Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FOX: Pentagon confirms SCUD fired as well as Chinese anti-ship missile and small aircraft
Fox ^ | 3/20/03 | Fox reporter

Posted on 03/20/2003 3:35:44 AM PST by Mark Felton

Fox news Washington correspondent says the Pentagon reports 3 missiles fired. Trajectory indicates 1st missile is a SCUD that was intercepted by the PAtriot

The 2nd missile was a Chinese anti-ship cruise missile that was not intercepted but missed targets and did no damage.

The 3rd "missile" was actually a light aircraft that crashed harmlessly in Kuwait.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last

1 posted on 03/20/2003 3:35:44 AM PST by Mark Felton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton
OOOOOHHHHH They're going to pay for this!
2 posted on 03/20/2003 3:37:23 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (A proud member of the American Street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
That wasn't even a genuine effort by Iraq. One of each kind? He's just testing to see what works.
3 posted on 03/20/2003 3:38:29 AM PST by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton
I'm sure Ex-President Clinton will assure us that those Chinese ship-missiles were not aided with technolgy sold by the Democrat party.... That technology was for ICBMs so nothing to worry about in this Iraq campaign.
4 posted on 03/20/2003 3:39:36 AM PST by ReleaseTheHounds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
I certainly hope so.
5 posted on 03/20/2003 3:39:46 AM PST by trussell (Note to self: No FReeping while sleeping)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton

6 posted on 03/20/2003 3:40:09 AM PST by paul in cape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Yep. The firings were also conducted under cover of a sandstorm so the launchers were not found, yet.

The Chinese cruise missile had a low trajectory and was not intercepted. It's hard to guess what kind of guidance was on the thing. Anti-ship crusie missiles are designed to fly in a line so many feet above "sea-level" (sand-level) until it hits the bulkhead of a ship.

7 posted on 03/20/2003 3:42:22 AM PST by Mark Felton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton
"How dare you take a swing at me at me 'cuz I tried to kick your ass?!"

LOL

Oh, by the way, looks like the Iraqi Ministry of Information (propaganda central) is starting up their campaign. They are in the process now of taking CNN -contracted reporters and others to the site of the attack last night 'to see the damage'. Watch them roll out people from hospitals with ketchup poured on them.

It's starting. We need to send a cruise missile into wherever the Iraqi Ministry of Information is, to stop this propaganda they will try to ramp up now and discourage Americans. The CNN reporter I believe was stating as 'fact' the injury/death toll and other report she was getting from Iraq, even though these things will be lies.

8 posted on 03/20/2003 3:43:19 AM PST by AmericanInTokyo (Sorry if I can't answer everyone right away on Japan/Korea freepmail questions. I'm swamped! :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
That wasn't even a genuine effort by Iraq. One of each kind? He's just testing to see what works.

Seeing also if he can get his army to obey commands instead of surrendering.

9 posted on 03/20/2003 3:44:28 AM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
I forgot to add the Pentagon reported the Chinese Missile was a SUNBURN type missile (very nasty for ships):

The SS-N-22 anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM), code named 'Sunburn' by NATO and known in Russia as the 3M-80E 'Moskit' missile, is considered by many observers to be the most threatening ship-launched ASCM in service today. Developed by Russia’s Raduga missile design bureau, the SS-N-22 is a supersonic (Mach 2.1), low-flying (7 to 20 m, or about 23 to 66 feet, above the surface of the water) ASCM that performs a terminal ‘S’ manoeuvre (pulling up to 15G) to evade close-in defenses at a distance of 5 to 7 km (about 2.7 to 3.8 nautical miles) to its target.

The 3M-80E 'Moskit' missile, an improved variant of the basic 3M-80, has an operational range of 160 km. The weapon’s Altair-designed multi-channel seeker uses active radar, anti-radiation and home-on-jam modes. The missile is armed with a conventional 300 kg penetrating warhead containing 150 kg of high explosive, or (in the Russian Navy) a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead.

3M-80 (SS-N-22) supersonic anti-ship missile

Even with a conventional warhead, 'Moskit' missile is large enough so that one hit from a single missile could seriously damage or possibly even sink a U.S. Navy major surface combatant, a hit from one or possibly even a few conventionally-armed 'Moskit' missiles might not be enough to halt flight operations on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier because of the carrier’s much larger size and its high degree of compartmentalization. A nuclear-armed 'Moskit', however, could easily destroy a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier (and any other nearby ships), even if the warhead detonates at some distance from the carrier.

The SS-N-22's designers have stated openly that the missile was developed to defeat the U.S. Navy’s Aegis air-defense system. The SS-N-22 entered service in 1984 –- a year after the U.S. Navy’s first Aegis-equipped ship, the Ticonderoga (CG-47), entered service. The U.S. Navy concerned over effectiveness of the Aegis system centered to a large degree on the ability of the system to defeat the SS-N-22, particularly since the Navy at that time did not have an air-defense target missile that could fully replicate the supersonic, low-flying flight profile of the SS-N-22. The U.S. Navy’s attempts over the years to develop such a target missile indigenously have met with some failures, and Navy actions in recent years to acquire appropriate target missiles have, ironically, included proposed or actual purchases of SS-N-22s themselves as well as modified air-launched Russian ASCMs known as MA-31s.

Despite various progress the U.S. Navy has made in improving its surface ships' air defence capability against 'Moskit' missile, the missile probably remains a challenging weapon for the Aegis system. A 1993 article about U.S. attempts to purchase some of the missiles for use as targets quoted an unnamed Navy official as saying, “This missile is a source of great concern to the Navy” because of its speed. Ships equipped with an Aegis system (or some other rapid-reaction air-defense system) might not be able to guarantee 100% effectiveness in defending themselves against the missile, and ships not so equipped would be highly vulnerable to the missile unless they operate under the protective cover of an Aegis-equipped ship.

SPECIFICATIONS

Dimensions: Length 9.38 m; Diameter 0.76, Wingspan 1.3 m
Launch Weight: 3,950 kg
Warhead: 300 kg HE
Propilsion: Liquid ramjet + Solid booster
Maximum Speed: Mach 2.1
Maximum Range: 90 km
Flight Altitude: 20 m
Guidance Mode: Inertia with update, final active/pasive radar homing
Single-Shot Hit Probability: 60~80%

10 posted on 03/20/2003 3:48:02 AM PST by Mark Felton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton
It's hard to guess what kind of guidance was on the thing.

The SS-N-22 Sunburn has both active and passive homing i.e. it's guided by radar and also can home in on other radar systems [the passive side] without using its active capabilities. It's impossible for it to be shot down by any landbased systems unless it's by pure luck.

Terp, a former Electronic Warfare Specialist in the United States Navy

11 posted on 03/20/2003 3:51:19 AM PST by Terp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Terp
Got it.

Other reports indicate it was designed specifically to attack AEGIS class destroyers and their counter-measures.

I fail to see how that guidance package would do much good against ground targets in the desert. The water has radically different radar and reflectivity charcteristics than the sand.

The nature of the target emitting radar signature would be very different as well from that expected for a ship.

Also the missile would be susceptible to crashing into dunes or terrain features during its "sea-skimming" flight phase.
12 posted on 03/20/2003 3:58:29 AM PST by Mark Felton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton
Aren't all of these "missiles" the kind of weaponry that Iraq was supposed to disclose in December and disarm earlier this year?

I wonder how the left will spin this new information? Probably say that Saddam shouldn't have had to disclose it since we all KNEW President Bush was planning to go to war anyway. . .(ugh!)
13 posted on 03/20/2003 4:07:14 AM PST by alwaysconservative ("All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReleaseTheHounds
How far did these missiles go and are they on the Useless Nations' banned list?
14 posted on 03/20/2003 4:08:39 AM PST by GailA (THROW AWAY THE KEYS http://keasl5227.tripod.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton
When the missile is put in the passive mode it's not looking for any radar reflection. It's looking for a radar which would normally be shipborne that is emitting a specific range of frequencies or it's looking for a specific heat signature or should I say infrared signature. The radar frequency is classified, the infrared signature that it would look for, for example would be the heat generated or given off by the exhaust stack of a ship. My guess is they are using it because they no it can't be shot down and they're hoping for a lucky hit.

Terp

15 posted on 03/20/2003 4:09:02 AM PST by Terp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton
The nature of the target emitting radar signature would be very different as well from that expected for a ship.

Not true, we used to joke if we knew a Sunburn was fired at us that we would have the ships helo go out behind us with it's navigation radar on and we onboard the ship would turn our radars off and the missile would take out the helo.

Terp

16 posted on 03/20/2003 4:13:22 AM PST by Terp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton
Spokesman of the Kuwaiti Ministry of Defense Colonel Yousef AL-Mullah said Iraq unleashed two missiles in the direction of Kuwait and one of them "was confronted and the other crashed in an uninhabited location in the desert in northern Kuwait."

Col. Al-Mullah said the air defense units fired Patriot missiles in the direction of the incoming Scud missiles that were fired by the Iraqi Army while the other fell in an uninhabited region in the desert in northern Kuwait.

He added that sirens blared throughout the country to warn the nationals and residents to take precautions.

Col. Mullah explained that up to three Patriots were fired in the direction of one of the incoming missiles and was directly hit in the air.

17 posted on 03/20/2003 4:16:05 AM PST by #1CTYankee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terp
It would be a very lucky hit.

In passive IR mode the picture seen by the missile seeker would be very highly cluttered as compared to a naval scenario. I have a background in IR seekers and image processing and there is a huge difference.

The IR signal processing must be customized for particular targets and environments.

For instance water appears very "dark" in infra-red, and IR reflections of a ship apear as transient "speckling" which can be filtered fairly well. The ship itself presents as a huge IR signature larger spatially than the noise, and much more enduring than sun glint off the waves. It's easier to track.

In the desert there will be dozens of target-like IR sources from both ground features as well as actual potential targets. But the noise is more persistent and spatially of a size comparable, and often much larger than actual real targets.

18 posted on 03/20/2003 4:17:31 AM PST by Mark Felton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton
Well, at 90 km. range, it doesn't appear to have been within range to hit any ship, anywhere. So, unless I am missing something, this is a jerry-rigged anti-ship missile that they were adapting for use against land targets. Pretty lame.
19 posted on 03/20/2003 4:21:21 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton
CNN is saying the military told them the missiles were Abbeville 100 missiles. Sounds French to me.
20 posted on 03/20/2003 4:21:35 AM PST by Straight Vermonter (http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/terroristcorecard/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson