10 ms·

Quds 1 missile

115 points by pinewurst 7y ago

sverige 7y ago
It is very interesting that Yemen may have developed their own missile, or possibly a variation on an Iranian missile which was reverse engineered from a Soviet missle. What would be even more interesting (to me at least) is to see the United States withdraw all our combat personnel from the region and let the players in the region figure it out for themselves. The U.S. has now been at war continuously for 18 years, which is the longest stretch ever. I'm starting to feel like my generation may be the last American generation to remember a time when we weren't at war. I felt a small surge of hope when Bolton was canned (or resigned, what does it matter really as long as he's gone), but then Trump tweeted that he was waiting to see what the Saudis want us to do, which is frankly ass backwards. Here's hoping for the end of American soldiers dying in other people's wars in my lifetime, which would make the subject of this article seem like something less than a provocation for yet more strikes by the U.S.
- shmerl 7y ago
  Figure out what exactly, the spread of IRGC backed fascism in the region? So far they didn't manage to figure it out even with external help. I doubt they'll do it any time soon. Those who actually advocate such approach, are most likely interested in that fascism spreading for whatever ulterior motives.
- dmix 7y ago
  The second one in a row to promise the US would leave (three if you count terms). I look forward to the next one who promises the same, I'm sure it will be different! Although I find the bipartisan and widespread media backlash that happens every time either tried to be revealing of the greater DC agenda as opposed to what they've found useful to say during campaigning. It's a damned if you do type situation, which is a game politicians don't like playing. Kicking it down the road continues to be the standard political option. Not to mention the middle east will no doubt continue to have a never ending series of incidents to make that option easy to justify.
- RandomTisk 7y ago
  I'm not so optimistic about what would happen if the US completely packed up and went home. It seems to me that the logical result would be a return to pre-WW1 conditions, except the munitions are much more powerful.
  - anarazel 7y ago
    The rise of ISIS certainly suggests that basically just packing up from a military POV may have very significant unintended consequences...
    - SiempreViernes 7y ago
      Well, ideally you haven't destroyed the relatively stable states in the region before packing up...
- donavanm 7y ago
  “I'm starting to feel like my generation may be the last American generation to remember a time when we weren't at war.” I suggest taking a look at something like Max Boots _The Savage Wars of Peace_. The short of it is that the US has been engaged in near constant active armed conflict since the earliest days of the republic. Post tonkin, and especially the last 2-3 decades, the size and scale of that engagement has certainly turned up. And putting media first (like cnn on the beach during landings in somalia) has changed the public visibility. But we’ve always had men and women dying overseas in service to the country.
  - wahern 7y ago
    You can say that of any major power throughout the entirety of written history. What distinguishes the United States is a comparative aversion to military adventurism, especially given its means and interests. I think the OP has a point: since 9/11 we've internalized an ethos and logic of security matters that necessitate our perpetually making war in the Middle East. Other than Vietnam, nothing in our history is comparable. I've said it before: President Obama's decision not to invade Syria was one of the most respectable and admirable decisions of any president in our history. He made the correct decision within a political culture that demanded he do the opposite. Every leader domestically, across party lines; all his advisors; and all of America's allies demanded and even attempted to shame him publicly into invading, despite it being obvious and beyond dispute it could not have possibly turned out any better than Iraq; indeed, that it was precipitated by Iraq. And he made the correct decision despite the fact that he had already, unwisely drew a red line committing the U.S. to intervention. Not since Khrushchev and (in the American narrative) JFK has someone proven that kind of leadership--to recognize your mistake and own up to it in the most consequential way possible. Of course, choosing not to invade Syria meant condemning thousands to die. But it was going to be a slaughter either way. The sin of leaving Syrians to their deaths had been committed more than a decade prior, and revisited every time someone demanded more military intervention.
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      Not to mention Hillary Clinton running away from Secretary of State right before Syria and Iraq blew up in her face. Leaving John Kerry to clean up the mess.
- wahern 7y ago
  > What would be even more interesting (to me at least) is to see the United States withdraw all our combat personnel from the region and let the players in the region figure it out for themselves. Well, that's partly what the Iran nuclear deal was about. While not necessarily intentional, the fact that Iran was free to go about building their conventional weaponry was a feature--it prevented a power vacuum from opening up. You want a detente between the Iranian and Saudi Arabian spheres of power. Power imbalances create instability. Not just because the more powerful will try to grab more resources, but because (as here) the weaker are politically incentivized to antagonize the stronger powers.
  - solatic 7y ago
    > Power imbalances create instability Citation needed. Generally accepted wisdom is that power balances create instability (albeit one in which rational players can manage the instability to provide the illusion of stability, if so incentivized), and imbalances create stability (albeit one that is fragile and under threat from asymmetric players). This is a separate issue from the values of fairness, equality, and justice, which are far more concordant, on the surface level, with a balance of power between players, even as they are only secured through the institution of an unbalanced, central power. On a domestic level, a strong federal government provides political stability. Legacy rights, specifically the Second Amendment, which attempt to create a "balance" of power between citizens, result in violence. On an international level, Pax Romana and Pax Americana. Global stability has been worsening with the decline of American power.
    - wahern 7y ago
      Great power imbalances can permit one power to conquer another. But that's not necessarily stability; at best it's a guarantee that you get to write the history. Ask the Uighurs how stable and secure things are for them. Or Ukrainians. Or the lands that Rome conquered as they were being conquered. Do you think the Middle East would be more stable if Saudi Arabia were powerful enough to conquer Iran? Power imbalances are almost by definition how violence arises as it means that forces are out of equilibrium. If you want to avoid all violence, even at the outset, you have to constructively arrange for a balance of powers. It's odd you single out the U.S. because the tripartite (4-part if you include Federalism) structure of American government is renowned for having the foresight to vest powers in distinct branches in a manner designed to maintain a balance through tension. The structure of American government wasn't particularly novel; what was truly novel was the recognition of the utility of constructively leveraging opposing domains of power to build something as sophisticated as a national government.
- michaelt 7y ago
  > What would be even more interesting (to me at least) is to see the United States withdraw all our combat personnel from the region and let the players in the region figure it out for themselves. If you find that interesting, you might be interested in reading about the withdrawal of colonial forces from Africa. In his book "War, Guns, and Votes" Paul Collier suggests French military interventions in their former colonies have actually been pretty good for the countries; he argues a 'forces-over-the-horizon guarantee' promising foreign troops will show up to support the government during a war reduced the chances of civil war over 5 years from 10% to 3%.
  - denton-scratch 7y ago
    Sounds like the promise of foreign troops reduces the chances of civil war, but increases the chances of tyrannical despots. Figures, I suppose.
CapricornNoble 7y ago
Very detailed article. The Czech TJ100 turbojet would be neat in a serial-hybrid turbine power pack (for ground applications). Physical fabrication of cruise missiles (which is basically what modern "kamikaze drones" are) isn't the hard part IMO....I really wanna get a look at their guidance/control software. Somebody get the Houthis on GitLab ASAP. >>>The idea that impoverished war-torn Yemen would be able to develop a cruise missile without any outside assistance seems far-fetched......Is Iran secretly designing, testing and producing missile systems for exclusive use by its proxies? I think it's possible the Iranians are doing the design work, then sending the CAD files to the Houthis and telling them "cobble together something like this to the best of your ability." The results have been spectacularly successful, and gets around the problems of the blockade if they aren't sending physical hardware.
- adolph 7y ago
  Yemen has used drones for attacks on Saudi oil facilities before, but with no or limited effectiveness on targets. An earlier, Saturday, August 17, 2019 attack only 29 days ago on the Shaybah Oil Field approximately 40 kilometers (24.8 miles) from the northern boundary of the vast Saudi Empty Quarter, resulted in no injuries or reduction in Saudi oil production. https://theaviationist.com/2019/09/15/everything-we-know-about-the-drone-attacks-on-two-saudi-aramco-oil-facilities/ https://theaviationist.com/2019/09/15/everything-we-know-abo...
- drevil-v2 7y ago
  > I think it's possible the Iranians are doing the design work, then sending the CAD files to the Houthis and telling them "cobble together something like this to the best of your ability." The article implied that the TJ100 would not be capable of the range required to hit the Saudi targets if launched from Northern Yemen.
- FuckButtons 7y ago
  Manufacturing is an awful lot more than “cobbling together” a cad file. Cruise missiles need some pretty complex components to be made with specialized tooling, none of which are going to last long with Saudi Arabia bombing the fuck out of them on a regular basis.
_iyig 7y ago
My first thought was, "why not a pulsejet? Didn't that crazy guy in NZ use one to build a DIY cruise missile some years back?" Well, it turns out pulsejets are horrendously inefficient [0]. If the missiles were fired from northern Yemen per the article's map, there's no way a pulsejet could have even gotten close to its target with the same load of fuel. I'm led to wonder whether piston engines could've made the trip, and whether Saudi air defense could've shot such a (slower) drone down. Giant-scale RC plane engines exist... anyone know how big these have to get before export controls kick in? EDIT: forgot source link. [0] https://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/jet_efficiency1.shtml https://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/jet_efficiency1.shtml
- rdtsc 7y ago
  I think the idea is that it wasn't a complete clean room Yemeni design, but rather an altered Iranian design, which in turn copied from a Soviet missile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-55 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-55 The engine was switched from a more efficient turbofan to a turbojet TJ100. But switching to a piston and propeller engine might have been to much of a change and would have require a complete redesign.
  - caf 7y ago
    The article is concluding that the Quds-1 is not an altered Soumar (which is the missile based on the KH-55) - the list of differences up to and including the significantly smaller diameter and different engine make that unlikely. Rather it is mentioned that TJ100-alike engines are used in Iran's drone program (as distinct from cruise missiles), and this raises the possibility that the Quds-1 is a derivative of one of those.
    - rdtsc 7y ago
      But the general design class is the same, it even confused the Saudis it was the same rocket. I guess I was trying to say is if it was designed from scratch with a piston engine it would look very different. But because there were already similar designs and models they had access to, it made sense to stick with that same general class of rockets.
dmix 7y ago
> Is Iran secretly designing, testing and producing missile systems for exclusive use by its proxies? Designing a deniable missile sounds exactly like something an Iran Intel agency would do. Especially with how effectively Russia worked in Ukraine, not using directly attributable assets is very valuable and will be a tactic we'll only see more of in the future. Makes sense they'd simplify one of their existing proven systems and use more drone-esque technology. The Quds name is also interesting since it's the name of Iran's more elite forces which have operated in their proxies like Syria, and what I thought this article was going to be about https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/30/the-shadow-commander https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/30/the-shadow-com...
- sb057 7y ago
  (al-)Quds is just the Arabic name for Jerusalem.
  - dotancohen 7y ago
    Quds means "holy", the Arabic name for Jerusalem is "The holy". Other things can be holy, and the name Quds applies to them as well.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      Lovely. "The Holy Missile". "The Holy Hand Grenade" was comedy in a movie. "The Holy Missile" in real life? Not so funny.
      - dotancohen 7y ago
        Run away! Run away!
- farseer 7y ago
  >>Designing a deniable missile sounds exactly like something an Iran Intel agency would do along with every single other Intel agency involved in the middle east. Including those agencies/countries that might gain from an Arab Persian conflict.
forget1t 7y ago
Interesting article just on the missile evidence from prior attacks. Probably the most detailed out there. However, other conclusions here seem rather out of place. If this is a crime, then any crime investigation should examine motive, timing and means. Few recent geopolitical details to keep in mind: 1 - Trump administration just fired the #1 anti-Iran hawk (Bolton) and signaled interest in talking with "no conditions" with the Iranian regime. This would entirely change the Iranian position in the region [1]. It suggest lunacy from an otherwise calculating regime to jeopardize this potential new chapter. 2 - Iran just signed a $280 billion investment deal with China. Which includes presence of 5000 Chinese "security" forces. Essentially creating a Chinese military base across the waters from the US military base [2]. Iran would not want to escalate into a war before it has chance to land the Chinese forces on the ground and use them as a deterrent. Do keep in mind, aside from the impact of the $280B investment in Iranian infrastructure and oil sector, it essentially makes Chinese currency the second currency of oil trade. The oil trade in $USD is one of the most important and financial power that America has. This is something started during the Nixon era as a way to deal with the budget deficits needs of paying for the Vietnam war and it has continued ever since ensuing stability of $USD as we print money [3] Just looking at these, you can make an argument there are multiple entities interested in either breaking any possibility of meeting between US and Iran, as clearly Trump has already walked backwards about "no condition" talk statements [4]. These entities with most to lose from a Trump/Iran meeting are: Saudi Arabia Israel Looking at the imagery and precision of these hits, you almost wonder if the attacks might have come from something else. Not to mention we've already had attacks on ships in the Persian Gulf with the original narrative disputed [5] and following a precision attack from a "flying objects" possibly a missile. Given that the only evidence to Quds is a destroyed missile image from Saudi Arabia (a rather partial entity) from past and there are no actual evidence yet from the attack sites itself, you can as easily look at who has most to gain from a military confrontation with Iran or the very least stopping any diplomatic rapprochement between US and the Iranian regime. A case can be made for both Saudi Arabia and Israel. Then there is the questions of the means. On Israel there are multiple options. 1, Israel has some of the most stealth submarines in the world that they got from Germany. It is equipped with a cruise missile [6] 2, Israel can also strike from the air from a distance. Israel recently hit Iraq [7] and it has stealth ability to fly close to the Kuwait border to fire their cruise missiles [8] The point I'm making, while you can make a case for Iran, you can as easily make the case for Israel. Given the biggest beneficiary of this latest escalation are probably the Israelis (please do not hate me for saying this) we should equally look at this possibility. Lastly, these missile might have come for the "rebels" in Yemen. It's hard to imagine how an impoverished country could make something like this. Import the parts and everything else and then manufacture and test it. Obviously you could look at Iran as the source, however, there is one more regional player who benefits from the Saudi-Yemen war quagmire which is Qatar. Saudi Arabia (or rather MBS) began a siege of Qatar and gave an ultimatum of invasion and overthrow of the country's rulers. Despite numerous back channel efforts there is no easing on the tension between Qatar and Saudi Arabia [9] A case can be made that Qatar would want to support the "rebels" and prolong the Saudi-Yemen conflict as long as possible to get leverage over the Saudis. [1] https://theintercept.com/2019/09/15/threatening-war-oil-donald-trump-rails-media-not-forgetting-offered-iran-talks/ https://theintercept.com/2019/09/15/threatening-war-oil-dona... [2] https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190907-a-blow-to-washington-china-to-invest-280-billion-in-iranian-sectors-targeted-by-sanctions/ https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190907-a-blow-to-washing... [3] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/072915/how-petrodollars-affect-us-dollar.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/072915/how-petro..., https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untol... [4] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-aramco-attacks-trump-meeting/trump-says-incorrect-he-is-willing-to-meet-iran-with-no-conditions-idUSKBN1W00VV https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-aramco-attacks-trum... [5] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-tanker-japan-damage/flying-objects-damaged-japanese-tanker-during-attack-in-gulf-of-oman-idUSKCN1TF0M9 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-tanker-japan-dama... [6] https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/israel-submarine-capabilities/ https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/israel-submarine-capab... [7] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/officials-confirm-israel-air-raid-iraq-190823094346731.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/officials-confirm-isr... [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delilah_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delilah_(missile) [9] https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/saudi-qatar-hopes-for-mediation-go-up-in-smoke-29669 https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/saudi-qatar-hopes-for-m...
aaron695 7y ago
The precision on the attack is nuts, I'd find it hard to believe even the USA could do it (They could of course, just it'd be impressive) It's almost like there was someone on the ground helping a medium power like Iran, but maybe they or Iraq have the tech to do it from afar. Impressive if so. Unless the photos are incorrect.... https://twitter.com/DionNissenbaum/status/1173325850323890178 https://twitter.com/DionNissenbaum/status/117332585032389017...
SergeAx 7y ago
Loved the reference to xkcd)
credit_guy 7y ago
Great article. So, it appears that this "drone" attack was actually an attack by an ultra-advanced cruise missile. A missile with higher range than the limits of the INF treaty (from which the US has pulled recently). According to this article, the distance between northern Yemen and the attacked facility is more than 1250 km. For comparison this is roughly the distance between New York and Chicago, or between Paris and Rome.
- caf 7y ago
  There doesn't seem to be a case for "ultra-advanced", it's more a demonstration on how well you can do without needing "ultra-advanced" technology. Note that the INF treaty was bilateral (it only bound its two signatories, Russia and the US).
  - credit_guy 7y ago
    This paragraph is somewhere in the middle of the article so maybe it's easy to miss: "The TJ100 however not only has much lower thrust than the original KH-55 engine but also is just your regular old turbojet. This leads to some questions about range. Both the missile’s smaller size and its more fuel-hungry engine make it seem unlikely it’s range would be anywhere close to the the Soumar’s/Hoveyzeh’s range of 1350km " So no, the attacks did not happen with the Quds-1 missile, but rather with a much more advanced one. A missile in the same class as the Tomahawk, or the KH-55. These missiles are not garage-level technology.
    - caf 7y ago
      ...or it wasn't launched from Northern Yemen.

115 points by pinewurst 7y ago

It is very interesting that Yemen may have developed their own missile, or possibly a variation on an Iranian missile which was reverse engineered from a Soviet missle. What would be even more interesting (to me at least) is to see the United States withdraw all our combat personnel from the region and let the players in the region figure it out for themselves. The U.S. has now been at war continuously for 18 years, which is the longest stretch ever. I'm starting to feel like my generation may be the last American generation to remember a time when we weren't at war. I felt a small surge of hope when Bolton was canned (or resigned, what does it matter really as long as he's gone), but then Trump tweeted that he was waiting to see what the Saudis want us to do, which is frankly ass backwards. Here's hoping for the end of American soldiers dying in other people's wars in my lifetime, which would make the subject of this article seem like something less than a provocation for yet more strikes by the U.S.

shmerl 7y ago
Figure out what exactly, the spread of IRGC backed fascism in the region? So far they didn't manage to figure it out even with external help. I doubt they'll do it any time soon. Those who actually advocate such approach, are most likely interested in that fascism spreading for whatever ulterior motives.
dmix 7y ago
The second one in a row to promise the US would leave (three if you count terms). I look forward to the next one who promises the same, I'm sure it will be different! Although I find the bipartisan and widespread media backlash that happens every time either tried to be revealing of the greater DC agenda as opposed to what they've found useful to say during campaigning. It's a damned if you do type situation, which is a game politicians don't like playing. Kicking it down the road continues to be the standard political option. Not to mention the middle east will no doubt continue to have a never ending series of incidents to make that option easy to justify.
RandomTisk 7y ago
I'm not so optimistic about what would happen if the US completely packed up and went home. It seems to me that the logical result would be a return to pre-WW1 conditions, except the munitions are much more powerful.
- anarazel 7y ago
  The rise of ISIS certainly suggests that basically just packing up from a military POV may have very significant unintended consequences...
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    Well, ideally you haven't destroyed the relatively stable states in the region before packing up...
donavanm 7y ago
“I'm starting to feel like my generation may be the last American generation to remember a time when we weren't at war.” I suggest taking a look at something like Max Boots _The Savage Wars of Peace_. The short of it is that the US has been engaged in near constant active armed conflict since the earliest days of the republic. Post tonkin, and especially the last 2-3 decades, the size and scale of that engagement has certainly turned up. And putting media first (like cnn on the beach during landings in somalia) has changed the public visibility. But we’ve always had men and women dying overseas in service to the country.
- wahern 7y ago
  You can say that of any major power throughout the entirety of written history. What distinguishes the United States is a comparative aversion to military adventurism, especially given its means and interests. I think the OP has a point: since 9/11 we've internalized an ethos and logic of security matters that necessitate our perpetually making war in the Middle East. Other than Vietnam, nothing in our history is comparable. I've said it before: President Obama's decision not to invade Syria was one of the most respectable and admirable decisions of any president in our history. He made the correct decision within a political culture that demanded he do the opposite. Every leader domestically, across party lines; all his advisors; and all of America's allies demanded and even attempted to shame him publicly into invading, despite it being obvious and beyond dispute it could not have possibly turned out any better than Iraq; indeed, that it was precipitated by Iraq. And he made the correct decision despite the fact that he had already, unwisely drew a red line committing the U.S. to intervention. Not since Khrushchev and (in the American narrative) JFK has someone proven that kind of leadership--to recognize your mistake and own up to it in the most consequential way possible. Of course, choosing not to invade Syria meant condemning thousands to die. But it was going to be a slaughter either way. The sin of leaving Syrians to their deaths had been committed more than a decade prior, and revisited every time someone demanded more military intervention.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    Not to mention Hillary Clinton running away from Secretary of State right before Syria and Iraq blew up in her face. Leaving John Kerry to clean up the mess.
wahern 7y ago
> What would be even more interesting (to me at least) is to see the United States withdraw all our combat personnel from the region and let the players in the region figure it out for themselves. Well, that's partly what the Iran nuclear deal was about. While not necessarily intentional, the fact that Iran was free to go about building their conventional weaponry was a feature--it prevented a power vacuum from opening up. You want a detente between the Iranian and Saudi Arabian spheres of power. Power imbalances create instability. Not just because the more powerful will try to grab more resources, but because (as here) the weaker are politically incentivized to antagonize the stronger powers.
- solatic 7y ago
  > Power imbalances create instability Citation needed. Generally accepted wisdom is that power balances create instability (albeit one in which rational players can manage the instability to provide the illusion of stability, if so incentivized), and imbalances create stability (albeit one that is fragile and under threat from asymmetric players). This is a separate issue from the values of fairness, equality, and justice, which are far more concordant, on the surface level, with a balance of power between players, even as they are only secured through the institution of an unbalanced, central power. On a domestic level, a strong federal government provides political stability. Legacy rights, specifically the Second Amendment, which attempt to create a "balance" of power between citizens, result in violence. On an international level, Pax Romana and Pax Americana. Global stability has been worsening with the decline of American power.
  - wahern 7y ago
    Great power imbalances can permit one power to conquer another. But that's not necessarily stability; at best it's a guarantee that you get to write the history. Ask the Uighurs how stable and secure things are for them. Or Ukrainians. Or the lands that Rome conquered as they were being conquered. Do you think the Middle East would be more stable if Saudi Arabia were powerful enough to conquer Iran? Power imbalances are almost by definition how violence arises as it means that forces are out of equilibrium. If you want to avoid all violence, even at the outset, you have to constructively arrange for a balance of powers. It's odd you single out the U.S. because the tripartite (4-part if you include Federalism) structure of American government is renowned for having the foresight to vest powers in distinct branches in a manner designed to maintain a balance through tension. The structure of American government wasn't particularly novel; what was truly novel was the recognition of the utility of constructively leveraging opposing domains of power to build something as sophisticated as a national government.
michaelt 7y ago
> What would be even more interesting (to me at least) is to see the United States withdraw all our combat personnel from the region and let the players in the region figure it out for themselves. If you find that interesting, you might be interested in reading about the withdrawal of colonial forces from Africa. In his book "War, Guns, and Votes" Paul Collier suggests French military interventions in their former colonies have actually been pretty good for the countries; he argues a 'forces-over-the-horizon guarantee' promising foreign troops will show up to support the government during a war reduced the chances of civil war over 5 years from 10% to 3%.
- denton-scratch 7y ago
  Sounds like the promise of foreign troops reduces the chances of civil war, but increases the chances of tyrannical despots. Figures, I suppose.

CapricornNoble 7y ago

Very detailed article. The Czech TJ100 turbojet would be neat in a serial-hybrid turbine power pack (for ground applications). Physical fabrication of cruise missiles (which is basically what modern "kamikaze drones" are) isn't the hard part IMO....I really wanna get a look at their guidance/control software. Somebody get the Houthis on GitLab ASAP. >>>The idea that impoverished war-torn Yemen would be able to develop a cruise missile without any outside assistance seems far-fetched......Is Iran secretly designing, testing and producing missile systems for exclusive use by its proxies? I think it's possible the Iranians are doing the design work, then sending the CAD files to the Houthis and telling them "cobble together something like this to the best of your ability." The results have been spectacularly successful, and gets around the problems of the blockade if they aren't sending physical hardware.

adolph 7y ago
Yemen has used drones for attacks on Saudi oil facilities before, but with no or limited effectiveness on targets. An earlier, Saturday, August 17, 2019 attack only 29 days ago on the Shaybah Oil Field approximately 40 kilometers (24.8 miles) from the northern boundary of the vast Saudi Empty Quarter, resulted in no injuries or reduction in Saudi oil production. https://theaviationist.com/2019/09/15/everything-we-know-about-the-drone-attacks-on-two-saudi-aramco-oil-facilities/ https://theaviationist.com/2019/09/15/everything-we-know-abo...
drevil-v2 7y ago
> I think it's possible the Iranians are doing the design work, then sending the CAD files to the Houthis and telling them "cobble together something like this to the best of your ability." The article implied that the TJ100 would not be capable of the range required to hit the Saudi targets if launched from Northern Yemen.
FuckButtons 7y ago
Manufacturing is an awful lot more than “cobbling together” a cad file. Cruise missiles need some pretty complex components to be made with specialized tooling, none of which are going to last long with Saudi Arabia bombing the fuck out of them on a regular basis.

_iyig 7y ago

My first thought was, "why not a pulsejet? Didn't that crazy guy in NZ use one to build a DIY cruise missile some years back?" Well, it turns out pulsejets are horrendously inefficient [0]. If the missiles were fired from northern Yemen per the article's map, there's no way a pulsejet could have even gotten close to its target with the same load of fuel. I'm led to wonder whether piston engines could've made the trip, and whether Saudi air defense could've shot such a (slower) drone down. Giant-scale RC plane engines exist... anyone know how big these have to get before export controls kick in? EDIT: forgot source link. [0] https://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/jet_efficiency1.shtml https://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/jet_efficiency1.shtml

rdtsc 7y ago
I think the idea is that it wasn't a complete clean room Yemeni design, but rather an altered Iranian design, which in turn copied from a Soviet missile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-55 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-55 The engine was switched from a more efficient turbofan to a turbojet TJ100. But switching to a piston and propeller engine might have been to much of a change and would have require a complete redesign.
- caf 7y ago
  The article is concluding that the Quds-1 is not an altered Soumar (which is the missile based on the KH-55) - the list of differences up to and including the significantly smaller diameter and different engine make that unlikely. Rather it is mentioned that TJ100-alike engines are used in Iran's drone program (as distinct from cruise missiles), and this raises the possibility that the Quds-1 is a derivative of one of those.
  - rdtsc 7y ago
    But the general design class is the same, it even confused the Saudis it was the same rocket. I guess I was trying to say is if it was designed from scratch with a piston engine it would look very different. But because there were already similar designs and models they had access to, it made sense to stick with that same general class of rockets.

dmix 7y ago

> Is Iran secretly designing, testing and producing missile systems for exclusive use by its proxies? Designing a deniable missile sounds exactly like something an Iran Intel agency would do. Especially with how effectively Russia worked in Ukraine, not using directly attributable assets is very valuable and will be a tactic we'll only see more of in the future. Makes sense they'd simplify one of their existing proven systems and use more drone-esque technology. The Quds name is also interesting since it's the name of Iran's more elite forces which have operated in their proxies like Syria, and what I thought this article was going to be about https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/30/the-shadow-commander https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/30/the-shadow-com...

sb057 7y ago
(al-)Quds is just the Arabic name for Jerusalem.
- dotancohen 7y ago
  Quds means "holy", the Arabic name for Jerusalem is "The holy". Other things can be holy, and the name Quds applies to them as well.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Lovely. "The Holy Missile". "The Holy Hand Grenade" was comedy in a movie. "The Holy Missile" in real life? Not so funny.
    - dotancohen 7y ago
      Run away! Run away!
farseer 7y ago
>>Designing a deniable missile sounds exactly like something an Iran Intel agency would do along with every single other Intel agency involved in the middle east. Including those agencies/countries that might gain from an Arab Persian conflict.

forget1t 7y ago

Interesting article just on the missile evidence from prior attacks. Probably the most detailed out there. However, other conclusions here seem rather out of place. If this is a crime, then any crime investigation should examine motive, timing and means. Few recent geopolitical details to keep in mind: 1 - Trump administration just fired the #1 anti-Iran hawk (Bolton) and signaled interest in talking with "no conditions" with the Iranian regime. This would entirely change the Iranian position in the region [1]. It suggest lunacy from an otherwise calculating regime to jeopardize this potential new chapter. 2 - Iran just signed a $280 billion investment deal with China. Which includes presence of 5000 Chinese "security" forces. Essentially creating a Chinese military base across the waters from the US military base [2]. Iran would not want to escalate into a war before it has chance to land the Chinese forces on the ground and use them as a deterrent. Do keep in mind, aside from the impact of the $280B investment in Iranian infrastructure and oil sector, it essentially makes Chinese currency the second currency of oil trade. The oil trade in $USD is one of the most important and financial power that America has. This is something started during the Nixon era as a way to deal with the budget deficits needs of paying for the Vietnam war and it has continued ever since ensuing stability of $USD as we print money [3] Just looking at these, you can make an argument there are multiple entities interested in either breaking any possibility of meeting between US and Iran, as clearly Trump has already walked backwards about "no condition" talk statements [4]. These entities with most to lose from a Trump/Iran meeting are: Saudi Arabia Israel Looking at the imagery and precision of these hits, you almost wonder if the attacks might have come from something else. Not to mention we've already had attacks on ships in the Persian Gulf with the original narrative disputed [5] and following a precision attack from a "flying objects" possibly a missile. Given that the only evidence to Quds is a destroyed missile image from Saudi Arabia (a rather partial entity) from past and there are no actual evidence yet from the attack sites itself, you can as easily look at who has most to gain from a military confrontation with Iran or the very least stopping any diplomatic rapprochement between US and the Iranian regime. A case can be made for both Saudi Arabia and Israel. Then there is the questions of the means. On Israel there are multiple options. 1, Israel has some of the most stealth submarines in the world that they got from Germany. It is equipped with a cruise missile [6] 2, Israel can also strike from the air from a distance. Israel recently hit Iraq [7] and it has stealth ability to fly close to the Kuwait border to fire their cruise missiles [8] The point I'm making, while you can make a case for Iran, you can as easily make the case for Israel. Given the biggest beneficiary of this latest escalation are probably the Israelis (please do not hate me for saying this) we should equally look at this possibility. Lastly, these missile might have come for the "rebels" in Yemen. It's hard to imagine how an impoverished country could make something like this. Import the parts and everything else and then manufacture and test it. Obviously you could look at Iran as the source, however, there is one more regional player who benefits from the Saudi-Yemen war quagmire which is Qatar. Saudi Arabia (or rather MBS) began a siege of Qatar and gave an ultimatum of invasion and overthrow of the country's rulers. Despite numerous back channel efforts there is no easing on the tension between Qatar and Saudi Arabia [9] A case can be made that Qatar would want to support the "rebels" and prolong the Saudi-Yemen conflict as long as possible to get leverage over the Saudis. [1] https://theintercept.com/2019/09/15/threatening-war-oil-donald-trump-rails-media-not-forgetting-offered-iran-talks/ https://theintercept.com/2019/09/15/threatening-war-oil-dona... [2] https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190907-a-blow-to-washington-china-to-invest-280-billion-in-iranian-sectors-targeted-by-sanctions/ https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190907-a-blow-to-washing... [3] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/072915/how-petrodollars-affect-us-dollar.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/072915/how-petro..., https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untol... [4] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-aramco-attacks-trump-meeting/trump-says-incorrect-he-is-willing-to-meet-iran-with-no-conditions-idUSKBN1W00VV https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-aramco-attacks-trum... [5] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-tanker-japan-damage/flying-objects-damaged-japanese-tanker-during-attack-in-gulf-of-oman-idUSKCN1TF0M9 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-tanker-japan-dama... [6] https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/israel-submarine-capabilities/ https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/israel-submarine-capab... [7] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/officials-confirm-israel-air-raid-iraq-190823094346731.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/officials-confirm-isr... [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delilah_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delilah_(missile) [9] https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/saudi-qatar-hopes-for-mediation-go-up-in-smoke-29669 https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/saudi-qatar-hopes-for-m...

aaron695 7y ago

The precision on the attack is nuts, I'd find it hard to believe even the USA could do it (They could of course, just it'd be impressive) It's almost like there was someone on the ground helping a medium power like Iran, but maybe they or Iraq have the tech to do it from afar. Impressive if so. Unless the photos are incorrect.... https://twitter.com/DionNissenbaum/status/1173325850323890178 https://twitter.com/DionNissenbaum/status/117332585032389017...

SergeAx 7y ago

Loved the reference to xkcd)

credit_guy 7y ago

Great article. So, it appears that this "drone" attack was actually an attack by an ultra-advanced cruise missile. A missile with higher range than the limits of the INF treaty (from which the US has pulled recently). According to this article, the distance between northern Yemen and the attacked facility is more than 1250 km. For comparison this is roughly the distance between New York and Chicago, or between Paris and Rome.

caf 7y ago
There doesn't seem to be a case for "ultra-advanced", it's more a demonstration on how well you can do without needing "ultra-advanced" technology. Note that the INF treaty was bilateral (it only bound its two signatories, Russia and the US).
- credit_guy 7y ago
  This paragraph is somewhere in the middle of the article so maybe it's easy to miss: "The TJ100 however not only has much lower thrust than the original KH-55 engine but also is just your regular old turbojet. This leads to some questions about range. Both the missile’s smaller size and its more fuel-hungry engine make it seem unlikely it’s range would be anywhere close to the the Soumar’s/Hoveyzeh’s range of 1350km " So no, the attacks did not happen with the Quds-1 missile, but rather with a much more advanced one. A missile in the same class as the Tomahawk, or the KH-55. These missiles are not garage-level technology.
  - caf 7y ago
    ...or it wasn't launched from Northern Yemen.