>>64916046
They can, but they're not good for it.

File: Sacred_Defence_Week_parade,_2023,_in_Bandar_Abbas_(077).jpg (266.6 KB)

266.6 KB JPG

"Basir" variant of Zolfaghar, and the "Khalij Fars" variant of Fateh-110 are anti-ship versions of their quasi-SRBMs
They have a EO seeker window on the front for the terminal phase
Pic rel is "Khalij Fars"

How did Iran know where the carrier was? Is there a spy onboard?

>>64916080
Part of the role of the Russian/Iranian/Venezuelan shadow fleet is spotting NATO ships and reporting their position
But you can get a rough location on the basis of where ships are being told to avoid, intercepting radio emissions, looking at radar tracks at where planes and missiles are being detected launching from
The missed by quite a long way, so obviously didn't have that accurate idea where the ship was though

Yes. But their missiles don't know where the carrier is and they can't arrive at a position where the carrier wasn't and it now is. The carrier can move miles in some direction after a launch is tracked. You need terminal guidance to have any chance of hitting it.

Weren't chinks satellites used for spotting?

>>64916046
Anti-ship ballistics are basically cope weapons because they can't make anything sufficiently fast or evasive on a horizontal plane.

>>64916046
Theoretically, yes. Practically, no.

The problem is accuracy. Ballistic missiles have no seekers so the ship only needs to change course a little for the missile to miss entirely.

>>64916097
>Part of the role of the Russian/Iranian/Venezuelan shadow fleet is spotting NATO ships and reporting their position
can't they use satellites for that?

>>64916130
Doesn't matter unless the ship is stationary.

File: 1772246527801126.jpg (107.4 KB)

107.4 KB JPG

>>64916046
Of course. Why not?
>>64916080
China has been feeding Iran intelligence. They parked a 055 and a spy ship in the straight + satellites.

>>64916266
>Ballistic missiles have no seekers
They do, but you have no foreskin.

>>64916046
Theoretically yes you can use them as anti ship missiles, the problem is that your only mid course guidance updates are going to be INS based so if you pick a spot on the map to launch and the ships change course then you're shit out of luck. The other problem is the EM opaque plasma that forms on an object going mach 4+ in the atmosphere. It makes onboard guidance impossible because you literally can't fire radio waves through the ionized gases. You also can't see shit through the glowing ball of several thousand degree gas in front of the nose of the missile. All of that means any anti ship BMs are either the equivalent of fancy artillery or they have to drop their speed to mach 3.5-4 to be able to guide themselves in on a moving target. The lower speed obviously also making it exponentially easier to intercept them compared to if they maintained mach 10. Not that intercepting a missile at mach 4 is easy per se but it's a lot easier than trying to kill BMs aiming at fixed targets like buildings on land because of the guidance requirement dropping the speed way earlier in the trajectory

>>64916046
You can fire just about anything at anything, but ballistic missiles aren't really the best choice for maritime targets. Adjusting the trajectory of a ballistic missile in flight can be done, but it poses a lot of challenges. China has had anti-ship ballistic missiles for a while now.
>>64916079
Well that's fascinating. Do you have any book recommendations on the topic of Iranian missiles? Hell, anything about the Iranian military that isn't dogshit would be appreciated.

>>64916046
Those super mega hypersonic missiles sunk it, right? Right?

>>64916330
If China gave Iran live links and Iran sunk a US carrier or severely damaged it, I dont think Xi would be very happy about the US throwing the biggest shitfit ever.

>>64916330
>ships are essentially stationary
Anon...are you actually retarded?

>>64916046
A modern ASBM has some terminal guidance, it's just limited compared to a cruise missile or similar.
Even if they didn't you might ask 'could ww2 ballistic naval shells be used against ships 15 miles away?'. Well if they made a good enough guess about the target's position and shot enough shells, it was known to happen once or twice.
(You can argue it would be totally uneconomical to try to employ an ASBM without a robust and effective terminal guidance solution, but turn on CNN to see impoverished countries stockpile shitty ballistic missiles for decades so they can kill 1 old lady in Tel Aviv by heart attack.)
If you want proof that you can hit some kind of boat in motion with some kind of missile that can be described as ballistic look up the list of Houthi attacked ships and what they were hit by.

>>64916317
No, your average satellite can only see a ship every 90 minutes or so for a few minutes.

>>64916080
>boat is like a quarter of a mile long
>OMG HOW DID YOU FIND IT!?!?

>>64916464
Brownie cope +- 100 miles range, +-25 mile CEP
Source: the browns in my underpants.

File: battleship.jpg (162.1 KB)

162.1 KB JPG

>>64916510
>>ships are essentially stationary
My favourite demonstration of this being wrong was when the American air force used conventional bombers to try and hit the yamato, which was a fuckhuge 70,000 ton ship moving at 30 knots, roughly the same speed as a carrier.
The bombers were spotted and yamato evasive maneuvers were successful. Of course these were just unguided bomb, but it shows how fast a fuckhuge ship can reposition itself.

For a modern carrier, they are likely notified by satellite and/or radar the moment a missile is launched and begin reposition early.

>>64917108
WW2 bombers didn't have a great track record for hitting even stationary targets. On the other hand, neither do thirdie ballistic missiles.

File: oepration-ten-go-large-56a61c365f9b58b7d0dff6f6.jpg (49.7 KB)

49.7 KB JPG

>>64917630
yea, fair. It was more just to show the turning radius of extremely large ships and how they are not stationary targets, and the need at the time for dive bombers to land accurate hits.

Around 300 aircraft poured their hate onto that ship for 4 hours until she went down. Absolute unit.

>>64917933
Real ship move.

>>64916317
You have to be a real people country to have sufficient sats for that.

>>64917108
Imagine quicksink on the Yamato....

>>64916046
Was it hit or are they claiming they hit it

>>64918372
What do you fucking think

>>64916464
>Hell, anything about the Iranian military that isn't dogshit would be appreciated.
I don't think anything like that exists

>>64917630
Wasn't it limited to a single IJN DD sunk by a B-17?

The missile knows where it isn't therefore it knows where it is

>>64916317
You are talking to a literal retard.

>>64916603
>Everyone only has one satellite

>>64916046
>Can I dumbfire at a moving target?
Yes, you can do anything you want. Doesn't mean you should.

File: cousin_eddie.jpg (54.6 KB)

54.6 KB JPG

>>64916080
the shitter's full

>>64921338
Implessive

>>64921338
There's a whole lot of speculation in your post fella.
>A single 90degree turn with no other changes could be regular ASW course adjustments (see it's escort following the exact path - think zigzagging to lower WH torpedo surprises)
>Saying it's 'trivial' for a cargocult like Iran to put survivable antennae systems on a hyper sonic re-entry vehicle is Copelord-tier fanaticism. Definitely possible but you talk like a faggot.
>Datalinked comms in a hot EW environment, especially enabling theater-wide orbital comms is absolutely vulnerable to local jamming in terms of the carrier but more importantly the receiver.
You need to stop talking with such authority, it's the same naive drivel you spout time and time again and then end up looking like a bigger and bigger retard as you dig your contrarian heels in (and by that I mean delete your posts).

>>64916046
Depends on a lot of things but they can be made to with terminal guidance or saturation fire.
Iran has been firing cluster SRBMs which would increase probability of hit at the cost of a much smaller warhead. They could load them with kinetic rods which wouldn't sink a carrier but would do enough damage to make it leave.

>>64921338
>The age where a carrier was hard to find is over. China has 1900 spy satellites in orbit, and they're now feeding that data to Iran for free
Surely Iran will sink a carrier any day now.

>>64921338
>the latest multipolar world anti-ship hypersonic AI enabled 5g belt-and-road loaned implessive technology
>all you have to do is turn your ship 90 degrees

>>64921338
Ships do not do such sharp and instantaneous 90 degree turns as depicted on that image, large ships especially do not. And what the hell is that lightning bolt movement that escort on the right is supposed to have executed?

You've fallen for an extremely obvious fake.

>>64921439
coping about what exactly? a 90 degree turn?