Who Would Win In A Saudi Arabia vs. Iran Showdown?

[Kambojaric]

Saudis just need to repel the Iranian + Allies attacks whether they come from Yemeni or Iraqi territories as expected. Manpower will not be a problem for Saudis as Muslim Fighters from all over the world will pour into the Arabian Peninsula to counter any attack from enemies of Islam & Muslims. These fighters will be with a zeal to sacrifice their lives for the cause of Islam as no Muslim wants destability in land of Harmain Sharifain even they don't like the present ruling regime.

Idealistic view my friend . Wars have been going on in that land for centuries. The below are events from within 100 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mecca_(1916)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Medina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_conquest_of_Hejaz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mecca_(1924)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta'if_massacre

The Muslim world has proven again and again that we are naturally too engrossed in our own private affairs. Our third holiest site has been the scene of constant humiliation, and what has the Muslim world done about it?

 

[LeGenD]

Bro, seriously? Few Salvos of 50s missiles? We are talking about thousands of short range and medium range ballistic missiles, one of the largest stockpiles of such missiles in the world, if not largest. Not only Iran can knock out Saudi air defence systems, but can rain hundreds of missiles on each Saudi major city, industrial hub, military base. We have missiles specifically for targeting radar and AD systems. And not to forget, we have thousands of short and medium range cruise missiles too, soon super sonic cruise missiles will be added too.

You recall the "War of the Cities" chapter between Iraq and Iran?

I shall refresh your memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Cities

Ballistic Missiles are like weapons of intimidation in a strictly conventional role. They are not good for precision-strike roles and neither they can knock out a well-established Air Defense System of a country. You need a large stockpile of cruise missiles, decent Intel, and combat aircraft for that.

And it doesn't matters how large the stockpile of your Ballistic Missiles is; you need a large number of TELs to fire them at a massive rate. And I don't think you have many. Even Pakistan doesn't.

More importantly, you cannot win a (conventional) war with the use of Ballistic Missiles, period. Pakistan understood this. Therefore, focus on developing a stockpile of cruise missiles. Pakistani Ballistic Missiles are largely restricted to strategic roles.

Actually no, I've done a fair amount of research on the PAC-3 and PAC-2. I am not underestimating it at all. Are you aware of something called maximum target speed? The electronics in a missile can only react so fast. In the PAC-2 and PAC-3, the maximum target speed is 2,200 m/s and 1,600 m/s respectively. The Sejjil flies at Mach 13, which is 4,800 m/s. Therefore, the patriot cannot intercept the Sejjil.

View attachment 353979

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile_system)#Comparison_with_other_systems

This does not mean the Patriot cannot intercept the lower tier of Iranian missiles, but Iran's higher tier missiles (and cruise missiles) can penetrate it. By Lockheed Martin's own admission, the PAC-3 is meant to intercept Tactical Ballistic Missiles, which typically do not have a range greater than 300 km. The Sejjil is a medium range ballistic missile with 8 times the range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_ballistic_missile

You don't get it.

The speed of a ballistic missile doesn't matters much when the interceptor will come at it from the front or side. The interceptor missile is unlikely to chase a ballistic missile from behind; this defeats the purpose of interception.

To explain my point in layman terms: a (speedy) car is passing through a road near to you; you just need to be fast enough to intercept it, from your angle. Get it?

This game is all about tracking the target in real-time (if possible) or predicting its trajectory with high accuracy and calculating the right time for interception. Therefore, under the right circumstances, a PAC 3 system can intercept even an ICBM in its terminal phase.

Not quite before they even reach the Persian Gulf, it would be foolish to place launchers too close to the shore. But aircraft are much, much slower than missiles, and are on a more predictable trajectory. Aircraft are always going to be easier to intercept than missiles. That's why countries develop specific anti-ballsitic missile systems. The Bavar-373 and S-300 are anti-aircraft systems (though the S-300 does have an anti-ballistic capacity, and the Bavar-373 is due to be tested on a ballistic missile).

And how many batteries you have?

 

[Hell hound]

And it doesn't matters how large the stockpile of your Ballistic Missiles is; you need a large number of TELs to fire them at a massive rate. And I don't think you have many. Even Pakistan doesn't.

off topic question
how much a TEL cost.
why don't Pakistan has enough tels
are there any constraint in acquiring large number of TEL. aren't these are just vehicles with hydraulics strong enough to erect a missiles.

 

[Nefarious]

Who Would Win In A Saudi Arabia vs. Iran Showdown?

Israel.

 

[Max]

Iranian will neutralize Saudi bases with missiles? My question is how in presence of advance western Short range to long range missile defence?

2nd, what if Saudi use their highways, motarways as base for landing and flight like almost all countries are doing now a days, [Saudis have highways of thousands of kilometers] recently Indian did this on their soil, Pakistan did this a decade ago, What will Iranian do in that case? What if Saudi take all of their airforce out on highways and you busy targeting empty bases ?

3rd, what are Saudi stand off weapons which can neutralize Iranian air defence?

 

[925boy]

@EgyptianAmerican- your analysis is fine..except on naval.Iran wims hands down in naval.once iran blocks mouth of strait of hormuz all naval activities in Persian gulf is under Irans control.even US knows that.saudis cqnt beat iran in naval confrontation. all u " technology is game changer" thinkers should remember techno,ogy is not winning america wars anymore. it gives some advantagw but turning that i to winning the war is different matter.

 

[Azeri440]

Literally No one, both will suffer from economic collapse, their main oil industries are literally just across from each other, rest of the world will also be paying at least 1,000 bucks per barrel.

 

[AmirPatriot]

My question is how in presence of advance western Short range to long range missile defence?

Please read my earlier comments, where I addressed Arab missile defences.

You recall the "War of the Cities" chapter between Iraq and Iran?

This discussion is not relevant to it.

The war of the cities used scuds, with with precision figures in the order of kilometres.

They are not good for precision-strike roles and neither they can knock out a well-established Air Defense System of a country

Zolfaghar ballistic missile, 700 km range.

Khalije Fars (Persian Gulf) Anti-ship ballistic missile, 300 km range.

Emad precision guided ballistic missile, 1700 km range.

(video shows launch, in-flight camera with warhead separation, and impact).

Ballistic missiles are fully capable of precision strikes. All you think of are scuds and Pakistani missiles which are designed to deliver nukes, so they don't need much precision.

Iranian missiles use electro-optical, IR and anti-radiation guidance for precision strikes. The Emad missile there (with the red warhead) is actually an upgrade to standard Iranian missiles. Once this upgrade is rolled out to the entire inventory, Iran will have a large precision strike capability.

You don't get it.

With respect, I think you don't. If you see the table I posted, it has maximum target speed and "maximum speed of the rocket complex".

In this case, the PAC-3 itself flies at 1,500 m/s and can intercept targets flying at 1,600 m/s. The PAC-2 is 1,700 m/s for its own missile, and 2,200 m/s for the target. The S-300PMU2 has a top speed of 1,900 m/s and a maximum target speed of 2,800 m/s.

a PAC 3 system can intercept even an ICBM in its terminal phase.

By Lockheed Martin's own admission, it only intercepts Tactical Ballistic Missiles (TBMs) (short range, <300 km range).

And how many batteries you have?

We have 4 battalions, each of which can have up to 6 batteries and each battery up to 8 launchers.

More importantly, you cannot win a (conventional) war with the use of Ballistic Missiles, period.

I don't think Serpentine is saying that, but they are a big factor.

Pakistani Ballistic Missiles are largely restricted to strategic roles.

There is a good reason for that.

Nuclear doctrine in most countries dictates that you must destroy the enemy nuclear assets as soon as possible. If India sees 100 Pakistani ballistic missiles flying towards it, the only responsible thing to do is to immediately assume those are nuclear armed, because Pakistan is a nuclear armed country. It would therefore have to respond with its own nuclear weapons. Thats why the nuclear powers do not use conventional ballistic missiles, because if launched against a peer adversary, they would trigger a nuclear response.

And I don't think you have many.

How can you say that? I've posted pictures in this very thread of dozens of TELs, fresh off the production line. You have no proof to corroborate your claim.

As for Pakistan, I've already said why Pakistan cannot use massed ballistic missile attacks (and hence TELs).

arab stronk
amazing channel https://www.youtube.com/user/AntiMajosProduction

lol

 

[Providence]

With just them fighting one on one, winner would be Iran !

 

[Max]

Please read my earlier comments, where I addressed Arab missile defences.


This discussion is not relevant to it.

The war of the cities used scuds, with with precision figures in the order of kilometres.

Zolfaghar ballistic missile, 700 km range.

Khalije Fars (Persian Gulf) Anti-ship ballistic missile, 300 km range.

Emad precision guided ballistic missile, 1700 km range.

(video shows launch, in-flight camera with warhead separation, and impact).

Ballistic missiles are fully capable of precision strikes. All you think of are scuds and Pakistani missiles which are designed to deliver nukes, so they don't need much precision.

Iranian missiles use electro-optical, IR and anti-radiation guidance for precision strikes. The Emad missile there (with the red warhead) is actually an upgrade to standard Iranian missiles. Once this upgrade is rolled out to the entire inventory, Iran will have a large precision strike capability.


With respect, I think you don't. If you see the table I posted, it has maximum target speed and "maximum speed of the rocket complex".

In this case, the PAC-3 itself flies at 1,500 m/s and can intercept targets flying at 1,600 m/s. The PAC-2 is 1,700 m/s for its own missile, and 2,200 m/s for the target. The S-300PMU2 has a top speed of 1,900 m/s and a maximum target speed of 2,800 m/s.

By Lockheed Martin's own admission, it only intercepts Tactical Ballistic Missiles (TBMs) (short range, <300 km range).

View attachment 355911



We have 4 battalions, each of which can have up to 6 batteries and each battery up to 8 launchers.

I don't think Serpentine is saying that, but they are a big factor.


There is a good reason for that.

Nuclear doctrine in most countries dictates that you must destroy the enemy nuclear assets as soon as possible. If India sees 100 Pakistani ballistic missiles flying towards it, the only responsible thing to do is to immediately assume those are nuclear armed, because Pakistan is a nuclear armed country. It would therefore have to respond with its own nuclear weapons. Thats why the nuclear powers do not use conventional ballistic missiles, because if launched against a peer adversary, they would trigger a nuclear response.


lol

what about 2nd and 3rd part of my question.. Use of highways to avoid Iranian ballistic missiles and standoff weapons against Iranian air defence?

2nd, what if Saudi use their highways,
motarways as base for landing and flight like
almost all countries are doing now a days,
[Saudis have highways of thousands of
kilometers] recently Indian did this on their soil, Pakistan did this a decade ago, What will Iranian do in this case? What if Saudi take all of their airforce out on highways and you busy targeting empty bases ?

 

[AmirPatriot]

2nd, what if Saudi use their highways,
motarways as base for landing and flight like
almost all countries are doing now a days,

That is a gross exaggeration. Currently only Singapore, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Poland, Taiwan and Pakistan do this, with India soon to follow.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_strip

You should know that to use roads as runways, the runway needs to be specially prepared to handle aircraft operations, and they need to be wide enough. You also need the pilots to be properly trained, as well as the highways to be within range and the ones capable of being landed on should be known.

Even the countries that do use them are only for emergencies, not actually using them as an impromptu airbase. For that you'd need fuel, weapons, maintainance...

standoff weapons against Iranian air defence?

There are defences for standoff weapons. To destroy an air defence battery you need anti-radiation missiles that home in on the radar signal. Radars can have methods like frequency hopping, jamming, and if all else fails, you can turn the radar off. That's what 'shoot and scoot' tactics are all about. Besides, you can also have close range defences like short range missiles, and you can aircraft in the air to take out the aircraft that launch the standoff missiles. While Iran's F-14s with their 200 km long range missiles could do this, they are limited in number and that is why Iran wants to buy the Su-30.

 

[LeGenD]

off topic question
how much a TEL cost.
why don't Pakistan has enough tels
are there any constraint in acquiring large number of TEL. aren't these are just vehicles with hydraulics strong enough to erect a missiles.

TEL of a missile is considerably more expensive than the missile itself. For example, the cost of BGM-109G cruise missile is 1.3 million USD per unit. However, the cost of its TEL is 4.9 million USD per unit.

Due to high cost of development, safety and maintenance requirements, fewer TEL are built for each missile type.

 

[LeGenD]

This discussion is not relevant to it.

The war of the cities used scuds, with with precision figures in the order of kilometres.

It is, I'm afraid.

We need to take a look at following:-

1. Missile types that are actually deployed
2. CEP of each missile type
3. Guidance system of each missile type
4. Number of TELs of each missile type

There is a need of comprehensive evaluation of Iranian Missile Inventory and their capabilities, for an accurate assessment of what Iran can achieve in the battlefield with such weapon systems.

As far as I am aware, the most accurate Iranian missile types are Fateh-110D, Khalij Fars and Hormuz with CEP of 10 - 50 m on average. However, these missiles are relatively few in numbers.

The rest are more like tools of intimidation, therefore the "War of the Cities" analogy.

Zolfaghar ballistic missile, 700 km range.

Do you carefully watch the footage you tend to cite?

I don't see any missile striking that target on the ground even in stop motion. It looks like as if that target was rigged for explosion. The rest is briefing and animation.

Professional reports also highlight the aforementioned problem. For example:

Iran’s testing of missiles and rockets and their accuracy and reliability, the operational realism of such testing, and Iran’s perceptions of its progress versus the reality. Limited tests under “white suit” conditions can produce a greatly exaggerated picture of capability, particularly if success is exaggerated to the political leadership.

Taken from a report of CSIS titled "Iran's Enduring Missile Threat: The Impact of Nuclear and Precision Guided Warheads."

Khalije Fars (Persian Gulf) Anti-ship ballistic missile, 300 km range.

Covered above.

Emad precision guided ballistic missile, 1700 km range.

(video shows launch, in-flight camera with warhead separation, and impact).

Ballistic missiles are fully capable of precision strikes. All you think of are scuds and Pakistani missiles which are designed to deliver nukes, so they don't need much precision.

Iranian missiles use electro-optical, IR and anti-radiation guidance for precision strikes. The Emad missile there (with the red warhead) is actually an upgrade to standard Iranian missiles. Once this upgrade is rolled out to the entire inventory, Iran will have a large precision strike capability.

How many produced so far?

With respect, I think you don't. If you see the table I posted, it has maximum target speed and "maximum speed of the rocket complex".

In this case, the PAC-3 itself flies at 1,500 m/s and can intercept targets flying at 1,600 m/s. The PAC-2 is 1,700 m/s for its own missile, and 2,200 m/s for the target. The S-300PMU2 has a top speed of 1,900 m/s and a maximum target speed of 2,800 m/s.

I think that my point flew over your head.

In simplest terms, it is not necessary for an interceptor missile to be as fast as the target missile because the interceptor missile is not expected to chase the target missile from behind. This is not how interception is supposed to occur in a real-time scenario. The probability of success of interception process largely depends upon successful tracking of the target missile and computerized calculation of timing of its interception (in advance) before the target missile enters the so-called range of interception. Before it does, the interceptor missile would be already in the air, homing-in on it.

By Lockheed Martin's own admission, it only intercepts Tactical Ballistic Missiles (TBMs) (short range, <300 km range).

View attachment 355911

I am telling you something that a developer will not advertise in its marketing campaign. See my explanation above.

Now, of-course, ABM systems vary in capabilities and range. Similarly, ballistic missiles vary in range and resultant arc of their flight. Therefore, a single ABM system is not capable of intercepting every missile type in all situations, and multi-layered ABM approach is necessary to address this problem.

My point was that PAC-3 ABM system can intercept a long-range ballistic missile under the right circumstances. Understand the bold part? Not an ICBM perhaps, but an MRBM for sure, in terminal phase.

We have 4 battalions, each of which can have up to 6 batteries and each battery up to 8 launchers.

Exact number of batteries fielded?

I don't think Serpentine is saying that, but they are a big factor.

I stand by my point. Unless Iran achieves (and fields) a mass precision strike capability. And this is not happening any time soon.

There is a good reason for that.

Nuclear doctrine in most countries dictates that you must destroy the enemy nuclear assets as soon as possible. If India sees 100 Pakistani ballistic missiles flying towards it, the only responsible thing to do is to immediately assume those are nuclear armed, because Pakistan is a nuclear armed country. It would therefore have to respond with its own nuclear weapons. Thats why the nuclear powers do not use conventional ballistic missiles, because if launched against a peer adversary, they would trigger a nuclear response.

That can be a reason too. However, you are considering a mass-attack scenario, which is unlikely to occur in a strictly conventional engagement. Pakistan is not fond of wasting its missiles in this manner.

Additionally, irrespective of the rhetoric or stated policy, a nuclear response is expected only in the worst-case scenario. Sporadic missile strikes are unlikely to encourage it.

How can you say that? I've posted pictures in this very thread of dozens of TELs, fresh off the production line. You have no proof to corroborate your claim.

As for Pakistan, I've already said why Pakistan cannot use massed ballistic missile attacks (and hence TELs).

That is not a large number, my friend.

And in case of war, would Iran position all of them in a single place?

 

[Godman]

KSA and its GCC allies will win clearly due to far superior technology and will have active support of Americans as well. Iran's military hardware is dated and cloned from 2nd or 3rd tier Soviet technology.

Yemen example against KSA is wrong because that is a gorilla war . Iran has same failure when it comes to dealing with Saudi proxies in Iraq and Syria.

face to face.. army to army it will be a merciless slaughter from air and ground. great respect to Iranian resolve and nationalism but it doesn't mean much against F-15s , Typhoons, Paladins and Abrams.
as for the midget submarines.. Saudi French origin frigates have the ability to sink them in their sub pens.
Saudis will fight from their point of advantage and we know it is the strength of their modern armed forces equipped with the most powerful western hardware money can buy. it will achieve air superiority with in days of the start of the conflict and Saudi/ GCC Navy will pretty much sink or disable entire Iranian Navy again it wont be a fair war,
what Iran has at its side is some suicidal attacks and some gorilla tactics which will have some modest tactical outcomes but wont be enough to prevent a comprehensive defeat.

as for missiles.. it might be able to fire few salvos of its Soviet/ origin 50s era missiles but they would be mostly intercepted or will have no effect even if they manage to hit the designated targets. their mobile and fixed launchers will also be taken out with or without help of American air/ space intelligence and the KSA/ GCC air force will reduce them into rubble.


simple but brutally honest truth.

The ISIS invasion of Iraq challenges conventional thinking that superior and advanced military will win against less armed forces.
Better equipped and better trained forces have been utterly humiliated in Iraq, Syria and Yemen

 

[EgyptianAmerican]

@EgyptianAmerican- your analysis is fine..except on naval.Iran wims hands down in naval.once iran blocks mouth of strait of hormuz all naval activities in Persian gulf is under Irans control.even US knows that.saudis cqnt beat iran in naval confrontation. all u " technology is game changer" thinkers should remember techno,ogy is not winning america wars anymore. it gives some advantagw but turning that i to winning the war is different matter.

Saudi Arabia
48,300 Officers & sailors
12,500 Royal Marines
60,800 regular personnel
300+ ships
50+ aircraft (2016 est.)[2]



The navy is a modern force with foreign built ships:

• French built frigates and support vessels
• US built corvettes and patrol boats
• British built Sundown-Class mine hunters

vs

Iran


18,000 (estimate) personnel


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Navy

If you check this then you see that the Iranian navy has quite a few indigenous ships but the problem with such ships is that we don't know if they are reliable.


While Saudi Arabia has ships from some of the most advanced military navies in the world. You can trust America,France and Britain to make quality equipment especially Britain.


Not only that but Saudi Arabia has a far bigger budget so you can rest assured these guys will be decked out.

The ISIS invasion of Iraq challenges conventional thinking that superior and advanced military will win against less armed forces.

The Iraq army at that time had been completely stripped of experienced commanders and leaders as well as competent soldiers because of America disbanding the old army which eventually went on to create ISIS.


The Iraqi army at that time was a bunch of green boys who pissed grass and didn't know what end of the rifle to hold. Hence why they turn tail and ran at the sight of the old competent Iraqi army which is now called ISIS.

Thankfully the current Iraqi army is quite battle hardened and is putting up quite the fight. If only the Iraqi government had let the Turks battle then you would have saw the destruction of ISIS in Mosul yesterday.