What's new

Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

Raghfarm007

FULL MEMBER
Mar 18, 2017
886
-1
2,678
Country
Iceland
Location
Belarus
Do you guys remember the "killing of Bin laden, where they claimed that the white house was watching the opperation live?!! Then they said they threw his body in the sea so they had no eveidnce to ever present?!!!

It all turned out to be total lies...... like I said, the Ameritard population is kept in a child like mindset, so they dont questin these stpid stories.
 

yavar

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 20, 2013
5,562
-4
10,775
Do you guys remember the "killing of Bin laden, where they claimed that the white house was watching the opperation live?!!

sorry brother i am sorry to say they did watch live, the RQ-170 were present in Pakistan.
Iran has aired images from Pakistan recovered from RQ-170.
 

Ich

FULL MEMBER
Mar 14, 2018
646
0
852
Country
Germany
Location
Germany
Do you guys remember the "killing of Bin laden, where they claimed that the white house was watching the opperation live?!! Then they said they threw his body in the sea so they had no eveidnce to ever present?!!!

It all turned out to be total lies...... like I said, the Ameritard population is kept in a child like mindset, so they dont questin these stpid stories.
Well, at least i can support "the Ameritard population is kept in a child like mindset". For all other i do not find any pro nor con. Only unprovable statements.
 

Sineva

SENIOR MEMBER
May 24, 2018
2,503
-3
5,135
Country
Australia
Location
Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic Of
Heres an excellent twitter thread unroll that I think everyone should read,its a pretty effective debunking of the [rather ridiculous] claims made by an american general about the ayn alasad strike during a recent [march 1st] 60 minutes interview.
You should watch this excerpt from the 60 minutes interview first,tho`
Also get a load of just how eagerly the interviewer is lapping this shit up.:sarcastic:
The debunking:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1366804512732766211.html

And heres the twitter thread in question and its responses,some of which are a little bit humorous :

Whats rather interesting tho,is that this is in complete opposition to the other claims that the strike was nothing more that just a bit of "face saving" by the iranians who were "very careful" not to kill anyone and provided "plenty of early warning" to the americans.Indeed from the sounds of this the iranians clearly thought that they`d be hitting an airbase literally chock full of planes and people.
So which one is it?,inquiring minds want to know?:smart::sarcastic:
 

Sina-1

FULL MEMBER
Sep 15, 2016
924
1
3,175
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Sweden
Heres an excellent twitter thread unroll that I think everyone should read,its a pretty effective debunking of the [rather ridiculous] claims made by an american general about the ayn alasad strike during a recent [march 1st] 60 minutes interview.
You should watch this excerpt from the 60 minutes interview first,tho`
Also get a load of just how eagerly the interviewer is lapping this shit up.:sarcastic:
The debunking:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1366804512732766211.html

And heres the twitter thread in question and its responses,some of which are a little bit humorous :

Whats rather interesting tho,is that this is in complete opposition to the other claims that the strike was nothing more that just a bit of "face saving" by the iranians who were "very careful" not to kill anyone and provided "plenty of early warning" to the americans.Indeed from the sounds of this the iranians clearly thought that they`d be hitting an airbase literally chock full of planes and people.
So which one is it?,inquiring minds want to know?:smart::sarcastic:
Its well know and documented that irgc told the government about the planned attack, hours prior. The government then warned the Iraqi government which in turn leaked it to the Americans.
Early warning and/or waiting for last satellite image download seems overkill if the information has already been leaked to you. Everybody can be Nostradamus when they have complete intel.
 

VEVAK

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 24, 2013
2,389
1
3,508
It depends.

In any chaotic war situation, it would take far less missiles to psychologically and physically eliminate a significant amount of soldiers at the base, either through brain injuries or (mortal) wounds. The attack on Al Asad was just a demonstration of ability and didn't intended to disable it. Completely different when shit really hits the fan and those at the base have far less time to prepare for impact.
Clearly Iran had no intention of causing max casualties or even inflict max damage against US assets. The main goal very clearly was to show U.S. leadership Iranian Missile capabilities so they don't miss calculate on what the result of a direct conflict with Iran would look like.

That said, even if the U.S. had no idea that Iranian missiles where coming and even if Iran had fired 2X as many missiles (32 BM) at best you'd be looking at disruption of operations of only a portion of the base for a limited period. Ain al asad is a large base so even 100 BM unless backed by 100's of subsequent PGM strikes (Fighters or UCAVs,...) leaves the door open for them to reorganize around and make use of areas and equipment on the base that was not damaged.

(14) Breaking USA declassified footage of the Iranian ballistic attack on base Ain Al Asad in Iraq - YouTube

To take out a base like Ain Al Assad you need to fire upwards of 400-500 BM equipped with various types of conventional warheads and even then you wouldn't be destroying everything you'll just destroy enough that an enemy would consider it lost.

So Iran at the very least needs to be ready to fire 1000 BM at the top 10 US bases(100 per) and follow up those attacks with twice as many PGM strikes and that's just for the top 10 US bases within 1000km of Iran.
 

Surenas

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 28, 2012
6,498
-6
9,282
Clearly Iran had no intention of causing max casualties or even inflict max damage against US assets. The main goal very clearly was to show U.S. leadership Iranian Missile capabilities so they don't miss calculate on what the result of a direct conflict with Iran would look like.

That said, even if the U.S. had no idea that Iranian missiles where coming and even if Iran had fired 2X as many missiles (32 BM) at best you'd be looking at disruption of operations of only a portion of the base for a limited period. Ain al asad is a large base so even 100 BM unless backed by 100's of subsequent PGM strikes (Fighters or UCAVs,...) leaves the door open for them to reorganize around and make use of areas and equipment on the base that was not damaged.

(14) Breaking USA declassified footage of the Iranian ballistic attack on base Ain Al Asad in Iraq - YouTube

To take out a base like Ain Al Assad you need to fire upwards of 400-500 BM equipped with various types of conventional warheads and even then you wouldn't be destroying everything you'll just destroy enough that an enemy would consider it lost.

So Iran at the very least needs to be ready to fire 1000 BM at the top 10 US bases(100 per) and follow up those attacks with twice as many PGM strikes and that's just for the top 10 US bases within 1000km of Iran.
Indeed, you don't need to hit every corner of the base to disable it. But considering the fact that a base like Ain al Asad host US troops in only a specific section on its area, one doesn't simply have to take into account the entirety of the base.

Also bear in mind that the Americans aren't likely to continue operations at such vulnerable bases in case of war or after a significant BM strike by Iran. Iraq will be contested waters for the US in an armed conflict and an enduring threat posed by Iran's missiles/drones will be enough for the US to quickly seek withdrawal.

That is why the Americans have recently scouted potential bases in western KSA, where they would host troops they'd drawdown from their more vulnerbale bases.
 
Last edited:

Stryker1982

FULL MEMBER
Oct 5, 2016
1,357
0
1,869
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
Also bear in mind that the Americans aren't likely to continue operations at such vulnerable bases in case of war or after a significant BM strike by Iran. Iraq will be contested waters for the US in an armed conflict and an enduring threat posed by Iran's missiles/drones will be enough for the US to quickly seek withdrawal.
This is the key point. No American is going to continue operating the base while missiles are falling in another section of it. Regardless of the size.
 

VEVAK

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 24, 2013
2,389
1
3,508
This is the key point. No American is going to continue operating the base while missiles are falling in another section of it. Regardless of the size.
While missiles continue to fall, no, but Iran doesn't have an unlimited number of missiles nor will Iran have an unlimited amount of time to fire it's missiles before they are eventually targeted.
In a conflict with the U.S. Iran would either have to use it's missiles in sufficient quantities to degrade enemy capabilities to a sufficient level rather quickly (especially targets within ~1000km) or risk loosing them.
Use it or lose it, Saddam had to learn that the hard way.
Assuming your enemy is impotent and miscalculating the resolve and capabilities of your enemy is the worst mistake Iran could make. Doshman keh bi kar nashesteh! They are not putting hypersonic Missiles on bombers just for the fun of it.... Just as Iran is not putting TBM inside buried containers for the fun of it....
It's human nature to adapt and it really doesn't matter if your Iranian or American or Saudi or Yemeni...
 

Bahram Esfandiari

FULL MEMBER
Jan 9, 2017
1,290
-2
2,543
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
While missiles continue to fall, no, but Iran doesn't have an unlimited number of missiles nor will Iran have an unlimited amount of time to fire it's missiles before they are eventually targeted.
In a conflict with the U.S. Iran would either have to use it's missiles in sufficient quantities to degrade enemy capabilities to a sufficient level rather quickly (especially targets within ~1000km) or risk loosing them.
Use it or lose it, Saddam had to learn that the hard way.
Assuming your enemy is impotent and miscalculating the resolve and capabilities of your enemy is the worst mistake Iran could make. Doshman keh bi kar nashesteh! They are not putting hypersonic Missiles on bombers just for the fun of it.... Just as Iran is not putting TBM inside buried containers for the fun of it....
It's human nature to adapt and it really doesn't matter if your Iranian or American or Saudi or Yemeni...
When Iran struck Ain Al Assad last January the Americans cowering in their shelters were too scared to come out well after the Missiles stopped landing and when they did they were not exactly in tip top shape. They were too busy vomiting and suffering traumatic brain injuries in order to carry out effective operations. You are talking like they are sheltering from mortar attacks. these missile might be survivable for the personnel that seek adequate protection but they do not survive such intensive bombardments unaffected. If Iranian commanders are worth their salt they will use the timing of the U.S personnel tacking cover to send in waves of suicide drones/ manned fighter bombers to further target and degrade their bases while their personnel are taking cover.
 
Last edited:

VEVAK

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 24, 2013
2,389
1
3,508
When Iran struck Ain Al Assad last January the Americans cowering in their shelters were too scared to come out well after the Missiles stopped landing and when they did they were not exactly in tip top shape. They were too busy vomiting and suffering traumatic brain injuries in order to carry out effective operations. You are talking like they are sheltering from mortar attacks. these missile might be survivable for the personnel that seek adequate protection but they do not survive such intensive bombardments unaffected. If Iranian commanders are worth their salt they will use the timing of the U.S personnel tacking cover to send in waves of suicide drones/ manned fighter bombers to further target and degrade their bases while their personnel are taking cover.

Again, Iran's attack even though limited was demoralizing because it came as a shock to the psyche of the U.S. troops on the ground who had neither seen nor expected nor even known or herd of other US soldiers ever witnessing something like that.
American soldiers az koh pambeh sokhteh nashodan keh! People are people and it's human nature to adapt and it really doesn't matter where you are from!

1614941903200.png


Iran's attack was a shock & awe because the perception and psyche of the US soldiers on the ground was that they where the strongest military on the planet and no country would ever dare attack them in such a manner and even if they did their military was equipped with all type of defensive systems that would protect their bases. Simply put, in their psyche and in their subconscious they where in a safe place, even while they where going inside bunkers to take cover, subconsciously, they did NOT expect something like that. But now that they lived through it, a subsequent attack of that magnitude would not paralyze them to that extent because they have lived through it and even for US soldiers who weren't there, subconsciously, they have started to adapt to the possibility of being bombarded in a place they previously presumed to be shielded. And I am NOT saying it wouldn't effect them, simply that it's psychological effects would be ~5% less than last time and that trend will continue with subsequent attacks allowing them to adapt...


So to get the same demoralizing effect, Iran can't afford to fire 10 BM at a time at US bases over a span of days because they will adapt both psychologically and militarily because it is human nature to do so....

Meaning if the US starts a war, Iran within 24hrs needs to be ready to fire an average of 100 BM at each of the top 10 US bases in the region and as you said follow those attacks up with UCAV, LACM,....

There is no doubt in my mind that Iran will follow up it's BM strikes with subsequent PGM strike. The only & main question is the extent and scale of Iran's initial BM strike.
According to Haji Zadeh if the US had chosen to respond to Iran's attack on Ain Al Assad Iran was prepared to fire ~400BM within the 1st 24hrs and to me that number falls well short of what would be needed.
400BM is basically what Iran would require to cripple a country like the UAE not the USA.
And Iran's yearly production of solid fuel TBM alone needs to be well over that number.... And I hope that Haji Zadeh's comments were nothing more than miss information.
 

Stryker1982

FULL MEMBER
Oct 5, 2016
1,357
0
1,869
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
ran was prepared to fire ~400BM within the 1st 24hrs and to me that number falls well short of what would be needed.
That doesn't necessarily indicate that Iran's capacity in a 24hr period is 400 missiles. It could just mean they had planned to use 400 within that time frame to reciprocate an attack. We don't know what Iran's rate of fire could be per 24hrs assuming no interferences.

But with CENTOMs estimation of 2000-3000 assuming this is true, Iran would quickly find itself running out of inventory. Therefore as you say, secondary systems need to be delivered like LACMs and UCAVs
 
Last edited:

yavar

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 20, 2013
5,562
-4
10,775
But with CENTOMs estimation of 2000-3000 assuming this is true, Iran would quickly find itself running out of inventory. Therefore as you say, secondary systems need to be delivered like LACMs and UCAVs
Iran underground Ballistic Missile Production Factory,




while it been fired the production gone on 24 hours so ...........
 

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


Top Bottom