This is to be alot like QW-2 and it will surely boost up our military capability which will end up being very deadly to anything that can be up in the sky, the test for it can be seen by the video below.
http://www.iran-economy.de/Videos/mizagh2Bodenluftrakete.wmv
External Source
Iran’s defense minister launched the domestic mass production of a new shoulder-fired air defense missile Feb. 5, a development presented as a major boost for the Islamic republic’s armed forces.
The defense ministry said in a statement faxed to AFP that the Misagh 2 missile was “capable of tracking and destroying aerial targets that fly at low altitudes and in the blind spot of radar systems”.
The ministry said the “advanced missile” could also be used for “electronic warfare”.
……….
Iran is already believed to possess older Soviet-made SA-7 shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems, as well as several other high altitude SAM systems.
The country is also thought to have laid its hands on U.S. Stinger missiles supplied to Afghan anti-Soviet fighters during the 1980s, and defense analysts say Iran may have worked out how to produce its own equivalent.
Such devices are useful in forcing aircraft to fly at higher altitudes — and therefore in the view of radar systems and prone to interception or attack by ground-based systems.
In December, Russia also agreed to sell Iran 29 TOR M1 mobile surface-to-air missile defense systems in a deal criticized by the United States.
By: Nicolas10 - 28th February 2006 at 18:10
:rolleyes:
By: TinWing - 27th February 2006 at 22:59
I’m sure the A300 was mistaken for a patrol boat… riiiiiiiiiiiiiighto. :rolleyes:
Actually the A300 was mistaken for an Iranian F-14 flying on an attack profile. The patrol boats boats had been harassing the USS Vincennes and the and an Iranian P-3 was conducting surveilance simultaneously.
It seems that in the twisted world of TinWing, the value of an american soldier is worth so much more than any other human being that it’s allright to kill whoever you please in case you fear your safety might be at stake.
Are you going to deny that terrorists have used airliners as weapons?
Would you deny that Iran has supported terrorism since the fall of the Shah?
It is entirely possible that the Iranians planned and attempted a September 11 style attack against the USS Vincennes in 1988.
It is possible that every passenger aboard the Iranian Airbus A300 was already an unwilling victim of the Ayatollahs before the plane ever took off, and that the action taken by the crew of the Vincennes actually saved lives.
Secondly, Manpads are very relevant even in the modern battlefield, especially when you fight a force that has air superiority and hordes of helicopters.
Nic
MANPADS are useless against even un-stealthy combat aircraft cruising at medium altitude, dropping guided weapons.
Modern military helicopters equipped with modern countermeasures are also increasingly invulnerable to IR-guided MANPADS – most losses can be attributed to “lucky” shots from unguided RPGs at close range.
By: Nicolas10 - 26th February 2006 at 02:06
I’m sure the A300 was mistaken for a patrol boat… riiiiiiiiiiiiiighto. :rolleyes:
It seems that in the twisted world of TinWing, the value of an american soldier is worth so much more than any other human being that it’s allright to kill whoever you please in case you fear your safety might be at stake.
Secondly, Manpads are very relevant even in the modern battlefield, especially when you fight a force that has air superiority and hordes of helicopters.
Nic
By: phrozenflame - 24th February 2006 at 11:05
The Iranian airliner was 3+ nautical miles outside of an assigned 10 nautical mile flight corridor, and it was flying nearly a half hour behind schedule.
Iranian patrol boats had been harassing the USS Vincennes, and an Iranian P-3 was flying nearby – an indication that an aerial attack was an imminent possibility.
After the events of September 11, 2001, it is hard to argue that the USS Vincennes was even at fault in the shootdown of the Iranian A300. Suicidal small boat attacks were used by Iran during attacks on civilian shipping during the so-called “Tanker War,” while suicidal “human wave” attacks (involving ten of thousands of conscripts) were frequently used by the Iranians in the 1980-88 war.
The bottom line is that the captain and crew of the USS Vincennes acted promptly and decisively in a high threat environment. The same cannot be said of the captain and crew of the USS Stark, which had been attacked the previous year.
Just wanted to say the West was providing the Chemical weapons to Iraq at the same time 😮
By: Jollyrogers - 23rd February 2006 at 02:35
How old are you?!!
Even they Mullah does it means they just wanna kill everybody?!! :rolleyes:
And remember some of those mullahs has many Phd s in diffrent fields and most of all they are humen like you and me so I dont think they support killing civilians . its all result of brain washing by medias you watch or read..
Thanks for the feedback Barbarian.
Well you sounded you know some inside story that I doesn’t know. Perhaps you can enlighten me with your knowledge?
By: Showtime 100 - 23rd February 2006 at 00:48
The Iranian airliner was 3+ nautical miles outside of an assigned 10 nautical mile flight corridor, and it was flying nearly a half hour behind schedule.
Iranian patrol boats had been harassing the USS Vincennes, and an Iranian P-3 was flying nearby – an indication that an aerial attack was an imminent possibility.
After the events of September 11, 2001, it is hard to argue that the USS Vincennes was even at fault in the shootdown of the Iranian A300. Suicidal small boat attacks were used by Iran during attacks on civilian shipping during the so-called “Tanker War,” while suicidal “human wave” attacks (involving ten of thousands of conscripts) were frequently used by the Iranians in the 1980-88 war.
The bottom line is that the captain and crew of the USS Vincennes acted promptly and decisively in a high threat environment. The same cannot be said of the captain and crew of the USS Stark, which had been attacked the previous year.
Bull****! Did u notice I highlighted yr source of the Iranian Airlines flying path resembles a F-14 approaching? As what hallou84 says,u must be smoking some high grade grass provided by yr government,is it? 😀
USS Vincennes acted promptly and decisively in a high threat environment.
Don make me laugh by posting this remark! Read more unbiased source before u come and post something..
By: Barbarian - 22nd February 2006 at 22:52
With the mullahs in power, it’s just a matter of time before those missiles start to make known their presence among some ‘Dysfunctional & Misplaced groups’ (aka Hizbollah) in South Lebanon. 😡
How old are you?!!
Even they Mullah does it means they just wanna kill everybody?!! :rolleyes:
And remember some of those mullahs has many Phd s in diffrent fields and most of all they are humen like you and me so I dont think they support killing civilians . its all result of brain washing by medias you watch or read..
By: hallo84 - 22nd February 2006 at 22:00
The Iranian airliner was 3+ nautical miles outside of an assigned 10 nautical mile flight corridor, and it was flying nearly a half hour behind schedule.
Iranian patrol boats had been harassing the USS Vincennes, and an Iranian P-3 was flying nearby – an indication that an aerial attack was an imminent possibility.
After the events of September 11, 2001, it is hard to argue that the USS Vincennes was even at fault in the shootdown of the Iranian A300. Suicidal small boat attacks were used by Iran during attacks on civilian shipping during the so-called “Tanker War,” while suicidal “human wave” attacks (involving ten of thousands of conscripts) were frequently used by the Iranians in the 1980-88 war.
The bottom line is that the captain and crew of the USS Vincennes acted promptly and decisively in a high threat environment. The same cannot be said of the captain and crew of the USS Stark, which had been attacked the previous year.
You also forgot to mention that Iran air was in Iranian territorial waters not to mention it was gaining altitude and not in anyway threatening to the crew of Vincennes. While the crew of the ship tried to coverup by saying the commercial jet was on a decending course the radar actually logged the plane to be on course and ascending.
If you think chasing small gun boat into Iranian waters and shooting down a A300 was the right course of action… that’s some high grade stuff you’ve been smoking…
At the very least there are too much incompetant idiots on that Ship that got so many innocent “civilians” killed.
By: TinWing - 22nd February 2006 at 18:23
More of an incompetent of the crew of USS Vincennes and the gungho attitude of the CO of the ship who defy top level SOP that results the mishap.. Basically the Iranian airlines did nothing wrong!
The Iranian airliner was 3+ nautical miles outside of an assigned 10 nautical mile flight corridor, and it was flying nearly a half hour behind schedule.
Iranian patrol boats had been harassing the USS Vincennes, and an Iranian P-3 was flying nearby – an indication that an aerial attack was an imminent possibility.
After the events of September 11, 2001, it is hard to argue that the USS Vincennes was even at fault in the shootdown of the Iranian A300. Suicidal small boat attacks were used by Iran during attacks on civilian shipping during the so-called “Tanker War,” while suicidal “human wave” attacks (involving ten of thousands of conscripts) were frequently used by the Iranians in the 1980-88 war.
The bottom line is that the captain and crew of the USS Vincennes acted promptly and decisively in a high threat environment. The same cannot be said of the captain and crew of the USS Stark, which had been attacked the previous year.
By: Showtime 100 - 21st February 2006 at 03:32
In the period between 1984 and 1988 Iran launched a series of attacks against neutral flagged civilian shipping in the Persian Gulf. The USS Vincennes was deployed to the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Earnest Will to protect civilian vessels.
The USS Vincennes shot down a non-compliant aerial target that with a flight profile which resembled that of an Iranian F-14 on an attack run. The USS Vincennes had recently engaged Iranian gunboats – vessels which often employed suicide tactics.
More of an incompetent of the crew of USS Vincennes and the gungho attitude of the CO of the ship who defy top level SOP that results the mishap.. Basically the Iranian airlines did nothing wrong!
By: Jollyrogers - 21st February 2006 at 01:38
With the mullahs in power, it’s just a matter of time before those missiles start to make known their presence among some ‘Dysfunctional & Misplaced groups’ (aka Hizbollah) in South Lebanon. 😡
By: TinWing - 20th February 2006 at 22:47
I don’t like that attitude that you hold here. First you assume Iran would use this weapon as a attack on airlines. Yet which airline do you suppose they can attack with a MANPAD? A plane carrying iranian citizens?
Are you going to deny that Iran supports just about every Islamic terrorist organization on the face of the earth?
For the record Iran has never shot down a commercial airline, while the US have already downed an Iranian airliner killing all onboard.
In the period between 1984 and 1988 Iran launched a series of attacks against neutral flagged civilian shipping in the Persian Gulf. The USS Vincennes was deployed to the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Earnest Will to protect civilian vessels.
The USS Vincennes shot down a non-compliant aerial target that with a flight profile which resembled that of an Iranian F-14 on an attack run. The USS Vincennes had recently engaged Iranian gunboats – vessels which often employed suicide tactics.
Viewed from the perspective of September 11 attacks, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that the Iranian Airbus A300 might have been engaged in a suicide mission.
In any event, the whole incident would never have occurred if Iran hadn’t been attacking innocent civilian targets.
By: hallo84 - 20th February 2006 at 22:14
More likely than not, the only reason the Iranians have come up with the “Misagh-2” designation is to distance China from the potential terrorist acts that will be perpetrated with these missiles.
The Chinese will most certainly disapprove of the use to which Iran will undoubtably put these missiles. China doesn’t back terrorism, even though Iran is the world’s leader in state funded terrorism. It is reasonable to assume that many of the leader in Beijing already deeply regret ever having dealt with the increasingly unstable Iranian regime.
I don’t like that attitude that you hold here. First you assume Iran would use this weapon as a attack on airlines. Yet which airline do you suppose they can attack with a MANPAD? A plane carrying iranian citizens?
For the record Iran has never shot down a commercial airline, while the US have already downed an Iranian airliner killing all onboard.
By: RPG type 7v - 20th February 2006 at 19:34
No any tungsten rod, no programmable detonator, no possibility to shhot against ground target. This is AA missile with seeker copied from Strela-2M.
Even launchers box is the same.
And no electronics warfare.
Yes you are right mister Gremlin,i am made a mistake.Some iranian guy in another forum talked about this things and seemed to know a lot.But like u said internet is full of crazy wacko’s.
By: Barbarian - 19th February 2006 at 15:07
Export?
Does the world “export” mean the same thing as “give to to terrorists?”
Perhaps it does in Iran?
Iran not only produce 1700 militery products but also export them too!
Hei said:
We not only produce militery products but we export them too. being a part of militery market is one of our goals. ( sorry for my bad English )
Just curious which country gonna buy those products?!! :rolleyes:
Somalia?
Bangladesh?
Syria?
Lebanon?
By: TinWing - 19th February 2006 at 14:54
Lol The defence ministery said they going to export that kind of missles!!
Export?
Does the world “export” mean the same thing as “give to to terrorists?”
Perhaps it does in Iran?
By: Barbarian - 19th February 2006 at 11:45
Lol The defence ministery said they going to export that kind of missles!!
By: Gremlin - 19th February 2006 at 07:45
And also against hmvy s.I saw a thin tungsten rod in the crosssection picture of missile.It has a programable detonator warhead to use against infantry at any distance.Good seeker.It does seem very advanced and imaginative.But still not found evidence of electronic warfare use?
Mr. marvan,i am still waiting for your comment?!
No any tungsten rod, no programmable detonator, no possibility to shhot against ground target. This is AA missile with seeker copied from Strela-2M.
Even launchers box is the same.
By: Vaiar - 18th February 2006 at 14:15
Where do you see that ‘thungsten rod’ then?
By: RPG type 7v - 18th February 2006 at 11:05
And also against hmvy s.I saw a thin tungsten rod in the crosssection picture of missile.It has a programable detonator warhead to use against infantry at any distance.Good seeker.It does seem very advanced and imaginative.But still not found evidence of electronic warfare use?
Mr. marvan,i am still waiting for your comment?!
Sign In
February 12, 2006 at 12:09 am