PeeD
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2014
- Messages
- 1,510
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
- Location
VEVAK, this is a scenario in which you set a kung fu master against a man with a handgun (aircraft vs. ballsitic missiles).
The airforce scenario is what the Americans want to dictate. They themselves don't use tactical BM's, they have treaties with Russia about this due to the potential of tipping it with nuclear warheads.
What they are allowed to use are cruise missiles, masses of it. Iran has a dozen airbases, just calculate what 2-3 thousands against each of them will cause in course of a few days. Irans current IADS would not be able to handle such a saturation attack. You want something like R-77 equipped Mig-35 to shot those massive volleys of Tomahawks down? Or TOR-M1 at minimal cost? This is not sufficient against such a massive superiority in numbers.
Massive numbers of low flying multi-attack-vector CMs are up to today something even the Russians with their IADS have fears about. Now the potential use of ballistic missiles is even more dangerous and difficult to stop.
That's why we come back to my initial statement: With Irans potential enemies (not the usual small regionals), anything depending on a airfield and not at a massively hardened location is too vulnerable. Airbases inside mountains are something of the past.
Ballistic missiles in underground bases come first, then the same for cruise missiles, then IADS assets protecting them.
This war scenario is completely different from what we know from the past. In the course of a few days either Irans offensive capabilities will be destroyed or Iran destroys the offensive capabilities of the enemy.
At the moment Irans missiles lack the very long ranges and true pin-point accuracy, plus the space based reconnaissance capability. Once this force structure is in place, Irans missile forces will give their best to degrade the offensive capability and if successful it's not of importance if a PAK-FA or a Shahed-129 cleans the battlefield of an enemy which has lost all its offensive assets which could pose a danger.
Iran could some day develop its airforce with Su-30, Qaher, UACV, or T-50, but this would only happen if what I described, the real backbone is strong enough and the budget allows to get some of these in order to fight low intensity wars against inferior enemies. The last airforce scenarios are a future fleet of intercontinental bombers or hypervelocity aircrafts for near space warfare, all of this is very far away.
Everything from F-22 to DF-21 to hardened missile silos to aircraft carriers to super airbases to HQs down to defense ministry will be handled by missile weapons (BM, CM, SAM).
Just ask yourself in which serious scenario any of Irans airbases could remain operational to enable airforce operations?
The airforce scenario is what the Americans want to dictate. They themselves don't use tactical BM's, they have treaties with Russia about this due to the potential of tipping it with nuclear warheads.
What they are allowed to use are cruise missiles, masses of it. Iran has a dozen airbases, just calculate what 2-3 thousands against each of them will cause in course of a few days. Irans current IADS would not be able to handle such a saturation attack. You want something like R-77 equipped Mig-35 to shot those massive volleys of Tomahawks down? Or TOR-M1 at minimal cost? This is not sufficient against such a massive superiority in numbers.
Massive numbers of low flying multi-attack-vector CMs are up to today something even the Russians with their IADS have fears about. Now the potential use of ballistic missiles is even more dangerous and difficult to stop.
That's why we come back to my initial statement: With Irans potential enemies (not the usual small regionals), anything depending on a airfield and not at a massively hardened location is too vulnerable. Airbases inside mountains are something of the past.
Ballistic missiles in underground bases come first, then the same for cruise missiles, then IADS assets protecting them.
This war scenario is completely different from what we know from the past. In the course of a few days either Irans offensive capabilities will be destroyed or Iran destroys the offensive capabilities of the enemy.
At the moment Irans missiles lack the very long ranges and true pin-point accuracy, plus the space based reconnaissance capability. Once this force structure is in place, Irans missile forces will give their best to degrade the offensive capability and if successful it's not of importance if a PAK-FA or a Shahed-129 cleans the battlefield of an enemy which has lost all its offensive assets which could pose a danger.
Iran could some day develop its airforce with Su-30, Qaher, UACV, or T-50, but this would only happen if what I described, the real backbone is strong enough and the budget allows to get some of these in order to fight low intensity wars against inferior enemies. The last airforce scenarios are a future fleet of intercontinental bombers or hypervelocity aircrafts for near space warfare, all of this is very far away.
Everything from F-22 to DF-21 to hardened missile silos to aircraft carriers to super airbases to HQs down to defense ministry will be handled by missile weapons (BM, CM, SAM).
Just ask yourself in which serious scenario any of Irans airbases could remain operational to enable airforce operations?
