Print 48 comment(s) - last by Martin Blank.. on Jan 5 at 8:26 PM

Surface-to-sea missile could target U.S. ships in the Gulf

Iran is one of the nations of the Middle East that much of the world watches closely. The country has a history of threats on those in its region and has been working to build its military might including a uranium enrichment program that has led to sanctions by the U.S. and other countries.
Iran has now announced that it has tested a new naval cruise missile in the Strait of Hormuz. The missile test was conducted during the final day of a 10-day military maneuver. The missile is called the Qader and it is a surface-to-sea weapon designed to destroy enemy ships. Iranian Admiral Mahmoud Mousavi said that the missile struck the intended target with precision and destroyed the target.

[Source: Vancouver Sun]

Iran offered the first glimpse of the missile in August of last year reports the NYT. The weapon is said to have a range of 125 miles, which would allow Iran to target some of the U.S. ships that are operating in the Gulf region. While some officials in the Iranian government have in the past threatened to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, Mousavi has denied that the exercises have anything to do with such a blockage. The narrow Strait is a vital shipping lane for oil.
Admiral Mousavi said, "We won’t disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. We are not after this."
The firing of the Qader missile isn’t the only weapons test that occurred during the exercises. The Iranian Navy also tested a short-range surface-to-air missile called Mehrab. The Iranian state news agency IRNA quotes Admiral Habibollah Sayari of the Iranian Navy saying, "[These military exercises promote] peace and friendship for all countries in the region." He also said that the exercises send a message that foreigners had no room in the region reports the NYT.
Iran also recently claimed to have forced a U.S. drone to land where it wanted using a GPS hack.

Source: NYT

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Which countries ?
By Gondor on 1/3/2012 11:17:36 AM , Rating: 2
The country has a history of [...] attacks on those in its region

Apart from Iraq-Iran war that certain superpowers sponsored and Iraq started I don't recall any Iranian attacks on their neighbours, at least not in recent times (less than 100 years ago). Ironically enough it was its neighbour Iraq that started just about every single war in the region, with the exception of 2003 US-British attack.

Care to elaborate on that one ?

RE: Which countries ?
By dsx724 on 1/3/2012 11:34:41 AM , Rating: 2
Poorly researched sensationalism?

RE: Which countries ?
By Natch on 1/3/2012 1:53:35 PM , Rating: 4
Actually, they do have a record. Check out the story of the USS Samuel Roberts, and an Iranian mine.

RE: Which countries ?
By Amedean on 1/3/2012 9:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
Having been in Iraq twice and Afghanistan, I know Gondor has spent little time in research of his statement. The Iranians in my AO of Bayji were bold enough to label some of their IED's with "Made in Iran". Iranian operatives also supply and train some elements of the Taliban. Then there are the Hezbollah connections where they train, finance and indirectly participate in their campaign to destroy Israel by provoking attacks on citizens. Other things like kidnapping and torture of civilians that include their own people. Yes, a very polite country indeed.

RE: Which countries ?
By MrBlastman on 1/4/2012 12:12:32 PM , Rating: 3
It is also important to point out while on the topic of sensationalism--is that this is not a cruise missile at all. A cruise missile generally is propelled by a jet engine--something this missile clearly is not using. The pathetic 125 mile range is also a giveaway.

This is nothing more than a fancy RGM-84 Harpoon missile or Exocet missile with a little more range. Nothing to be scared of here--well, nothing our Phalanx CIWS defense systems can't blow out of the sky.

Keep trying, Iran. ;) I throw my foot covering garment at you!

(Spam filters prevent me from using the obvious word--/fail)

RE: Which countries ?
By OoklaTheMok on 1/3/2012 12:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
Iran has a past history of attacking oil tankers in the Gulf region. Their weapon of choice was the Silkworm missile.

RE: Which countries ?
By Martin Blank on 1/5/2012 8:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
The Silkworm use was more than 20 years ago, and even then it was of little use against real military vessels. Though they have better weapons now, I'm not sure they would fare well against a US military vessel.

And Iraq was shooting up ships, too, managing to hit the USS Stark with two Exocets. I don't think either country hit any military vessels not each other's during the war.

RE: Which countries ?
By ChugokuOtaku on 1/3/2012 12:50:04 PM , Rating: 2
I guess they counted the hostage crisis as an "attack"... lol

RE: Which countries ?
By danobrega on 1/3/2012 2:35:21 PM , Rating: 4
mmmm, lets see, what other country has an history of attacks on that region.

RE: Which countries ?
By Shig on 1/3/2012 3:38:54 PM , Rating: 1
Walking softly and carrying a big stick is getting too expensive imo.

RE: Which countries ?
By Solandri on 1/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: Which countries ?
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/3/2012 8:44:47 PM , Rating: 1
First of all, that graph doesn't show the increases in defense spending post 2001. Secondly, it doesn't compare US defense spending to any other countries. You can't meaningfully conclude how big our stick is unless you compare it to everyone else's sticks. Anybody got a Peter Meter handy?

RE: Which countries ?
By FITCamaro on 1/4/2012 9:27:41 AM , Rating: 2
Any graph you layer against other countries spending you also need to layer against whether or not they rely primarily on OUR military for protection as well as the value of their currency.

RE: Which countries ?
By Martin Blank on 1/5/2012 8:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
Most of them do not anymore, and the primary two that do (South Korea and Japan) are working to get out from under that. NATO has shown itself more than capable of fielding a fighting force even without the US factored in, and the risk that NATO was meant to counter, that of the Russian-dominated Communist Bloc countries, is no longer a factor with many of those nations now a part of NATO.

This was a valid argument a decade ago. It isn't useful any longer.

RE: Which countries ?
By Amedean on 1/4/2012 1:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
Solandri is right, but the graph is just a graph. Healthcare and other entitlement programs are the monster hiding in the closet, but still I have no idea why Solandri's commen was rated so poorly.

RE: Which countries ?
By Solandri on 1/4/2012 4:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
I do know why it was rated poorly. I usually don't outright state it, but considering it got rated down to -1, I think I will this time:

There's a large segment of the U.S. population which is still stuck in the 1960s mindset. The U.S. military budget was too big back then. But it's since been scaled back drastically as a percentage of the economy (to about half what it was back then).

These people believe that, like in the 1960s, military spending is still the main cause of our budget woes, despite every CBO report for over a decade saying otherwise. If I post graphs or figures refuting it, cognitive dissonance kicks in and they latch on to every little flaw they can find to try to explain why the graph is wrong and their presupposed assumption is right.

"The graph only goes to 2001!" Well google up some graphs which go to 2010, I picked that one because it's from the site, and unfortunately they haven't updated it since 2001. has some nice graphs, but it's a conservative site, so they do put a spin on things, and anything from it is met with skepticism from the left even if it's just graphing data from government sites. "It's a percentage of GDP!" Well how else are you going to measure budget items taking into account inflation, the country's growing population, and expanding economy? "The units are 13 year intervals!" Look at the lines - they're one year intervals. It's just the labels which are 13 year intervals.

The biggest growth items in our budget (measured in raw dollars, percent, percent of budget, or percent of GDP) are entitlements (primarily Medicare/Medicaid) and interest on the debt. Those are what we need to address if we want to get the budget and debt under control. But as long as people are in denial and continue to think our problems are caused by military spending, our budget and debt are doomed to continue to grow.

Don't get me wrong. I've worked in the defense sector. I know there's tons of money being wasted there which could be cut. I'm not saying military spending should be shielded from further cuts. I'm saying the reality is, we could eliminate military spending entirely - cut it down to zero dollars - and the budget would still not be balanced and would still be growing out of control. Because the problem is not military spending.

If you read all this and still disagree with me, then don't take my word for it. Go read the CBO reports. Defense spending warrants two sentences. Almost the entirety of the 90 page report outlines growth in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as what we need to address to rein in budget growth.

RE: Which countries ?
By MrBlastman on 1/4/2012 1:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter how big other countries sticks are. Do you think we should really care? Do you think it should make a difference on what we do?


We are America and as such we should be proud of who we are. If people don't like it, too bad--nobody is forcing them to live there. If we feel we need more of one thing or another, that's our business, not others. If others are upset about it, it is up to them to decide if it is worth spending their own money on it.

America is not the World's country, America is an American's country.

I'd also say that chart is pretty accurate from everything else that I have read.

RE: Which countries ?
By rlandess on 1/4/2012 12:12:32 AM , Rating: 3
Seriously, if that graph is passable for evidence of anything in public discourse then it's time for intelligent people to either beat a dumb person into submission or stab themselves in the neck to avoid the misery of the coming era.

That is the worst graph I've ever seen. The time units are 13 year intervals. The other axis is %GDP... Why is it not GDP with the chart stacking the data points to show %GDP AND total GDP. Then the graph would allow you to make a comparison of dollars spent among the 4 labeled datapoints (which doesn't include current data.)

We still spend more on defense than all of our enemies combined probably. So what does it matter if our defense budget is slipping as a function of GDP? If our GDP doubled next year for some reason should we double defense spending? I'd say not without the eminent threat of attack by a technologically superior adversary. At this point there are none and there's nothing in the foreseeable future that we and our allies cannot deal with at 1998 levels of spending.

Also... Dollar for dollar spent two countries won't get the same value out of their military. For instance in theory our new technology is built on lessons learned from previous technology so in theory it should be cheaper to get to the next level of superiority than say... Botswana. But then again if you're China then you were already building parts for the US and with a little stolen technology and flippantness towards patent law you can have a passable modern fighter jet in a hurry... and at pennies on the dollar.

RE: Which countries ?
By Reclaimer77 on 1/4/2012 10:18:54 AM , Rating: 3
How can you blatantly dismiss Iran's attempt to conquer Israel in open warfare and then say "what have they ever done??" And don't give me that crap about shadow government's and superpowers being behind Iran's actions. Iran is responsible.

That's like saying well aside from WWI and WWII, Germany has always been a peace loving international neighbor.

The author is dead on. Maybe you should look up the word "history", you idiot.

RE: Which countries ?
By Paj on 1/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Which countries ?
By KoS on 1/5/2012 11:07:50 AM , Rating: 2
Democractically elected like Chavez? Or like all those leaders in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? As examples!

Hell, Saddam held elections before the second gulf war...and won that election.

RE: Which countries ?
By Skywalker123 on 1/5/2012 5:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
Another idiotic post from the King of Idiots. How has Iran attempted to conquer Israel? Israel has an estimated 200 nukes as well as a better conventional military. Iran is not as stupid as you are.

RE: Which countries ?
By jfelano on 1/4/2012 11:08:25 AM , Rating: 3
They said threats...not attacks...learn to read bud.

"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki