ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/21/2018 03:06 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  3.853 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
08/23/2007 03:47 AM ID: 64442 Permalink   

Iran Devolops "Smart Bomb"

 

An announcement on Wednesday, cited from a Defence Ministry statement, details that Iran has developed a 900Kg (2000lb) "smart bomb". The "smart bomb" called Qased (Messenger) is now operational.

Qased can be dropped from F-4 and F-5 jets, which are still in service from before the Islamic revolution of 1979, after which the US stopped relations between themselves and Iran.

Mostafa Mohammad Najjar the Defence Minister of Iran last year had announced that the bomb had been designed but hadn't been tested adding that "smart and guided weaponry" technology was possessed by a limited amount of countries.

 
  Source: in.reuters.com  
    WebReporter: havoc666 Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  30 Comments
  
  Does it destroy everything on thr screen?  
 
n/t
 
  by: redstain   08/23/2007 07:38 AM     
  F4s?  
 
They're dropped from F4 Phantoms? The US phased out those jets shortly after the Vietnam war and replaced them with F-14 Tomcats (which are being phased out and replaced with F-18 Hornets).

Hi-tech weaponry with low-tech delivery system. Interesting to see how this combo works...
 
  by: CArnold     08/23/2007 08:32 AM     
  @Carnold  
 
They get shot down 400 miles from target?

Surely Iran already has guided missiles, or is this just the first one they've designed entirely themselves?
 
  by: Gogevandire   08/23/2007 09:12 AM     
  @Gogevandire  
 
“They get shot down 400 miles from target?”
LOL! My thoughts exactly!

The F-5 isn’t much, either, when compared to today’s standards.
The US used them in the 60s, alongside the F-4. Nowdays, the F-5s are used as “trainers” in the US military’s aviation programs.
Little bit of trivia for you Trekkies: Michael Dorn (actor that plays Worf on Star Trek: The Next Generation) owns an F-5.

“Surely Iran already has guided missiles, or is this just the first one they've designed entirely themselves?”
I’m under the assumption that they’ve got guided missiles, as well. But benefit of smart bombs is low cost: You don’t have to develop a propulsion system to deliver the warheads, which costs money. Alternatively, you deliver with a fighter/bomber. The beauty of this is that the aircraft are reusable, whereas a missile’s propulsion system is a one-shot deal. Instead of relying upon it’s own propulsion system to guide it to it’s target, it uses gravity and a set of fins to slice it’s ways through the air to the target. (In October 2004, al-Zarqawi was killed by two 500-pound smart-bombs deployed by two F-16 Falcons.)
 
  by: CArnold     08/23/2007 09:39 AM     
  Russia connection  
 
The F4 maybe old but seeing as Russia is getting friendlier and friendlier with Iran it will not be long before Iran buys better planes.

Mark my words.
 
  by: Flutje   08/23/2007 11:41 AM     
  It's really worrying  
 
that countries feel they *have* to arm themselves increasingly in the relatively stable time in the human timeline.

I think it's been proved that invading countries will not scare their neighbours into submissive behaviour. Rather it encourages neighbouring countries to arm themselves to the teeth in case they're next.

Even if Iran could still be defeated easily by the US, no one could blame them for putting up as big a resistence as possible. All it adds up to is excessive destruction of human life, if we're lucky. If we're not lucky, it's going to add up to world war 3, then all we'll see is the politicians get into their bunkers and.... well that's probably the last thing we normal people will see actually.
 
  by: Maxx20     08/23/2007 12:22 PM     
  after reading the title  
 
I thought a smart bomb in Iran was a suicide bomber with an education.
 
  by: shaohu     08/23/2007 12:37 PM     
  hmm...  
 
the biggest bully starts chasing everyone around the playground with the biggest beating stick, eventually the ones on the other side of the stick start to flock in the same direction.

You keep at it long enough and it's only a matter of time until you have several billion Chinese, a few million russian, iranian, venezuelan and etc peoples backed into the same corner. That will become a decisive point in history.

As glorious and righteous as the biggest bully claims to be, it will be a dangerous turning of the tides when the rest of the playground gets together and realizes their common problem is best resolved with a united approach against the bully.

Yes, separately their sticks are smaller, but united their numbers will be quite decisive.

Already their beginning practice runs. - http://www.shortnews.com/...

As it has been said before... You can carry a big stick, but don't forget Roosevelt's first part about "speaking softly" too.

The US is a democracy, pushing foreign policy onto other countries through military action doesn't foster democracy, it represents what it is. Policy through the end of a gun barrel is dictatorship.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   08/23/2007 01:34 PM     
  lol  
 
n/t
 
  by: robface84   08/23/2007 01:37 PM     
  @shaohu  
 
LOL, genius!

@ukcn; The playground mentality, while relevant, depicts the bully as standing alone. This isn't technically the case in world politics today.

The result of standing up to 'the bully' (and his / her mates) would of course overall be the cessation of 'bullying'. However one has to place on top of that the effort and destruction that 'standing up' actually equates to, i.e. world war 3.

Also, the 'suicide' of some of the smaller people who 'stand up to the bully' needs to be taken into account.

So, while the US do bully the world, and do enforce their own brand of democracy at the end of a gun barrel, the alternative may be far worse.
 
  by: Maxx20     08/23/2007 03:41 PM     
  @carnold  
 
iran has better planesthan f-4 and f-5.

thye've got their own F-5E variant: http://en.wikipedia.org/...

another prototype for a domestically built fighter: http://en.wikipedia.org/...

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

http://en.wikipedia.org/...


and apparently Iran also has the 3rd largest helicopter fleet in the world
 
  by: havoc666     08/23/2007 04:22 PM     
  @havoc666  
 
I'm pretty sure just two F-22's could wipe out Irans F-5 fleet.
 
  by: _undead   08/23/2007 05:12 PM     
  @Undead  
 
8 F22's took out 40 F15's without with the F15's getting a single target lock, so yeah, pretty much.

@Flutje
They're in the process of buying 250 su-27's (I think) Russias newest fighters, but they're not a match for the Typhoon or the Raptor, so, doesnt matter really.

@Goge
Smart bombs are fin controlled free fall bombs you fool, not self propelled missiles
 
  by: Gogevandire   08/23/2007 05:21 PM     
  @undead  
 
thats a maybe do 2 f-22 carry 50 missiles combined?, i don't think so, more like 20-25 combined, so maybe 4 could do the job, with 100% success.

they have (in service):
75 Mikoyan MiG-29 (60 MiG-29A, 15 MiG-29UB)
50 f-5's
50 f-14's
47 f-4's (3 for reconnaissance RF-4E; 15 veriant D's and 29 variant E's)
32 Sukhoi Su-24
24 Dassault Mirage F1
24 Mikoyan MiG-27
18 Shenyang J-6
6 Sukhoi Su-25 (3 are trainers)
6 Azarakhsh
0 IAMI Shafaq (may be higher, currently starting production)
an known number of IAMI Saeqeh


theres also other but the numbers aren't revealed, at leats on wiki. 332 aircraft by the count i have have, assuming each raptor could make 15 kills, atleast 22 would be required.

but iran also have surface to air missiles that the raptors would have to contend with.

many people hail the f-22 raptor as the best, but its never been truely tested in combat. and beyond that russia's upcomming fighter will blow much of te US's aircraft out of the water proformance wise: http://en.wikipedia.org/...

while their next plane is intended to rival or likely even surpass the preformance of the F-22 raptor: http://en.wikipedia.org/...

the later aircraft is based on two tech demo's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
and: http://en.wikipedia.org/...
 
  by: havoc666     08/23/2007 05:55 PM     
  @goge  
 
"@Undead
8 F22's took out 40 F15's without with the F15's getting a single target lock, so yeah, pretty much."

in simulation... hardly something worth holdiong up to tried and true aircrafts... i'm curious to see the raptor in action rather than simulation

"@Flutje
They're in the process of buying 250 su-27's (I think) Russias newest fighters, but they're not a match for the Typhoon or the Raptor, so, doesnt matter really."

but they are more than a match for what the US typically uses for what the raptor was designed to replace; the f-15 eagle.

btw, thats not the newest aircraft, not by a long shot, they unveiled one just this year, india has expressed intrest in buying them (they are looking at buying 126 multi-role combat aircraft; they currently use alot of MiG-29's).

newer than Su-27 aircraft include:
Su-30
Su-32
Su-33
Su-34
Su-35
Su-39

MiG-35

"@Goge
Smart bombs are fin controlled free fall bombs you fool, not self propelled missiles"

lol, you know what they about people that talk to themselves...lol

i got a chuckle from that.
 
  by: havoc666     08/23/2007 06:12 PM     
  @Havoc  
 
Mig 35 has no stealth.

Biggest problem for Iran and Russia is the other plane see's them first.

The PAK FA hasnt even been specified yet, its a decade away from flight (assuming similar delays to those suffered by every other 5th gen so far).

Even assuming the Mig 29 is still better than the F15, the rest of the airforce isnt, and the US/UK will be deploying the Raptor and Typhoon which are leaps and bounds ahead.
 
  by: Gogevandire   08/23/2007 06:12 PM     
  @Havoc  
 
"but they are more than a match for what the US typically uses for what the raptor was designed to replace; the f-15 eagle."

Exactly.
Its like comparing the challenger two to General Jacksons US civil war army.

The US knows the F15 isnt the best anymore, thats why its being replaced.
 
  by: Gogevandire   08/23/2007 06:17 PM     
  @goge  
 
"Exactly.
Its like comparing the challenger two to General Jacksons US civil war army.

The US knows the F15 isnt the best anymore, thats why its being replaced."

but its only been replaced in theory and in simulation, not in combat.

"Mig 35 has no stealth.

Biggest problem for Iran and Russia is the other plane see's them first."

neither does the eurofighter typhoon, its still a good aircraft though, a vast improvement on older model.

also stealth has problems such as being unstable, and unsafe without fly-by-wire, and even fly-by-wire systems have to be redundant, this increases cost and weight. a strong EMP could easily cause havoc on stealth aircraft, especially the raptor, due to its more advanced nature, though systems are hardened, they are not imperverious.

most sleath aircraft are slow, slow than their non-stealth counterparts, because they lack afterburners, and thusly once that are found they are more vulnerable.

stealth aircraft have reduced proformance in dogfighting, due to their shape, which also make them more vulernable to auto-cannon fire from tradition jet fighters.

stealth aircraft are vulnerable to passive detection from eltromagnetic leaks, even in the most sheilded aircrafts.

stealth aircrafts require more maintainance as even a pebble flying up off a runaway and hitting the stealth skin of the aircraft can dramatically increase its radar signature. even heavy rain can damage the stealth skin.

also stealth aircrafts are vulnerable while firing and immediately before and after firing, due to the lack of stealth on weapons themselves as well as the fact that open bomb bay doors will amplify a stealth aircrafts radar cross section, older radar tech will even locate the aircraft during this time about 15-25 seconds.

also stealth aircrafts should carry payload internally as carrying externally increase radar cross section. 4th and 5th generation stealth are actually semi-stealth aircraft due to their nature and are more vulnerable to detection due to carrying payloads on external pylons.

"The PAK FA hasnt even been specified yet, its a decade away from flight (assuming similar delays to those suffered by every other 5th gen so far)."

thats why i gave a link on the two aircrafts that it derived from. the combined result is expect to be at least equal to the F-22 Raptor.

"Even assuming the Mig 29 is still better than the F15, the rest of the airforce isnt, and the US/UK will be deploying the Raptor and Typhoon which are leaps and bounds ahead."

again the raptor thus far isn't a combat aircraft, it hasn't been used for combat, in simulation thus far it wins. the F-15 is whats typically used and a number of russian aircraft can at least match the f-15, some exceed it by a decent margin.
 
  by: havoc666     08/23/2007 06:50 PM     
  @Havoc  
 
The F22 can outmanouvere the F15 by a significant margin.
 
  by: GogeVandire   08/23/2007 07:37 PM     
  @goge  
 
"@Havoc
The F22 can outmanouvere the F15 by a significant margin."

i sure hope so... though i'm kind of baffled why you would feel it necessary to tell me this given how much i'f shown from an array of aircrafts in the last few weeks.

i see alot more stories like this in SN's future, i'll try to be on top of military developments in various countries...

Iran for instance has remote control launch pads, neat idea, very dangerous upon being attacked though. (unreported on SN, though i've been considering reporting it).

Russia has a new stealth sub and new stealth bomber UAV (i report both in the last 24 hours).
 
  by: havoc666     08/23/2007 07:52 PM     
  @havoc666  
 
“…russia's upcomming fighter will blow much of te US's aircraft out of the water…”
Don’t you mean “out of the *sky*”? =P

Your information about stealth is right on the money… kinda’. The list of facts you provided read as if they’re of the B2 Spirit stealth bomber – not the F-22 Raptor.

“most sleath aircraft are slow, slow than their non-stealth counterparts, because they lack afterburners”
Where is may be true of the B2, it’s far from the truth about the Raptor.
The F-22 DOES have afterburners. The F-22 is capable of near-Mach-3 speeds (Mach 2.84, to be precise) with afterburners, and Mach 1.5 without. In fact, the F-22 is one of a handful of jets that are capable of sustaining Mach+ speeds without the use of afterburners. And use of afterburners consume more fuel, which equates to shorter flight times.

“stealth aircraft have reduced proformance in dogfighting, due to their shape”
As Goge pointed out, the F-22 surpasses the F-15 in performance. It has a faster climb-rate, because it’s compliment of weaponry are internally stored, it isn’t susceptible to the drag that affect other fighters that externally carry their weapons payload.

Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia:

“The F-22 is highly maneuverable, at both supersonic and subsonic speeds. The F-22's thrust vectoring nozzles allow the aircraft to turn tightly, and perform extremely high alpha (angle of attack) maneuvers such as the Herbst maneuver (or J-turn), Pugachev's Cobra, and the Kulbit, though the J-Turn is more useful in combat. The F-22 is also capable of maintaining a constant angle of attack of over 60°, yet still having some control of roll. Cruise altitude is a huge factor in performance. During June 2006 exercises in Alaska, F-22 pilots routinely attributed their altitude advantage as major factor in an unblemished kill ratio.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/...


The F-22 is the ultimate air-superiority fighter.

Again, I think the source you received your information from related solely to the B2, and not the F-22.
 
  by: CArnold     08/23/2007 08:06 PM     
  @carnold  
 
"Don’t you mean “out of the *sky*”? =P"

litterially speaking yes...

"Your information about stealth is right on the money… kinda’. The list of facts you provided read as if they’re of the B2 Spirit stealth bomber – not the F-22 Raptor."

keep in mind though that the raptor isn't a stealth aircraft, its RCS (reduced cross section) aircraft, ture stealth craft no exceed mach 1.

"Where is may be true of the B2, it’s far from the truth about the Raptor.
The F-22 DOES have afterburners. The F-22 is capable of near-Mach-3 speeds (Mach 2.84, to be precise) with afterburners, and Mach 1.5 without. In fact, the F-22 is one of a handful of jets that are capable of sustaining Mach+ speeds without the use of afterburners. And use of afterburners consume more fuel, which equates to shorter flight times."

indeed, however the raptor isn't a true stealth craft for a number of reason, like the one above.

"The F-22 is the ultimate air-superiority fighter."

indeed it is, for now, but its still not been combat tested so that title is at best in theory and slef-proclaimed. the f-15 actually earned that title at one point whereas f-22 is still working on that part.

"Again, I think the source you received your information from related solely to the B2, and not the F-22."

indeed... mostly, f-22 isn't a stealth craft though, but classed as a semi-stealth (RCS) fighter, whereas the b-2 is... and the cost reflect this as the b-2 bomber cost between 1.1 and 2.2 billion dollars between 8 and 16 time more than the raptor.


like i'vee been saying for awhile it'd be intresting to see the raptor in combat, i doubt it will do as well in real life as it does on paper, or in simulation to be more specific.
 
  by: havoc666     08/24/2007 01:29 AM     
  @havoc666  
 
"keep in mind though that the raptor isn't a stealth aircraft..."
On the contrary. It, indeed, is a stealth aircraft.

http://www.af.mil/...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/...


Don't be fooled by it's conventional-jet-fighter shape. The F-22 is an evolution over the wedgy and angular F-117 stealth fighter. A HUGE evolution.

"its RCS (reduced cross section) aircraft, ture stealth craft no exceed mach 1."
RCS is fundamentally what makes a stealth aircraft stealth. The links I've provided goes more into this more in-depth (especially the 2nd one).

"like i'vee been saying for awhile it'd be intresting to see the raptor in combat..."
I agree. I'd like to see some footage of it doing it's thing. In the Afghan and Iraq wars, most of the jets where destroyed before having a chance to leave the ground.
 
  by: CArnold     08/24/2007 04:16 AM     
  @carnold  
 
On the contrary. It, indeed, is a stealth aircraft.

http://www.af.mil/...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/...

Don't be fooled by it's conventional-jet-fighter shape. The F-22 is an evolution over the wedgy and angular F-117 stealth fighter. A HUGE evolution."

no, no its not... it uses fifth generation stealth technology; this is a reduced cross section stealth technology, and thusly not true stealth.

a quote from your second source: "Advances in low-observable technologies provide significantly improved survivability and lethality against air-to-air and surface-to-air threats."

low observable technologies = reduced cross section... not true stealth as the B-2 Spirit has.

"RCS is fundamentally what makes a stealth aircraft stealth. The links I've provided goes more into this more in-depth (especially the 2nd one)."

actually its a number of things, and the raptor meets most... its a great stealth fighter, but fighters are made to be stealthy by design. afterburners for instance aren't stealth, neither is exceeding the spead of sound, both of which the raptor easily violates, plus its body shape also is the most perfect of stealthy shapes, but that comes with being a fighter jet.
 
  by: havoc666     08/24/2007 04:50 AM     
  oh...  
 
and stealth technology can easily be thwarted... and relatively cheaply... low-frequency radar can catch stealth aircraft providing the frequecy is about 2Ghz (or less i think). also newer traditional radars like russia is implenting are already said to be able to track the raptor. would be interesting if that was true.
 
  by: havoc666     08/24/2007 04:56 AM     
  @havoc666  
 
“afterburners for instance aren't stealth, neither is exceeding the spead of sound, both of which the raptor easily violates…”

Heh… That sentence summoned my epiphany of our misunderstanding.

While I’m defining “stealth” in the practical sense (invisible from radar), you’re defining “stealth” in the purist sense (no trace at all).

Very true. Afterburners will create a heat signature. And breaking Mach 1 will create an unmistakable audio signature (the sonic-boom).

However… if the F-22 maintained sub-sonic speed, then it would meet your stringent requirements for stealth. True? (No afterburners = no heat signature, and sub-sonic speeds = no sonic boom.)

Although the afterburners and hypersonic abilities do violate the “pure” definition of stealth, it’s a nice option to have. As the old saying goes: “Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.”
 
  by: CArnold     08/24/2007 08:49 AM     
  @carnold  
 
"Heh… That sentence summoned my epiphany of our misunderstanding.

While I’m defining “stealth” in the practical sense (invisible from radar), you’re defining “stealth” in the purist sense (no trace at all).

Very true. Afterburners will create a heat signature. And breaking Mach 1 will create an unmistakable audio signature (the sonic-boom)."

indeed, many people refer to a simply reduced cross section as stealth... while the plane is stealthier, its not a true stealth craft.

"However… if the F-22 maintained sub-sonic speed, then it would meet your stringent requirements for stealth. True? (No afterburners = no heat signature, and sub-sonic speeds = no sonic boom.)"

again mostly that would bring it down to almost the stealth level. its still got the design which makes it prone to showing up on radar, reduced cross sections are more to trick the enemy into thinking theres a just a large bird in the air... even without the afterburners and without the supersonic speed, it would still be visable to radar, especially newer radars, and it would stick out like a sore thumb to a low frequency radar, though low frequenvy radar would probably catch the B-2, and if not all that needed is to make the frequency lower... this has more to do with the size of the aircraft when dealing with low frequency radar.

as a stealth fighter thus far the raptor is (at least on paper/simulation) reigning supreme, but its stealth bomber characteristics are easily trumped the 18 years old B-2 Spirit... and thats not likely to change soon, short of by maybe russia making a competing aircraft (they have vow to again become to world largest supplier to military and civilian aircraft)...

personally if i was going to make a stealth bomber, i would make it unfathomably huge; contrary to what people may think in stealth aircraft bigger can be better in avoiding detection (works well on low frequency radar; as the craft is larger than the wavelength of the frequency), and put as many forms of stealth technology on it as are known... russia has a different stealth technology that involves pumping gases around the outside of the aircraft, this reduces the signature or cross section, they can also cloak it radar absorbant material (i would use both; as they are both very supceptable to damage which reduces there effect)... then utilize a technology to to my knowledge hasn't been used on aircraft before and that is to be able to wrap light around the craft thereby not limiting its stealthiest in daylight hour, typically bomber run are only done at night... for the reason of their being so slow and easily visible to the naked eye.

"Although the afterburners and hypersonic abilities do violate the “pure” definition of stealth, it’s a nice option to have. As the old saying goes: “Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.”"

lol, well obviously theres no way to dispute that.
 
  by: havoc666     08/24/2007 04:40 PM     
  Misstyping in title  
 
Develops
 
  by: Dutch   08/24/2007 05:37 PM     
  @dutch  
 
indeed there is 28 posts and your the first to notice, including myself... i'll ask a mod to make the change.
 
  by: havoc666     08/24/2007 05:50 PM     
  @everybody  
 
Gimme a Super Tomcat and I'll KIA all your asses you raptors, eagles, falcons, foxes and phantoms LoL
 
  by: Zmethod     08/25/2007 08:26 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com