the defense capabilities of regional allies, as Iran defies international calls to curb its nuclear program. Clinton said the U.S. must remain aware of Iran's refusal to meet its obligations under the United Nations Security Council and the UN nuclear agency. She spoke after meeting in Washington with Bahrain's foreign minister, Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed Al-Khalifa.

The Bahraini minister said the defense measures are not aimed at provoking Iran, but to protect international interests in a region critical to the shipment of oil.

Posted by:Steve White

#11 Canuckistan Sniper,

You are shooting badly on this one.

Recall that the Vincennes was only in Gulf because the Iranians were illegally attacking neutral shipping and US warships escorting them. If the Iranians had refrained from acting illegally or had simply accepted Iraqui offers for peace, the Airbus would never have been shot down. It was a tragic accident, at worst one captain's negligence, nothing more. And it would never have happened if the Iranians had not been wildly aggressive.

Perhaps you should THINK before you post.

I hope your aim is better in the field.

Posted by: Some guy 2010-02-07 23:17

#10 Again, even iff IRAN gets NUKULAAR + OTHER ADVANC STARGEIC WEAPONS, IMO it will prefer to stay on the GEOPOL-DIPLOM DEFENSIVE while letting the VARIOUS NUCLEAR MILITANT-TERR GROUPS DO ALL THE WARRIN' AND NUKE BLOODLETTING AGZ THE US-WEST.

The US + ALLIED > IMO, in IRAN, ETC. MIND, the US, etc. will no longer be able to attack sovereign ISLAMIST NUCSTATE(S) WIDOUT SERIOUSLY VIOLATING SOME SORT OF UNSC ANDOR INTERNATIONAL TREATISE, ETC. REGARDLESS IFF THE US HAS EVIDENCE OF DE FACTO COLLUSION WID NUC MILTERRS.

IOW, THE LONGER THE ECON TROUBLED = RECESSION-DEPRESSION-SUFFERING US FAILS TO DEFEAT RADIC ISLAM, 2012-N-BEYOND IT MAY NEVER BE ABLE TO DO.

Which suits the Islamists + Moslem World fine becuz, in their mil history, they fight [Predatory]LONG WARS OF DECADES-N-GENERATIONS, NOT US, WESTERN-STYLE "SHORT/BRIEF WARS" = "TOTAL WARS".

PROTRACTIVE LIMITED WARS OF ANNIHILATION, NOT SHORT TOTE WARS OF ANNIHILATION.

Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-02-07 19:34

#9 CS - traversing the narrow Straits of Hormuz, it's arguable if it was in Iranian airspace when the Vincennes shot it down. It would not be a stretch to speculate the aircraft and passengers were sacrificed for PR by a regime that is currently executing political opponents. The idea that the CO and crew of the Vincennes would knowingly target a non-hostile civilian aircraft is nonsense

Posted by: Frank G 2010-02-07 16:31

#8 #7 As safe as the Airbus was when it was hit by a missile courtesy of the US Navy. If I remember correctly it was in Iranian airspace at the time.

Please THINK the next time you want to utter a threat.

Posted by: Canuckistan sniper 2010-02-07 16:04

#7 He is right, they are very easy to defeat. All he has to do is keep to himself and not threaten anyone. As long as his planee stay in his airspace he is as safe as it gets...

Posted by: 49 Pan 2010-02-07 11:00

#6 Good fences make good neighbors.

Posted by: Perfesser 2010-02-07 09:28

#5 "Just write a verse from the Koran on your missile, and the Patriot will be afraid to hit it."

Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-02-07 08:56

#4 Yep, it was designed to shoot down aircraft for which you only have to disrupt the airframe to degrade its ability to fly and deliver. Proximity detonations are adequate. For a missile you near a direct hit or very near hit. It's Newtonian physics. With an aircraft you have the speed difference that you can shoot a missile. If the missile misses you still have time to reengage again. That's known as look-shoot-look. With a ballistic warhead you don't have that luxury since its moving too quickly, so you ripple fire at least two missiles in sequence, so if one misses you still have a last chance to make engage with adjustments made in flight by the second missile before ordnance arrives on target. That means even with a successful engagement the very best you're going to get is a 50% probability of hit. Add to the fact that the ability of long range engagement was limited by the time of launch detect, which was data streamed back to the States and then retransmitted back to the firing unit at the technology of the time, minimized response time. The fact they were able to engage any of the targets was remarkable. However, since the SCUDs themselves were largely a political weapon rather than a tactical weapon, the Patriot adequately served the same purpose in response.

Since GW1 the system has been modified, both in detection, launch, and engagement ability to do the job that it originally was never intended for.

Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-02-07 03:26

#3 Patriot during GW1 was overplayed, it wasn't designed to shoot down Scuds and it performed poorly.

Posted by: gromky 2010-02-07 02:54

#2 I suppose they are either talking about missile swarms or some sort of low-altitude cruise missile?

Posted by: gorb 2010-02-07 00:51

#1 I remember the Patriots being deployed in GW1. Haven't they been improving ever since?

Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-02-07 00:24

00:00