Iran Launches Satellite

[walker 0]

Hi all

Today Iran successfuly launched a satellite into orbit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7866357.stm

This makes things interesting.

Kind Regards walker

[Baff1 0]

Yep, spy sats will be next.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Baff1

Yep.

That is what a Government is required to do to protect its nation.

Kind Regards walker

[Baff1 0]

I wish my government would do that.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Which nation are you from Baff1?

Kind Regards walker

[Baff1 0]

Britain mate.

What pathetic semblance of a rocket program we had left was abandoned years ago. We have to buy them off people smarter than us, or rent launch space.

[kavoven 4]

Britain is part of ESA, they are just smarter (like all the European countries that are in ESA, too) than Iran and don't waste their money on developments that have allready been done by others...

Anyway, I'm wondering if this satellite launch is a product of the sanctions put on Iran...

[Baff1 0]

Some developments are more necessary because other people have already done them.

Military ones are a prime example.

It's not smart to be dependant on other people. Not to mention safe.

What if we want to launch something the other members of ESA don't approve of?

[kavoven 4]

Some developments are more necessary because other people have already done them.

Military ones are a prime example.

It's not smart to be dependant on other people. Not to mention safe.

What if we want to launch something the other members of ESA don't approve of?

Germany just(last year) launched 3 spy satellites via ESA rockets. I don't expect the other nations are happy about that.

Or are you thinking of something else? Weapons?

That kind of thinking is beginning of 20th century thinking. Either we behave as one Europe, or we're gonna be without a chance against other, rising nations.

[Baff1 0]

For spy sats, we launch with anyone who will take us there. Russia, France and the U.S. I don't think we have launched a Spysat with the Chinese yet.

But yes, I am also thinking of the ICBM capabilities. Plus interceptor rocket systems and the whole caboodle.

This is the capability that is critical to maintain.

It seems to me that in the 20th Century certain people attempted to make a "one Europe" a couple of times also.

In the 19th Century too.

I'm not half as scared of the rising nations as I am the fully risen and openly expansionist ones.

Currently we are dependant on U.S. rockets for our defence. Last time "one Europe" was on the agenda, we had trouble persuading the U.S. to join the fight.

Better not to rely on them.

You might want one Europe, but I'd rather maintain an effective ballistic missile deterrent and not have to worry about your ambitions. (Or anybody else's for that matter).

[kavoven 4]

(I hope no one is disturbed if this thread goes a bit of the track...)

1) I don't think a single European nation could defend against a potential aggressor. There aren't many candidates at the moment, who are capable of threatening us. (China and Russia)

Todays world is so closely connected through all kind of wires, that no one can risk a large scale war. Imagine a Russian - European conflict and how fast it would end in a nuclear disaster. I expect both factions are aware of that fact.

In addition, a conflict between Russia and a single, western ( ! ) European country would also affect the others in a massive way, so a single country conflict is unrealistic in my opinions.

On the other hand, countries like Germany, Britain and France are technologically so far developed, that it wouldn't take them really long to build such weapons. Germany for example would be capable of developing a working, nucear bomb in about one month, since we have the knowledge and the material (Some kind of experimentel reactor is producing the radioactive stuff for research) Britain and France already have them.

So further technology is just a matter of months. However, if we really need those weapons, its over anyway.

2) Why should we (re)arm? China is one of our most important trading partners and Russia needs us to buy their oil. The country would be completly bankrupt without our money.

And I don't see any other threats in a way like "Come with the big gun and destroy us"

3) Terrorists can't be fought with nukes and ICBMs. So what we could need is a defense system against incoming missles from countries like Iran for example. And I don't see why we shouldn't work this out together. (And even pulling Russia on board)

[Baff1 0]

1) There are two European nations currently able to defend against any potential aggressor on the planet.

France and Britain.

They can take anyone they choose with them when they go.

Imagining a Russian conflict in Europe I could easily imagine France and Britain allying with Russia.

Just as they did the last two times.

And I can imagine Germany's attempts to make a nuclear weapon triggering that kind of a conflict or being a priority war goal to stop..

In this scenario there is no nuclear disaster. Rather there is a 64 year period of peace.

The longest period of peace in the history of Europe.

2) We should re-arm to maintain the balance of power that has kept the world free from global war for the last 64 years.

The up and coming threats are Iran and the EU. These are two new powers both seeking to expand their status and influence in the world.

India is also a rising power as is Pakistan and North Korea.

The existing old powers, France, Britain, America, Russia and China are all still deadly dangerous people quite capable of military interventions or other forms of domination.

For my country, Spain and Argentina both still have territorial disputes with us. Scotland, Ireland and Wales all have strong independance movements.

There are still no certainties for world peace that I recognise.

It is important to recognise that while a diplomatic alliance could end tomorrow it takes decades to make a rocket program. 50 years to make an advanced one.

It is not possible to predict where the threats to your nation will come from in the next 50 years.

Defences must be thought out far in advance of any change in the political or geo-political climate.

Take our two countries for example.

60 years ago we were mortal enemies locked in a battle to the end.

Today, Allies.

Things can change 100% from what they are today.

3) Terrorists can't be fought with nukes, actually they can.

France told Al Quaeda that if was attacked it would respond with nukes.

Spain got attacked.

America got attacked.

Britain got attacked.

Russia got attacked.

France did not get attacked.

But mainly I agree with you on this point.

Terrorism however is not a very major concern of mine. This is a very minor danger. I don't need armies and rockets to defeat terrorists, I need policemen.

Yes, an interceptor rocket could shoot down an ICBM from Iran. (Or wherever).

And this is a very good example of why a country should have it's own rocket program to make those interceptor rockets. You can't use them if you don't have any.

Add to this, that an interceptor rocket will not save you from an Iranian nuke if he drives it to your country in a lorry or sails it into your port in a boat.

The only thing that protects you from this is the ability to take Iran with you. An ICBM is a very effective tool for this.

As long as they have nothing to gain and everything to lose you are afforded some measure of defence from aggression.

If you don't see any other threats, you are not looking. I'm the threat. I intend to stay threatening. Polite, but very deadly.

[Baff1 0]

Soz. Double post.

[eble 3]

I don’t see a threat from an Iranian communications satellite; everyone is entitled to send something up into space for peaceful purposes.

When you look at it you have to admire the Iranians for being able to do this with 30 years of sanctions being imposed on them.

I mean they are able to build/design there own aircraft/tanks/ships/missiles although designs mostly based off US 70’s weaponry.

None the less out of necessity they have become mostly self sufficient in military terms, not many countries are able to claim that.

Probably the most important thing to remember when considering an “Iranian war’ scenario, is that the Iranian military was taught by the US and maintain US tactics, it’s airforce mirrors more the US AWACS (F-14’s partly used in this role in the Iraq/Iran War) than the Russian land based radar guidance systems that the US has easily overcome in the past in Iraq.

The Iranians, despite having massive sanctions on weapons and the Iraqi’s effectively able to buy anything available (within reason) in the world at that time, were able to hunt down and destroy the Iraqi airforce, a little research will find the Iraqi airforce would back off and even run away if they thought an Iranian F-14 was in the area, in fact an Iranian F-14 would normally only need to ping the Iraqi aircraft for it to run.

I’m not suggesting for 1 second the Iranians couldn’t be defeated in the air by the US, but it wouldn’t be a walk in the park like the Iraqi’s, and a ground war would be a totally different prospect.

No one should be eager to go to war with Iran.

[Bernadotte 0]

When you look at it you have to admire the Iranians for being able to do this with 30 years of sanctions being imposed on them.

I understand that Iran got lots of help from N. Korea, of all places.

Btw, I couldn' find any thread about N. Korea launching its first satellite a few years ago.  I'd have though that it would have drawn more attention given they were the only member of Bush's "Axis of Evil" that already had nukes.

[eble 3]

When you look at it you have to admire the Iranians for being able to do this with 30 years of sanctions being imposed on them.

I understand that Iran got lots of help from N. Korea, of all places.

Btw, I couldn' find any thread about N. Korea launching its first satellite a few years ago.  I'd have though that it would have drawn more attention given they were the only member of Bush's "Axis of Evil" that already had nukes.

Yeah I'm sure that would have been front page news world wide.

[Daddl 10]

So they sent up another Sputnik. Wow. While it may sound impressive first, it's far from being able to send up any serious payloads. how much does a stupid radio weight? A few hundred grams including antenna and batteries? Now any serious spy satellite weights more around a few tons (heavy optics or radar, long term energy sources, secure communications array, fuel and engines for maneuvering, etc.). IIRC a single nuclear warhead weights at least >500kg (less and you won't be able to reach critical mass and cram in the required explosives and electronics). Wake me up when they build a rocket capable of delivering anything serious into orbit...

[shinRaiden 0]

So they sent up another Sputnik. Wow. While it may sound impressive first, it's far from being able to send up any serious payloads. how much does a stupid radio weight? A few hundred grams including antenna and batteries? Now any serious spy satellite weights more around a few tons (heavy optics or radar, long term energy sources, secure communications array, fuel and engines for maneuvering, etc.). A single nuclear warhead weights at least >500kg (less and you won't be able to reach critical mass and cram in the required explosives and electronics). Wake me up when they build a rocket capable of delivering anything serious into orbit...

The point is that this means they've figured out the manufacturing and control systems for multi-stage rocketry, alleged to be substantially more complex than single-stage. Multi-stage allows for dramatically different flight profiles than what's achievable by single-stage systems, but has a whole pile of intricate complexities.

Single-stage systems are inherently theater-oriented as they are in principle just boosted simple ballistic devices. Multi-stage systems are in short, game changers because they allow for radically different flight profiles.

While it's true that in relative terms, multi-stage systems reduce the proportional ratio of the package to accommodate additional stage(s) as initial payload, scalability is a much more relatively simple problem than switching from single to multi stage.

Even with a reduced payload capacity, it bears mentioning that this is a much more political statement of strategic importance, rather than an evaluation of tactical delivery capabilities. The political implications are that despite ambivalent sanctions, Iran now has the resources necessary to develop and deploy systems capable of deploying Iranian policy with impunity. It's a political bogey-weapon that then forces the quisling infidels to negotiate to the terms of the true disciples of the Mahdi.

Regardless of which political persuasion you pander for, I think we can all agree that in general, all of the western nuclear powers have in place reasonable amounts of political bureaucratic depth and discipline to reduce the risk of rogue incidents. The classical imperial hierarchy of the Eastern nuclear powers likewise should in theory impose a subservient environment preventing the personal autonomy necessary for rogue events.

Emergent nations however, with the lack of significant nationalism or extra-ethnic cohesion have a particular risk for Danilo Ilić type events. Once the shot's in the air, you only have seconds with the best of pre-positioned equipment to make an assessment of whether it's one stage or more, where it's heading, what it's carrying, why it's launched, and what to do about it.

Quote[/b] ]"Well, boys, I reckon this is it — nuclear combat toe to toe with the (FILL_IN_THE_BLANK). Now look, boys, I ain't much of a hand at makin' speeches, but I got a pretty fair idea that something doggone important is goin' on back there. And I got a fair idea the kinda personal emotions that some of you fellas may be thinkin.' Heck, I reckon you wouldn't even be human bein's if you didn't have some pretty strong personal feelin's about nuclear combat. I want you to remember one thing, the folks back home is a-countin' on you and by golly, we ain't about to let 'em down. I tell you something else, if this thing turns out to be half as important as I figure it just might be, I'd say that you're all in line for some important promotions and personal citations when this thing's over with. That goes for ever' last one of you regardless of your race, color or your creed. Now let's get this thing on the hump — we got some flyin' to do."

[Baff1 0]

I don't think the Iranian airforce is much cop. It hasn't had any spares for 3 decades.

And the people the American's trained are liable to have been killed in the revolution.

What it does have on order is a pretty serious SAM system and what it has already is a load of mobile SAM tanks that look very dangerous indeed.

Being able to launch comms sats means being able to launch Spy sats.

A spy sat linked with their long range missile artillery means they are soon going to be able to choose targets thousands of miles away to attack.

Currently American battlegroups can deploy off the Iranian coast without fear as long as they are outside the 90 mile range of a Silkworm.

Pretty soon this strategic advantage will be lost.

Not to mention that the next step after satelitte launches is the ICBM.

The balance of power in the middle east is changing very fast in my opinion.

[Daddl 10]

Even with a reduced payload capacity, it bears mentioning that this is a much more political statement of strategic importance, rather than an evaluation of tactical delivery capabilities. The political implications are that despite ambivalent sanctions, Iran now has the resources necessary to develop and deploy systems capable of deploying Iranian policy with impunity. It's a political bogey-weapon that then forces the quisling infidels to negotiate to the terms of the true disciples of the Mahdi.

That's what I meant - it's (just like Sputnik at it's time) a political statement, not proof of (immediate) strategic capability. It's a further step towards real capabilty, true, but it's not as if Iran suddenly was more dangerous than it was the day before the launch.

Quote[/b] ]"Well, boys, I reckon this is it — nuclear combat toe to toe with the (FILL_IN_THE_BLANK). ..."

One of my favourite movies of all time!

Quote[/b] ]- But if you don't get the President of the Unites States on that phone, you know what's going to happen to you?

- What?

- You're going to have to answer to the Coca-Cola Company

[mattxr 9]

Well good for Iran.

[Bernadotte 0]

It's a political bogey-weapon that then forces the quisling infidels to negotiate to the terms of the true disciples of the Mahdi.

That's what I meant - it's (just like Sputnik at it's time) a political statement...

Exactly.  Just substitute "quisling infidels" with "filthy capitalist pig-dogs" and "true disciples of Mahdi" with "red menace" to get the same fear-mongoring rhetoric used in Sputnik's days.

[Baff1 0]

The Russians successfully tested their first ICBM 2 months before they launched Sputnik.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to :

Quote[/b] ]I don't think the Iranian air force is much cop. It hasn't had any spares for 3 decades.

They are building their own aircraft and AA missiles as well as making their own parts for existing aircraft. The fact they have a working multi stage rocket for satellite delivery proves they have a competent aerospace industrial complex.

IRIAF

Fighter aircraft

* Bought from other countries

** Iranian made

In the process of buying contracts signed:

* 250 Sukhoi Su-30 (NATO reporting name "Flanker-C"), 12 believed delivered  with 20 Il-78 MKI aerial tankers

* 24 Chinese J-10, 6 believed delivered looks similar to the Eurofighter Typhoon with canard wing design, Israel helped in the design process.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008934153

already have:

* 20 F-14A Tomcat

* 40 Mig29A/UB (35+5)

* 47 F-4D/E Phantom II

* 11 Dassault Mirage F1

* 50 F-5A/B/E/F

* 24 Sukhoi Su-24

* 13 Sukhoi Su-25

* 24 F-7M Airguard

** (30 plus) Azarakhsh; A scaled-up version of the US Northrop Grumman F-5E/F

** (Unknown number probably less than 10) Saeqeh; F-5E Tiger II with aspects of an F17

** (currently undergoing test flights) Shafaq; looks like Northrop YF-17 "Cobra"

Ground to Air missiles

* Raytheon MIM-23 Hawk (also used on the F-14 as an air to air missile)

* Tor Missile System

* S-200

* S-300 (S-300PMU-1 and S-300PMU-2)

** Misagh-1

** Misagh-2

* RBS-70

* SA-7 Grail

* SA-16 Gimlet

* SA-18 Grouse

** Sayyad-1

** Shahab Thaqeb

All in all a not inconsiderable air defense and probably why Israel declined to go in last year.

The fact it has an effective aero space industry is more important.

Kind Regards walker

[Baff1 0]

I don't think that is enough to put the Israeli's off.

Iran is a large, large country so you wouldn't be facing all of them simultaneously.

Syria has a far better airforce than this and Israel mounts regular raids in their airspace with impunity.

Also when the revolution kicked off, the American support crews sabotaged the airforce before they left. So they didn't get much tech there.

I think Israel did not have the air to air refueling capability required to reach Natanz last year.

I think they may have just bought it off the U.S. in the last couple of months and are now training with it.