Iran's Ballistic Missiles Improving, Pentagon Finds

[Shah-i-Kot]

Iran's Ballistic Missiles Improving, Pentagon Finds

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-10/iran-improves-ballistics-missiles-to-target-ships.html

By Tony Capaccio - 2012-07-10T22:00:00Z


Iran’s military continues to improve the accuracy and killing power of its long- and short-range ballistic missiles, including designing a weapon to target vessels, according to a Pentagon report to Congress.
“Iran has boosted the lethality and effectiveness of existing systems by improving accuracy and developing new submunition payloads” that extend the destructive power over a wider area than a solid warhead, according to the June 29 report signed by U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
The improvements are in tandem with regular ballistic- missile training that “continues throughout the country” and the addition of “new ships and submarines,” the report found.
The report obtained by Bloomberg News was provided to the four congressional defense committees last week to comply with a fiscal 2010 directive to provide an annual classified and unclassified assessment of Iran’s military power. The unclassified version provides the latest snapshot of Iran’s so- called asymmetric capabilities designed to counter the strengths of western militaries.
The report summarizes what’s been said publicly about the status of Iran’s nuclear program and its aid to Syria, Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iraqi Shiite groups. It repeats the long- standing U.S. assessment that Iran with “sufficient foreign assistance may be technically capable of flight-testing” an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015.
Two analysts who follow Iranian military developments said the report provides new details and emphasis on the nation’s conventional ballistic missiles.
Accuracy Improvements

“There was a theme that Iran is improving the accuracy and lethality of its missiles,” said Congressional Research Service Iran analyst Kenneth Katzman. “U.S. government reports have previously always downplayed the accuracy and effectiveness of Iran’s missile forces.”
“The report seemed pretty sober and respectful of Iran’s capabilities, crediting Iran with improving survivability,” Katzman said.
The Pentagon report was delivered as a European Union embargo on buying Iranian crude took effect on July 1, adding to a series of trade and financial sanctions the U.S., EU and United Nations imposed on the second-biggest producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries in an effort to pressure the Persian Gulf nation over its nuclear activities.
‘Formidable Force’

Iran “would present a formidable force while defending Iranian territory,” the Pentagon said in the report. “We assess with high confidence” that over 30 years Iran “has methodically cultivated a network of sponsored terrorist surrogates capable of targeting U.S. and Israeli interests,” it said. “We suspect this activity continues.”
Iran also continues to develop ballistic missiles with range to reach regional adversaries, Israel and Eastern Europe, including an extended-range Shahab-3 and a 2,000 kilometer (1,240 mile) medium-range ballistic missile, said the report.
Citing the Iranian threat, the Obama administration shifted from the Bush administration’s plans to place missile-defense sites in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic to an approach that would in four phases place closer to Iran some Aegis-class Navy missile defense vessels, ground radar and eventually land- based Navy Standard Missile-3 interceptors.
Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT), and Raytheon Co. (RTN) are among beneficiaries of the envisioned systems.
Missile Emphasis

The report appears to confirm Iran has actively deployed a new solid-fuel intermediate-range ballistic missile and that the Shahab-3 has improved accuracy and submunitions, said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
The report also disclosed that Iran is seeking to improve its missile counter-measures against U.S. and Gulf Cooperation Council missile defenses and poses a potential new threat to Gulf shipping, said Cordesman, who this week is publishing CSIS updates to his reports on Iran and the Gulf military balance.
Iran, like China, is “developing and claims to have deployed short-range ballistic missiles with seekers that enable the missile to identify and maneuver toward ships during flight,” the report found.
“This technology also may be capable of striking land- based targets,” the Pentagon said.
Katzman said the language about Iran possessing a “formidable force defending Iranian territory” seemed to be a “signal to advocates of military action against Iran, suggesting any action on Iranian soil will carry risk.”
The Pentagon highlighted three early 2012 war exercises by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ground resistance forces “meant to show offensive and defensive capabilities.”
The maneuvers “were the first significant exercises” conducted by this branch of the Iranian military since 2008, the Pentagon said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington at acapaccio@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Walcott at jwalcott9@bloomberg.net

[randolph85]

the only missiles that matter for iran are the anti ship ones. they are fast and the warship targets would be pretty close and be sitting ducks. long range ballistic missiles are pretty weak, the conventional payload is light and they would be detected by radar like 15 minutes before they land in israel. unless it is carrying a nuke, any effect that iranian missiles would have on israel would only be psychological.

[Admin Khan]

If Iran is attacked, both Israel and Iran will be sent to the stone age. Iran will become another Afghanistan, and Israel will pay a huge price. I'd imagine millions of Iranians refugees flying to Afghanistan, and other nearby nations for safety. Remember, there is nothing that Iran has that can match what the US will use on them(should it choose to attack Iran). Iran will retaliate, and attack Tel-Aviv, Haifa, or other major Israeli cities. In short, both nations will suffer.

[faye]

i don't believe any information about iran, coming from the americans or israel.
anyhing they say is like the claim that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. the anti iran propaganda has been proliferating for years.
they fluctuate between anti iran and anti china. at the moment it is irans turn. for the time being.

[Shah-i-Kot]

If Iran is attacked, both Israel and Iran will be sent to the stone age. Iran will become another Afghanistan, and Israel will pay a huge price. I'd imagine millions of Iranians refugees flying to Afghanistan, and other nearby nations for safety. Remember, there is nothing that Iran has that can match what the US will use on them(should it choose to attack Iran). Iran will retaliate, and attack Tel-Aviv, Haifa, or other major Israeli cities. In short, both nations will suffer.

If Iran is attacked by any nation whether it is Israel alone, US alone, or both together, they have made it clear that their reprisal attack will not distinguish between the two. Israel uses American weapons, and American aid. This is the reason why US keeps telling Israel to hold back on an attack at this time. Israel, being an independent country, has responded, saying they do not entrust their security to the US or any other country. In other words, they will not wait until before or after elections.

Iran's missile range covers nearly all of Europe as well as the entire Middle East. Also, it should be noted that there is no real idea about how far beyond what is confirmed, that Iran's missile range extends.

There is no such thing as a 100% fool proof missile defense system. In fact, missile defense is largely insignificant. If a nation fires thousands of missiles, there is no way another nation can prevent all those missiles from striking their target. This is simple common sense.

Secondly, if Iran could have been easily attacked, and taken to the "stone age," as has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, it would already have been done, really.

The reason why Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya were attacked was because those nations at the time lacked any basic form of air defense or deterrence. They did not have the missile technology that Iran has today.

It is due to Iran's missile technology that there has been so much hesitation on the part of the US-Israel-Saudi nexus.

A war with Iran will have ever globally changing effects. China will back Iran with continued weapon supplies (this for China will be a money making opportunity, and it is also in their strategic interest to do so).

[randolph85]

If Iran is attacked, both Israel and Iran will be sent to the stone age. Iran will become another Afghanistan, and Israel will pay a huge price. I'd imagine millions of Iranians refugees flying to Afghanistan, and other nearby nations for safety. Remember, there is nothing that Iran has that can match what the US will use on them(should it choose to attack Iran). Iran will retaliate, and attack Tel-Aviv, Haifa, or other major Israeli cities. In short, both nations will suffer.

any israeli attack would be against its nuclear installations, i don't see it stirring up any hysteria that would cause millions of iranians to flee. i don't think even iraqs direct attacks on iranian civilian targets had that much of an effect.

check out this article, while it is an israeli opinion i think it is closer to reality than any doomsday scenario for israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/defense-ministry-experts-predict-300-israeli-fatalities-in-war-with-iran-syria.premium-1.455333

[Shah-i-Kot]

the only missiles that matter for iran are the anti ship ones. they are fast and the warship targets would be pretty close and be sitting ducks. long range ballistic missiles are pretty weak, the conventional payload is light and they would be detected by radar like 15 minutes before they land in israel. unless it is carrying a nuke, any effect that iranian missiles would have on israel would only be psychological.

Missile defense has been cast of as insignificant right from when the idea became a supposed reality back in Bush's presidency. The fact is, in such a hypothetical war, a nation would not be firing 1 missile, but potentially thousands of missiles.

Also, your information on their IBMS is not true.

An example of the above is that in the Israeli-Lebanon war of 2006, Lebanon fired thousands of Katushyas and Scuds, and there was nothing at all that could be done to stop it- and these are Soviet junk weapons too.

There is a reason there is so much hesitation about a US-Israeli war with Iran. Had Iran been like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, countries that lacked modern armed defensive and offensive capabilities, then then the war would have started already.

[randolph85]

If Iran is attacked by any nation whether it is Israel alone, US alone, or both together, they have made it clear that their reprisal attack will not distinguish between the two. Israel uses American weapons, and American aid. This is the reason why US keeps telling Israel to hold back on an attack at this time. Israel, being an independent country, has responded, saying they do not entrust their security to the US or any other country. In other words, they will not wait until before or after elections.

Iran's missile range covers nearly all of Europe as well as the entire Middle East. Also, it should be noted that there is no real idea about how far beyond what is confirmed, that Iran's missile range extends.

There is no such thing as a 100% fool proof missile defense system. In fact, missile defense is largely insignificant. If a nation fires thousands of missiles, there is no way another nation can prevent all those missiles from striking their target. This is simple common sense.

Secondly, if Iran could have been easily attacked, and taken to the "stone age," as has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, it would already have been done, really.

The reason why Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya were attacked was because those nations at the time lacked any basic form of air defense or deterrence. They did not have the missile technology that Iran has today.

It is due to Iran's missile technology that there has been so much hesitation on the part of the US-Israel-Saudi nexus.

A war with Iran will have ever globally changing effects. China will back Iran with continued weapon supplies (this for China will be a money making opportunity, and it is also in their strategic interest to do so).

but these are conventional missiles, which have a very small payload, launched over far distances they are easily detected by modern radar.

and china will ditch iran as fast as it did iraq. china is a giant, iran is a peanut to them.

[randolph85]

Missile defense has been cast of as insignificant right from when the idea became a supposed reality back in Bush's presidency. The fact is, in such a hypothetical war, a nation would not be firing 1 missile, but potentially thousands of missiles.

Also, your information on their IBMS is not true.

An example of the above is that in the Israeli-Lebanon war of 2006, Lebanon fired thousands of Katushyas and Scuds, and there was nothing at all that could be done to stop it- and these are Soviet junk weapons too.

There is a reason there is so much hesitation about a US-Israeli war with Iran. Had Iran been like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, countries that lacked modern armed defensive and offensive capabilities, then then the war would have started already.

yes, lebanon fired thousands of missiles and killed only a few israeli civilians. by that you are right they are junk weapons, basically firecrackers.

iran doesn't have thousands of shahab 3's, and even those are almost obsolete. by best estimates they have only a few hundred, and they would be stupid to fire all of them during one conflict.

their missiles, unless they are nuclear, are almost pointless due to their small conventional payloads. unless they are accurate and can evade radar which i don't think iran has the capability of doing.

military superiority is based on air power, something which iran does not have at all.

[Shah-i-Kot]

but these are conventional missiles, which have a very small payload, launched over far distances they are easily detected by modern radar.

and china will ditch iran as fast as it did iraq. china is a giant, iran is a peanut to them.

Again, your information on Iran's missile technology is not true.

China has not even ditched Syria, and thats a headache for them.

[Shah-i-Kot]

yes, lebanon fired thousands of missiles and killed only a few israeli civilians. by that you are right they are junk weapons, basically firecrackers.

iran doesn't have thousands of shahab 3's, and even those are almost obsolete. by best estimates they have only a few hundred, and they would be stupid to fire all of them during one conflict.

their missiles, unless they are nuclear, are almost pointless due to their small conventional payloads. unless they are accurate and can evade radar which i don't think iran has the capability of doing.

military superiority is based on air power, something which iran does not have at all.

You speak as if you are some judge LOL

Your information is also not true. You can go and check it yourself.

I personally do not think Israel will attack Iran first, they will force US do to it with their influence and political power within the US gov. They think this way they will avoid an Iranian reprisal.

[randolph85]

Again, your information on Iran's missile technology is not true.

China has not even ditched Syria, and thats a headache for them.

how is it not true? their ballistic missiles are almost pointless unless they are carrying a nuclear payload. like i said, the only missiles that would be an actual strategic offense weapon would be their weapons against warships in the gulf.

china has not ditched syria but what has it done for the assad government? it vetoes some useless UN resolutions that actually have no bearing on the ground. thats not exactly supporting the syrian government, its trying to save face in a losing battle.

[SiiNii]

randolph85 can you post the article here for those of us who don't subscribe to Haaretz?

[randolph85]

You speak as if you are some judge LOL

Your information is also not true. You can go and check it yourself.

I personally do not think Israel will attack Iran first, they will force US do to it with their influence and political power within the US gov. They think this way they will avoid an Iranian reprisal.

huh? its called discussing the relevant military facts. instead of telling me to "check my facts" why can't you just show me where i am wrong?

why would the US attack iran when it has the perfect proxy in israel to do it? the US is the only one of the 2 that wants to hold back on the issue while israel is the mad dog in the relationship. the US is not going to waste money and resources when they can just give israel the green light to do what they want to do after the november elections.

[Shah-i-Kot]

how is it not true? their ballistic missiles are almost pointless unless they are carrying a nuclear payload. like i said, the only missiles that would be an actual strategic offense weapon would be their weapons against warships in the gulf.

china has not ditched syria but what has it done for the assad government? it vetoes some useless UN resolutions that actually have no bearing on the ground. thats not exactly supporting the syrian government, its trying to save face in a losing battle.

Again, speak facts.