Article

2005-12-13 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Iran successfully tests Silkworm missiles

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2005-12-13 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "...290 kilometres per second..."

Iranians musta added some Acme sooooperchargers...

Posted by PBMcL 2005-12-13 00:27|| 2005-12-13 00:27|| Front Page Top

#2 It said the Silkworms have a speed of 290 kilometres per second and a range of 110 kilometres.

assuming it didn't melt and was stable aerodynamically, it would be out of fuel in less than a second, and the G forces to turn 1 degree would be astounding.

Posted by Red Dog 2005-12-13 00:44|| 2005-12-13 00:44|| Front Page Top

#3 typical journalist ignorance...290m/s if the Silkorm name is correct refers to some SS-N-2 Stix modernised iteration (maybe chinsese)of an old big Soviet anti ship missile. Iraq attacked a US battleship in 91 with it, but a British Destroyer killed the missile with its mediocre Sea Dart anti aircraft missile . In technological terms it's inferior to an Exocet of the 80's.
It was a failure also in the first guided missile naval battle of history: Latakia Naval Battle 1973
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/
jsource/History/latakia.html

Posted by Unetch Flinetch3868 2005-12-13 00:58|| 2005-12-13 00:58|| Front Page Top

#4 A note about an incorrection in that web page: The Midawy was not a significant milestone in naval warfare concept. It was the Battle before it: Coral Sea

Posted by Unetch Flinetch3868 2005-12-13 01:00|| 2005-12-13 01:00|| Front Page Top

#5 The Silkworm has been around for decades. I'm guessing these are missiles left over from the Iran-Iraq war back in the '80s and 'successful test' means they didn't explode and martyr the launch crew.

Posted by SteveS 2005-12-13 01:10|| 2005-12-13 01:10|| Front Page Top

#6 The Silkworm is a rocket-powered missile, but North Korea has built jet-powered versions using Russian helicopter engines to provide longer range. The Iraqis were working on this too, and during the 2003 battles hit a Kuwaiti shopping mall with one configured for land-attack (but I don't know about the engine).

Posted by Phil 2005-12-13 01:22|| 2005-12-13 01:22|| Front Page Top

#7 The Silkworm is the Chinese version of the old Soviet Styx missile - see "http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/hy-1.htm".
Not much of a threat to any ship armed with Standard
Mark 2, let alone the Mark 3.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2005-12-13 05:23|| 2005-12-13 05:23|| Front Page Top

#8 In 1971 the Pakistani destroyer Khaibar and the minesweeper Muhafiz were sunk by Styx missiles (two into the destroyer, one into the minesweeper) fired from the Indian Osa class missile boats Nirghat and Veer. The merchant vessel Venus Challenger, carrying a full load of US ammunition from Saigon for the Pakistani Army and Air force, was sunk by another OSA class boat, the Nipat, with a single Styx. Another Styx fired by the Nipat crippled the Pak destroyer Shahjahan.
The Nipat then locked onto a shore target and fired two Styx missiles. One struck the Keamari oil tank farm. The resulting fire destroyed the tanks and burned for days.

Posted by john 2005-12-13 06:18|| 2005-12-13 06:18|| Front Page Top

#9 290 km/s comes out to about 29,000 mph. That's around Mach 38. Uh huh.

Love that MSM fact-checking.

Posted by Dreadnought 2005-12-13 11:12|| 2005-12-13 11:12|| Front Page Top

#10 Must have a Hemi...

Posted by Raj 2005-12-13 12:41|| 2005-12-13 12:41|| Front Page Top

#11 I'd like to see Iran and North Korea designated as anti-missile laser testing ranges. Anything they launch more than 1,000 feet in the air should be used as a mobile target vehicle for tracking and engagement with shipboard or plane based HEW and DEW.

Posted by Zenster 2005-12-13 12:42|| 2005-12-13 12:42|| Front Page Top

#12 Not to be a weenie, but by my calcs, 290km/s comes out to 626,400 mph. That's, like, Mach Infinity.

Mullahs in Spaaaaace!

Posted by ST 2005-12-13 13:01|| 2005-12-13 13:01|| Front Page Top

#13 ST,

You are correct, sir. I converted from km/min. Mach Infinity, indeed.

Posted by Dreadnought 2005-12-13 15:12|| 2005-12-13 15:12|| Front Page Top

#14

Math be hard!

Posted by Doitnow 2005-12-13 15:57|| 2005-12-13 15:57|| Front Page Top

#15 I thought I read a silkworm was the missle used to sink the Brittish ship during the Falklands war. Can anyone confirm this?

Posted by 49 pan">49 pan 2005-12-13 21:00|| 2005-12-13 21:00|| Front Page Top

#16 On May 4, 1982, two Argentinean Super Etendard aircraft skimmed the ocean surface, avoiding the two British Harriers on combat air patrol and located the task force. Two Exocet missiles were launched, one of which devastated the HMS Sheffield. (Miller 196-7) On May 25, 1982, a low level Exocet attack was launched with the intention of sinking the two British carriers. Once again the Harrier combat air patrol failed to intercept the attack. However, the British had placed the carriers in a less obvious position, so the Argentines unknowingly sank the Atlantic Conveyor, a transport carrying the helicopters the ground forces planned on using for airmobile operations. (199) It is unlikely the British could have continued the war with the loss of one of its two carriers, and indeed they were quite lucky the Argentines had only a half dozen Exocets.

The task force was also unable to deal with attacks from the 1950s vintage A-4 Skyhawk dropping conventional bombs. Skyhawks attacked the landing force at San Carlos sinking the HMS Ardent and damaging the HMS Antrim. Later attacks damaged the landing ships Sir Bedivere, Sir Galahad, HMS Glasgow, and destroyed the HMS Antelope. (Dublin 32-3) On May 24th and 25th, air attacks damaged two supply ships, the Argonaut, the Broadsword, and sank the Coventry. (English 28-9) Many of the damaged vessels were hit with bombs which failed to explode because they did not have time to arm properly. Had these bombs detonated, the amphibious landings would have been a complete disaster.

Many of the ships' weapons systems were not effective. Hundreds of anti-submarine weapons were fired at sonar contacts, but the one Argentine submarine in the area was not sunk. (Hughes 236) British Type 42 destroyers were armed with Sea Dart medium range anti-aircraft missiles whose ancient vacuum tubes required warm up time before launch, making them useless against surprise Exocet attacks. The obsolete Sea Cat anti-aircraft missile was guided by crewmen who relied on visual contact, and the close-in anti-aircraft weapons were also obsolete. (English 135) Only two anti-aircraft Type 22 ships with their effective Sea Wolf missile system protected the vital carriers. (Miller 197)

On the whole, the Royal Navy was inadequate for the task, equipped with inadequate and often obsolete weapons. The Harriers shot down twenty Argentine aircraft while no Harriers were lost to enemy aircraft. (Braybrook 29) But the British had only twenty Harriers available and could not deal with the over 180 planes in the Argentine inventory. (Argentina A2) Ships of the Royal Navy shot down only 10% of the Argentine Air Force, (Hughes 162) but 75% of the British task force was damaged or sunk. (English 33) Surprisingly, luck made up for these deficiencies, and fortune favored the brave of the United Kingdom.

http://johnsmilitaryhistory.tripod.com/falklands.html

Posted by Besoeker 2005-12-13 21:17|| 2005-12-13 21:17|| Front Page Top

#17 B-
THANKS!

Posted by 49 pan">49 pan 2005-12-13 22:51|| 2005-12-13 22:51|| Front Page Top

23:25 C-Low
23:07 DMFD
23:06 Bolo
23:02 DMFD
23:01 .com
22:59 Bolo
22:54 Desert Blondie
22:51 49 pan
22:44 Frank G
22:43 Frank G
22:27 Mahou Sensei Negi-bozu
22:21 Valentine
22:21 Frank G
22:17 jules 2
22:13 newc
22:12 xbalanke
21:47 Besoeker
21:43 Besoeker
21:42 jules 2
21:39 jules 2
21:38 Frank G
21:37 Besoeker
21:33 Besoeker
21:31 anon