Accuracy of Iranian missiles

[Aspen]

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]

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:

Dunning-Kruger Effect

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific area. This tends to occur because a lack of self-awareness prevents them from accurately assessing their own skills.

www.psychologytoday.com

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.

 

[Aspen]

Can someone find this footage? Apparently it was shown on TV. Hopefully IMA will show it soon. Guess they actually did hit a real target and not just some coordinates 1800km deep in the Indian Ocean. Very impressive. I wonder how they got the targets that far into the IOR without US realizing.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1350475398216179712

 

[Nasr]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1350035476724543488

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.

 

[Philosopher]

Question: Why isn't the missile warhead visible before impact?

Because they are traveling at hypersonic speeds, you need to slow down the video greatly to see the missile clearly in the frame.

Here is the MaRV traveling at hypersonic speed:

 

[Arian]

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

 

[WudangMaster]

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.

 

[Aspen]

I got 4 shots on the drone angle

 

[Dariush the Great]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1350048377380216833

 

[Philosopher]

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:

https://aerospace.org/sites/default/files/2020-08/Wilson-Dunham_MissileThreat_20200826_0.pdf

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

Patriot PAC-3 Anti-Ballistic Missile System | Military-Today.com

The PAC-3 is another upgrade of the Patriot air defense missile system optimized to counther the threat posed by ballistic missiles. It was developed by Raytheon. The Patriot PAC-3 is in sevice with the US Army and some US allies.

www.military-today.com

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

 

[Aspen]

 

[Arminkh]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1350035476724543488

I don't think even bacteria would survive in that area! Only in Iran: use of ballistic missiles like katyusha!

 

[Stryker1982]

^^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]

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:

https://aerospace.org/sites/default/files/2020-08/Wilson-Dunham_MissileThreat_20200826_0.pdf

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:

Patriot PAC-3 Anti-Ballistic Missile System | Military-Today.com

The PAC-3 is another upgrade of the Patriot air defense missile system optimized to counther the threat posed by ballistic missiles. It was developed by Raytheon. The Patriot PAC-3 is in sevice with the US Army and some US allies.

www.military-today.com

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.