`Carrier-Destroying' Missile Poses Threat to U.S. Warships, Officials Say

[Purveyor]

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.

The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.

The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed.

``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its purpose.''

``Take out the carriers'' and China ``can walk into Taiwan,'' he said. China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage.

---EOE---

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=akO7Y_ORw538&refer=us

[shadowknows69]

1. Bush WANTS them to sink a carrier

Then he could hurl that nukular football right up Tehran's ass and the sheeple would cheer.

[wakeme2008]

2. I disagree with you on this...

If a carrier sinks, but will be impeached by the Repugs...

[Shipwack]

8. You are both correct...

Just because it's a stupid idea that's not in his (let alone the nation's) best interest, doesn't mean that Bush doesn't want it to happen anyway.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

3. you got that right

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=519300&mesg_id=520896

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. I can think of no other excuse for parading them around out there

[Egalitariat]

6. A sunken carrier would draw a nuclear strike within 36 hours

Or maybe they'd just tell Israel: "Do whatever you'd like. We won't stop you."

[ORDagnabbit]

4. the sunburn missles will turn the carriers into instant subs. n/t

[Pavulon]

9. You mean the drone we co developed?

the KA design was a joint venture between us and russian defense contractors. To make a system to use as a drone (aka target)...

Rense blew this topic up, janes has a better context.

[Solo_in_MD]

10. Not this nonsense again...Sunburns have been debunked repeatedly here at DU

Even Sizzler is being overblown.

[tocqueville]

12. agrees completely

The Sizzler could be a real menace through its mach 3 speed which makes countermeasures extremely difficult, but it could hardly sink a carrier unless coming in a swarm or under very unfortunate circumstances.

The Sizzler has a standard payload of 200 kg explosives (some versions have 400)

a standard Exocet has a payload of 165 kg but didn't sink the USS Stark 1987 (that was done by Saddam, who curiously wasn't blamed for that). Compare the size of a frigate and a carrier.

During the Falklands war the HMS Sheffield wasn't sunk (but was destroyed by fire, mainly due to a "lucky" hit on the anti-incendiary system). The Atlantic Conveyor was sunk - but by the British - since the fire devastated everything valuable aboard. The Conveyor wasn't a warship, but a requisitioned merchant ship.

So probably 200 kgs of explosives could make some more damage than 165, but probably not enough to sink a carrier, specially on a single hit. Even the 400 kg version wouldn't manage that, unless the fire gets out of control.

The French SCALP NAVAL (naval version of the SCALP/STORM SHADOW) has a payload of 450 kg, the same range than the Sizzler (300 km) but not the last burst speed to mach 3. On the other hand it's a stealth cruise-missile, very difficult to detect. THe BROACH charge is a penetrating charge.

Of course if several Sizzlers hit a carrier, specially near the flotation line, the carrier could be seriously endangered and destroyed. But it would take damned good accuracy since it's hardly believable that the Iranians or the Chinese could get much closer than the maximum range.

[daleo]

19. It would have a lot of kinetic energy at Mach 3

It could pack a fair punch, even without any explosives.

[sanskritwarrior]

23. This is getting ridiculous

like that old meme about the US hiding the real war dead that used to pop up over here every few days.......This Sunburn nonsense is like a vampire it will not die.......

[twiceshy]

36. I don't think Iran would use them...

Except in a full out shooting war. It is not in their interest to have a full scale conflict, better for them to fight through proxies and just slowly degrade the US economically.

[BeHereNow]

40. What makes you think Iran will use it? Far more likely that it will happen and be BLAMED on Iran.

Welcome to DU, by the way!
BHN

[Richard Steele]

20. Your persistent & unsubstantiated claims that Sunburns aren't a threat do not equal "debunking".

I think I'll take the word of the world's
professional military hardware experts over
yours, thank you very much.

[sanskritwarrior]

24. The same experts that said

The Iraqis would crush the US military in Desert Storm in 1991?

The same experts that said the Taliban would never be pushed out of Kabul? (Of course they didn't know an insurgency would be created)

The same experts that said...........nevermind. I'll trust the word of the military experts I work with. Soviet hardware is crap, I destroyed enough Soviet built vehicles driven by Iraqis back in 2003 to know that. We were killing Iraqi Republican Guard BMP's and T-72's at almost 2 miles away, before they even knew we were there.........If you want to believe the Sunburn is the bane of the US Navy, feel free to do so, hopefully we'll never have to see whose opinion is correct.......

[Selatius]

25. T-72s were outdated by the 1990-1991 Gulf War. Of course you could make sport of them

But then again, it's not just the weapons system but the training of the crew. If you came up against T-90s manned with the best trained crews in the world, you'd be suffering losses against them.

[sanskritwarrior]

26. I hope you aren't implying that

the Iranians are well trained and/or that their equipment is in top shape.......

[Selatius]

28. Hardly, the Iranians wish they possessed T-90s with training time comparable to the US or old USSR.

Any conflict with Iran will likely come in the form of an air campaign at any rate.

[sanskritwarrior]

30. Agreed and thank you for keeping it civil

n/t

[Solo_in_MD]

35. Some if it is the latest Russian export stuff but there is more to an effective

force that having the best toys. Iraq had one of the better equipped militiaries in the world, and was not effective in Iran, Kuwait, or on his home ground.

I would expect the Iranians to be worse with their bifurcated military (regular forces and Pasdaran) with the mullahs running the show. However, if some of the crews speak Russianm vice Farci...

[Richard Steele]

27. What "expert" ever said that? None that I heard. The outcome of Desert Storm was never in doubt.

Are you getting this info from some strange alternate-reality site,
or do you just make it up as you go along?

And it's funny how you never seem to offer any actual PROOF of
your claims. We're all just supposed to take your word for it,
because you claim to be a combat veteran, right?

FYI: Just saying you got info from "experts you work with" doesn't
cut it. Not even close.

[sanskritwarrior]

29. My opinion means more to me and your opinion means more to you

And yes when it comes to combat issues, you should take my word over yours......This isn't a combat issue so it doesn't apply. In whatever your particular expertise is, I will defer to your expertise.........

Finally you never heard anyone say that the battle hardened Iraqi Army would stop the American military in its tracks back in 1991.........You my friend are the one living in a different reality.........It's a shame the internet was not as robust back then as it is now.


Sorry, I'm not trying to be a dick, but you are abrasive and I'm not in the mood. I don't have any beef with you, I just know more about the Sunburn missles than you do........But don't trust my word trust solo_in_md, he's a navy guy. Trust the other DUers with military experience and knowledge of the Sunburn. It's ironic that the guys with the military experience and knowledge of the Sunburn don't fear it and the people with no experience just believe what they are told about something.

Nothing personal, I like you, I'm just tired of this Sunburn meme, it reminds me of the "ZOMG there are really 12,000 dead Americans in Iraq they are hiding the bodies..... " conspiracy that used to popup every week here......

Anytime anyone mentions wargames in the Persian Gulf, Iran, or the US attacking Iran, there are invariably 4 Sunburn missle threads......

[symbolman]

31. As a Veteran USAF

enlisted in 1971, who had a top secret clearance, along with my brother who also did, I can tell you that there are weapons out there UNDREAMT OF by MANY in the public.. if the Sizzler happens to be a DUD, well, that doesn't mean, and would actually USUALLY MEAN that there is some weapon we DON'T know about that is FAR more Damaging..

Many didn't know that B -52's were outfitted with LASERS (albeit, crude designs) as far back as the early 70's, which had the ability to fly over and around areas, unleash the beams, and POP the eyes, or boil brains of everything within three football fields.

Boeing has, as of this moment, laser 'cannons' that are ready to be mounted on the front of COMMERCIAL jet liners that will melt incoming rockets/missiles in seconds - got a pal there who builds them.

So let's not be so quick to call people ignorant, we're ALL ignorant when it comes to weapons - I'd almost be willing to believe there's a laser out there somewhere that may be able to cut a cruiser IN HALF LIKE BUTTER.

Like my sister used to say, "Anything they can dream up on the silver screen, we can MAKE eventually.." :)

[sanskritwarrior]

32. Cool we have the same clearance level.......

n/t

[symbolman]

33. So I guess we'd better not mention

the flying saucers then, eh? :)

[Richard Steele]

37. Well, there's no doubt that I certainly am "abrasive".

It's nothing personal at my end either, and I apologize
if if it comes across that way.

I also tend to respond to posts I DISAGREE with far more often
than to posts I agree with, which often gives people the idea
that I'm much more argumentative than I really am.

In the interest of balancing that a bit, I should mention that
I do share a view that you've mentioned- the sincere hope that
NEITHER of us is ever proven correct.

So, here's to every Sunburn forever rusting away quietly! :toast:

[Solo_in_MD]

41. The issue wasn't defeat but casualty levels

The coalition troops were expecting a blood bath complete with chemical weapons. The avaition bubbas expected significant loss of aircraft and crew. While the coaltion governments were sure that they would win (you don't start a war you don't think you can win) they were expecting much higher losses. No one anticpated the ineffectiveness and collapse of the "battle hardened" Iraqi troops.

[Solo_in_MD]

34. The "world's professional military hardware experts" are well aware

that Sunburns are used as targets by the USN.

Almost every site on the web that talks about killer Sunburns traces back to a single source that is less than qualified and far from current. Technology has moved on the the Sunburns have not.

[youngdem]

7. As 9.11 was the 'New Pearl Harbor' for the PNAC wet dream to begin

And they need a Gulf of Tonkin to get this war going.

Bushco is CONSTANTLY provoking them attempting to create an incident. Shameful. I wouldn't put it past him to allow an attack on an American target to get step two going.

Some say it wouldn't be the first time.

[ngant17]

11. I would think it would be used defensively by Iran

and only after a full-scale invasion by US has been initiated. A weapon that good would not be used in the first strike. There would be a greater political reason to not use it as an offensive first-strike against America.

If I recall, Argentina did not use its Exocet missile as a first strike attack against Britian in the War of the Falklands. But it did use it at the appropriate time.

Iran's air defenses would probably see the most action in the beginning. Taking out fighter jets would seem to be the priority in the first stage of the war.

Of course, if Shrub pulls out a nuclear missle in the arsenal, it's hard to predict what kind of response we'd see in Iran.

[Pavulon]

13. Real world

not pushing a war but the reality is simple.

The military is great at breaking soviet era crap on a large scale. Large scale coordinated action are what it is geared to. Not so good at counter insurgency warfare. No building schools, hearts and minds, just destruction.

Iran would go blind right off the bat. Tomahawks and black jets would turn off air defense. Then targets would be destroyed at will.

There would never be a reason for a ship to be within range of that weapon system.

The us does not use nuclear weapons in a first strike capability, however in a response to some event the results would be horrible.

Argentina lost.

[TheWatcher]

15. Not pushing a war.

No, you certainly never have done that.

:eyes:

Be patient, Pavulon. Your wildest dreams will come true within a few weeks, more than likely.

[Solo_in_MD]

16. His statements are essentially correct on US tactics

[Strelnikov_]

21. Same shit, different day

[Solo_in_MD]

14. Iranian SSM only make sense as a first strike weapon

If the US strikes first, there will not be a launching sites for SSMs available, and anything that looks likes a SSM will get taken out before it can launch. Since a primary target would be Iranian air defenses, I would not expect any kind of an IADS to last for more than several hours once it starts. Then there will be the lack of targeting data once it begins. Any Iranian SSMs will have to be used as a first strike weapon if they are going to have any effect. Even launch on warning will be too late.


Argentina tried from Day 1 to employ Exocets (they were reported on their strike aircraft), but they were never within range with targeting data until later. If the UK had elected to strike Argentine airfields, its doubtful any ships would have been damaged by Exocets.

[rec_report]

17. Well, if they get rid of the US warships, then there's no longer a threat. :)

I can't believe that, at this stage of the game, most American's fail to see that the most dangerous (and instable) terrorist in the world is Dictator Bush.

[sanskritwarrior]

22. LOL sunburn missles

are not capable of sinking the US fleet......that is not warmongering, that is simple fact. We developed the missle, the navy has more than one way to defeat it, nevermind the fact that if a shooting war was imminent we would move out of sunburn range. Now if Iran decided on a first strike, it would hurt, but Iran would be very stuoid to try and attack us first......

[LSK]

18. WilliamPitt pointed out Iran had this missle over a year ago

[jmowreader]

38. A practical question from a soldier

Would it be possible for the Iranians to hit a jet fuel bunker or ammunition magazine with one of these missiles?

[Solo_in_MD]

39. Not really (from a sailor)

Its not like we use black powder anymore on the bird farms. Fuel is a bit more of an issue but is stored low, well protected, and has a few other trick to stop it from being detonated. Fire supression is part of the basic design and integrated from the keel up.

Insensitive munitions have been a big deal in the Navy since the Forestall fire. Outside of stuff like 20mm, its been successful. Its worth a read if you are interested.

All of the worlds navies learned from the Battle of Midway and the loss of the Hood.

[BeHereNow]

42. Gulf of Tonkin incident anyone? "Deja Vu" for those of us who remember Vietnam.

Don't forget, Iran has ALWAYS been the target.
All they need is the catalyst to whack the sheeple into support.
BHN

[SoCalDem]

43. Who needs missiles..? a few rubber boats & some suicide bombers

will probably do the trick:(

[Monk06]

44. "the Sizzler" ...........

We are of course two armed and dangerous sisters
and not to clearly insane ... people.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-_rh3WgnW4