What's new

Accuracy of Iranian missiles

Aspen

BANNED
Sep 18, 2019
2,714
1
4,885
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Not good against EW Assets / Jamming . Good for showing off / publicity / advertisements ONLY

Iran's enemies need Iran to publicize such weapons to get FUNDING. Others are using this as an excuse to buy weapons that would be unavailable, under normal circumstances.

Indirectly, Iran is Inviting more sanctions and Uniting the Arab world against itself.

If Iran really had the guts, to really show what it can do, then certainly it would have enriched weapons grade uranium / HEU > 90 % and armed and ready > 100 of its Ballistic Missiles.
No offense, but Iran just showed more missile power and balls in the last 3 days than Pakistan has showed in the last 3 years. And I hate saying this as a Pakistani. But It's the hard truth.

I am sure that if Biden fucks it up, Iran would not hesitate to enrich its uranium to whatever weapons grade level they want.
 

Philosopher

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 5, 2020
3,516
16
9,229
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
United Kingdom
Not good against EW Assets / Jamming .
Explain to me how you would "jam" a ballistic missile.

Good for showing off / publicity / advertisements ONLY
Apparently all the experts are wrong on this topic and all along these weapons did not have real military value. I suggest you look into the following:


Iran's enemies need Iran to publicize such weapons to get FUNDING. Others are using this as an excuse to buy weapons that would be unavailable, under normal circumstances.
You have a very naive understanding of these topics. You test your assets for many reasons, such as you know, to actually test them (shocking revelation) and to form/perpetuate deterrence.

Indirectly, Iran is Inviting more sanctions and Uniting the Arab world against itself.
What else could they sanction in Iran? As for this fictitious notion of an "Arab word" and its unity, this is something that exists only in ones imagination. The natural chasm that exists between these various nations are so vast that any thought of them ever uniting is just demented. Even these Persian Gulf arabs can barely see eye to eye.

If Iran really had the guts, to really show what it can do, then certainly it would have enriched weapons grade uranium / HEU > 90 % and armed and ready > 100 of its Ballistic Missiles.
Sure, Iran will start a nuclear proliferation in that region just to show you it has "guts".
A simple geopolitical study would reveal going overtly nuclear is not in Iran's interest at this moment in time, hence why you have only seen a latent nuclear capability all these years.
 

Arian

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 21, 2011
2,389
0
4,625
Location
Germany
Question: Why isn't the missile warhead visible before impact?

I ask this as a knowledge based question, so please do not misinterpret my post's intent.
I can see the warheads before they hit their targets. I think you're not watching it attentively. I clearly saw 5 warheads that hit their targets.
There are other videos that show the same scene from different angles where the warheads are easier to spot.

Here's a clear one captured from the twit you posted

1610824608553.png
 
Last edited:

WudangMaster

FULL MEMBER
Apr 17, 2014
505
0
928
Country
United States
Location
United States
Really depends on what type of monitor or screen you are using, resolution setting, and it does help to zoom and slow the vid down, etc.
 

Philosopher

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 5, 2020
3,516
16
9,229
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
United Kingdom
Cruise missiles are much harder to track than a high flying projectile like BMs
Generally speaking, cruise missiles are harder to detect and easier to shoot down and ballistic missiles, the other-way around. However, cruise missiles can also be easily detected depending on the situation. Ballistic missiles have can also hard to detect in the sense the enemy may not have enough time to respond to them once detected.

BM has high IR signature almost projectile like path and no matter if its quasi or fully ballistic it follows set trajectory...
Clearly you do not understand what a quasi ballistic missile is. Those missiles follow a different trajectory than a purely and classic ballistic system. Moreover these systems perform a great deal of inflight manoeuvring. Your imagination of a modern ballistic missile appears to be a system that follow a completely predictable and purely ballistic trajectory, this is an amateur understanding of the situation. The reality is however, there are many different types of systems available today and these can categorised in different ways. The article below illustrates the different categories quite well:


Screen Shot 2021-01-16 at 19.09.44.png


Screen Shot 2021-01-16 at 19.10.47.png


And both IRST and radars can scan it...
Even assuming the above was correct in all situations at all times, which it is not, the point is not whether you can see it, but how will you shoot it down?

Thats the first reason Cruise missiles are much more in number than BMs in todays era..
No, it is not. Cruise missile are easier to procure than ballistic missiles, hence why you see them in more quantity worldwide. Moreover, it vastly easier to create a more accurate cruise missile than ballistic missiles.

And regarding cost you are wrong to assume a 2000 km BM will cost half as 1000 km missile..
You are comparing apples and oranges. A system being created in the US is far more expensive than one being so in Iran. This is all basic economics.

So the price will be reduced but not by half if 2000 km missile costs 10 million 1000 km should not cost less than 7-8 million..
That is not how this works. It is not range that determines price, but the way the system is created. For example, an Iranian Raad-500 with 500km range costs half as much as a 300km ranged Fateh-110. Why? because of more efficient mass production, new materials etc.

Also Patriots are not specifically Anti BM system.. Thaad is more like it
Patriots have been heavily upgraded with ballistic missile in mind and they are supposed to be used against such missiles at a different layer compared to THAAD. Thus it is not a matter of whether they were "specifically" designed for it or not but what capability are they claimed to have against missiles. If we take America's own words, then:

The PAC-3 upgrade is dedicated almost entirely to the anti-ballistic missile mission

So I am afraid you're resorting (and failing) to mental gymnastics.
 

Stryker1982

FULL MEMBER
Oct 5, 2016
1,283
0
1,745
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
^^This is 352 interceptors...since they launch 2 interceptors per target--Saudi Arabia can intercept 176 ballistic missiles...Now assuming 40% success rate..Saudi Arabia can intercept only 70 missiles, which is nothing compared to Iranian arsenal of 3000 ballistic missiles
They wouldn't even stand a chance. Especially many current missiles like Dezful and Haj Qasem could out pace them and they are not even fully ballistic.
 

Stryker1982

FULL MEMBER
Oct 5, 2016
1,283
0
1,745
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
Generally speaking, cruise missiles are harder to detect and easier to shoot down and ballistic missiles, the other-way around. However, cruise missiles can also be easily detected depending on the situation. Ballistic missiles have can also hard to detect in the sense the enemy may not have enough time to respond to them once detected.



Clearly you do not understand what a quasi ballistic missile is. Those missiles follow a different trajectory than a purely and classic ballistic system. Moreover these systems perform a great deal of inflight manoeuvring. Your imagination of a modern ballistic missile appears to be a system that follow a completely predictable and purely ballistic trajectory, this is an amateur understanding of the situation. The reality is however, there are many different types of systems available today and these can categorised in different ways. The article below illustrates the different categories quite well:


View attachment 707506

View attachment 707507



Even assuming the above was correct in all situations at all times, which it is not, the point is not whether you can see it, but how will you shoot it down?



No, it is not. Cruise missile are easier to procure than ballistic missiles, hence why you see them in more quantity worldwide. Moreover, it vastly easier to create a more accurate cruise missile than ballistic missiles.



You are comparing apples and oranges. A system being created in the US is far more expensive than one being so in Iran. This is all basic economics.



That is not how this works. It is not range that determines price, but the way the system is created. For example, an Iranian Raad-500 with 500km range costs half as much as a 300km ranged Fateh-110. Why? because of more efficient mass production, new materials etc.



Patriots have been heavily upgraded with ballistic missile in mind and they are supposed to be used against such missiles at a different layer compared to THAAD. Thus it is not a matter of whether they were "specifically" designed for it or not but what capability are they claimed to have against missiles. If we take America's own words, then:




So I am afraid you're resorting (and failing) to mental gymnastics.
Literally everything this guy says is so wrong, I've never seen such levels of ignorance.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom