How dangerous are Iran’s missiles?

[Raftar]

Enough to destroy her enemies

 

[kollang]

He explained perfectly: Ballistic missile like Shahab is superexpensive and not accurate way to deliever 500 kg warhead.

as i said before your IQ is as less as a seaweeds IQ.

shahab 3B has 1000 kg warhead.190 meters CEP(too enough for a HQ).2000 km range.
and there are 300 shahab-3B in service.i think they are too enough for you.
ooops.i forgot SHAHAB-3A,SEJJIL-1,SEJJIL-2!

 

[500]

Hahahaha,

Dont be hysteric.

Shahab-3 is super expensive? How much does it cost? I remember reading on Zionist media that it is no more than a tin cylinder with low technology and now it is super expensive. I am sure F-22 and F-35 are much cheaper and surely B-2 is very much cheaper than a Shahab-3, after all, this missile is made in Iran where they have to pay multi-million dollar salaries to company executives manufacturing its screws.

Technology and cost are different things. MP3 players are new technology but cost very cheap for example.

One fighter can make thiusands of sorties and deliever tens of thousands of bombs.

Hizbullah used ballistic missiles of short range. Go and read some physics to know what ballistic means.

I studied physics at univ, plz dont teach me. HB used unguided rockets: Grad and Fajr.

And Hizbullah killed more soldiers than civilians as per United Nations report

There is no any UN report. Israel releases names and photos of all its killed. Israel spends billions to protect its civilians and sends soldiers in front. Thats why number of killed is relatively low.

while Israel only killed civilians. That means Hizbullah missiles were more smart and effective.

Thats lie. UN officials estimate that 500-600 Hezies were killed. Thats compare to 120 Israeli soldiers.

And you should be ashamed of comparing yourself to a group of guerrilla fighters and not even a regular army.

Syrians and Iranians know that their armies have no chance against Israeli army. Thats why they invented a new tactics: send proxy groups which fire rockets at Israeli civilians while using own civilians as human shields.

They only one who should be ashamed is Syrians and Iranians.

By the way, Hitler was kind. His regime had discovered nerve gas back then and had manufactured large quantities of it and if he had used that nerve gas on those V-2's, and had spent little more money on nuclear research then with those V-2's, he could have gone much further than he did.

No, simply he had more brain cells than you. He knew that if he will send 500 kg of nerve gas with V2 missile, allies will send backl 500 tonns of nerve gus with bombers.

 

[longbrained]

^^^

You have again provided us with your low mentality evidence.

So now Shahab-3 is a MP-3. Wow, that is the height of your IQ, I think. Let me guess you chose to compare the two because they both end in digit 3. You are a moron.

Here read about more ballistics and then come back to us. Hizbullah was using ballistic missiles and sea skimming anti-ship missiles. But no, you are insistent to make yourself ashamed more by saying that Hizbullah was not using anything more powerful than a grad rocket and yet defeated IDF. If that is what you want, well, that is what you get. Actually let's just say, Hizbullah defeated you empty handed. That is more accurate. You see, you can not have it both ways. Either you were cowards during that war or that you lacked Hizbullah technology. Choose which one you want.

The difference between a smart weapon and a WWII weapon is that, the smart one kills less civilians and more soldiers. Hizbullah proved that its weapons were smart while your air force proved otherwise. Statistics are available on the net.

As for your Zionists cartoon, they are just that, propaganda cartoons. And I leave it to readers here to decide for themselves and answer it to you.

Iran is actually proud supporting Hizb since they defeated you guys. And it is Israel that knows cant take a fight with Iran. That is why Iran always threatens Israel and wins a war with it using its weapons and proxy and Israel can not answer back to Iran. Reality check.

And again you provided your ignorance. Allies did not have any nerve gas to begin with. Actually they did not know such a thing existed and only found out when they occupied Germany. Actually nerve gases were discovered by Nazi by experimenting on Jews. Read some history.

 

[Cirit]

I think that Iran is capable of hitting any target in Israel even able to wipe out Israel with her missiles, besides Iran is capable of stopping not only tankers, everyship that tries to pass Hormuz strait so what does she need more? These two is enough to stop USA war machine to attack them.

 

[500]

So now Shahab-3 is a MP-3. Wow, that is the height of your IQ, I think. Let me guess you chose to compare the two because they both end in digit 3. You are a moron.

No, idiot, I said that new technology like MP3 can be very cheap, while old technology like Shahab is expensive.

Here read about more ballistics and then come back to us. Hizbullah was using ballistic missiles

I repeat once again: Grad and Fajr are rockets, not missiles.

and sea skimming anti-ship missiles.

They managed to sink Egyptian cargo ship. Congrats.

But no, you are insistent to make yourself ashamed more by saying that Hizbullah was not using anything more powerful than a grad rocket and yet defeated IDF.

They defeated IDF just like Saddam defeated US.

Statistics are available on the net.

500-600 Hezbollah soldiers vs 120 IDF.

As for your Zionists cartoon, they are just that, propaganda cartoons. And I leave it to readers here to decide for themselves and answer it to you.

These are facts. Israel sends their soldiers in front, while Hezbollah hides behind their civilians.

Iran is actually proud supporting Hizb since they defeated you guys. And it is Israel that knows cant take a fight with Iran. That is why Iran always threatens Israel and wins a war with it using its weapons and proxy and Israel can not answer back to Iran. Reality check.

Iran is threatening to destroy Israel, but affraids to fight with Israel face to face. Same goes for Syria. Two chicken countries. Instead they are sent mighty warriors who fire rockets at civilians using own civilians as human shields. You consider that as great victory and proud of it. How pathetic.

And again you provided your ignorance. Allies did not have any nerve gas to begin with.
Actually they did not know such a thing existed and only found out when they occupied Germany. Actually nerve gases were discovered by Nazi by experimenting on Jews. Read some history.

What does it matter? Good old phosgen and mustard have devastating effects too. For each german chemical missile allies would send 1000 chemical bombs back.

I think that Iran is capable of hitting any target in Israel even able to wipe out Israel with her missiles, besides Iran is capable of stopping not only tankers, everyship that tries to pass Hormuz strait so what does she need more? These two is enough to stop USA war machine to attack them.

In 1991 Iraq fired 40 Scud ballistic missils at Israel. ALl they managed to do is killing one civilian. Today Israel had Arrow-2 missile defence.

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

shahab 3 is a Iranian crap missile, its too slow, Iran badass missile is the sejill 2.

 

[Harry_Thomason]

You are possibly overthinking the destructive power of a conventional ballistic missile. Again, it's a nose cone with some amatol or TNT equivalent on it. Like an iron bomb. Do you think ONE iron bomb dropped on a U.S. military installation is going to cause them to simply fold and stop fighting? "Oh no! A bomb exploded! We are defeated!"

Accurate ballistic missiles can do loads of damage. Do you remember how a single Hussein's SCUD killed 28 and injured over 100 US soldiers, half of them seriously? And SCUD's were very inaccurate, nor Hussein's soldiers knew how to operate them properly.

Also nobody says "A bomb exploded! We are defeated!" However there is a threshold of casualties US would be willing to take. Iranians can die in millions protecting their country, how many soldiers US are willing to sacrifice? Since US will have to use ground forces if they want to achieve anything, it will leave a lot of bodies, for both sides.

In the mean time, an F-15E can drop the equivalent of TEN medium range ballistic missiles in a single sortie.

It's a bomb. It's not magic. And extremely expensive to boot. There is no possible way Iran has anywhere close to the numbers mentioned. At the height of the cold war, the USSR and the USA never pointed even 1/3 that many (10,000?) at each other.

Iran has different capabilities and priorities than US. For Iran its cheap to make a missile, and extremely expensive and time consuming to develop, lets say 5th gen fighter. Even if they eventually do it, US would still be ~30 years ahead in fighters, and have much greater number of them. Therefore Iran's priority is to stack missiles, common sense.

Simple answer - aircraft can execute multiple sorties, are more accurate, carry a heavier payload, and do it at 1,500th the cost per ton delivered, at the expense of speed and vulnerability.

Fighters are good and all, but as mentioned above, it wouldnt make sense for Iran to waste its funds for aircrafts at this moment.

F22 costs ~350mln, B-2 costs ~2 bln., missiles to kill them ~100k Even if they would need
many of them to kill B-2, it still vastly cheaper than to spend hundreds of billions and decades to make such tech., and if each such fighter costs ~2 bln., money is better spend on 20.000 accurate ballistic missiles.

 

[Nav]

Ballistic missiles are good for a couple of days of fighting. After they are gone, what is left?

Conventional ballistic missiles aren't going to win a war or defeat an enemy.

But they could create a fair amount of danger to westren vessels opreating near iranian land, they could be possible threat to downing economy of Europe and Usa,..

 

[regular]

as i said before your IQ is as less as a seaweeds IQ.

shahab 3B has 1000 kg warhead.190 meters CEP(too enough for a HQ).2000 km range.
and there are 300 shahab-3B in service.i think they are too enough for you.
ooops.i forgot SHAHAB-3A,SEJJIL-1,SEJJIL-2!

No! I guess U need at least 3000 Shahab-3 missiles cuz U guyz gonna face US/NATO too.....

 

[kollang]

No! I guess U need at least 3000 Shahab-3 missiles cuz U guyz gonna face US/NATO too.....

DEAR.i just said 300 shahab-3Bs not 300 balistic missiles.shahab-3B is the modern missile that is able to guide by GPS too diferent and specific from the A one.also we have 500 or 600 shahab-3A and 200 or 300 SEJJIL-1 and -2.

 

[Chogy]

You are overestimating the cost of cheap mass produced missiles made locally with local labor cost. I bet you a Shahab 3 does not cost more than $100K to make in Iran. And the shorter range missiles (300-400 km), that it is those not aimed at Israel, would be even cheaper.

It's not just cost. I'll re-emphasize again, it's a numbers game. No country, not Iran, not the USA, Russia, China, can sustain any sort of campaign using ballistic missiles. They can be useful as a shock weapon, they can do some damage, but the pace of operations in a heavy shooting war would see Iran's stocks depleted in a matter of days.

Additionally, the sort of missiles Iran uses are mobile, and generally moved via TEL to the launch location before firing. They are vulnerable on the ground before they even get launched.

An F-22 raptor costs $361 million. That is not cheap. Equivalent to 3610 missiles costing $100K each (that is made in Iran). An F15 must be at least $30 million, if not more, so that is equivalent to 300 Shahab3.

Comparing the cost of the jets vs. the missiles is silly. A more appropriate comparison would be the cost to deliver 1,000 kilos on target over a sustained campaign. In this case, it's no contest. A JDAM is cheap. Very cheap. And more accurate to boot.

In the case of Iran, any fighter jet Iran has would be shot down before it dropped its bombs if faced with US air force. The reason US invests in planes is that they are far superior to any that the developing countries under sanctions and military attack can muster.

No, not really. The reason the USA (and pretty much every other country) invests in fighter-bombers is that they can do the following:

1) Attrit enemy air
2) Interdict logistics
3) Attack moving targets
4) Support troops in contact; CAS
5) Provide real-time battlefield intel
6) Attack naval targets that move

Ballistic missiles can do none of these, despite the folk who think Iran will somehow be able to launch a ballistic missile that can hit a Naval vessel on the open ocean.

In the end, hundreds of thousands of $500 iron bombs will trump a few hundred MRBMs. Missiles make sense when WMD-equipped, but that's another thread.

 

[Chogy]

Chogy did not explain anything. Missiles are accepted as cheap and effective and that is why Hizbullah has opted to use them on you

Hezbollah uses MISSILES? <double facepalm>

Look up the definition of missile vs. rocket and get back to me.

 

[Chogy]

Last word on this, the whole thing is getting circular.

The U.S. military doesn't pitch a tent and paint "ARMY HEADQUARTERS" on it, set it up, and wait. Modern warfare is one of maneuver, deception, and dynamic offense and defense. Ballistic missiles need a pre-programmed target. Unfortunately, targets are usually very fleeting.

"But what about bases of operation? Airfields, depots, ports?" Yes these are relatively static, and also very highly defended as a result. And an airfield in particular is enormous. A 500 kilo bomb with MRBM CEP's is a little pinprick on a huge area.

What you end up with are 95% misses; the runways take a couple of hits. These craters are repaired in just a couple of hours. Aircraft and other high-value assets are bunkered and very well protected.

Consider the siege of Khe San in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese POUNDED Khe San with super-heavy artillery, which could roughly approximate the hits of a modest MRBM. Yet the Marines kept the runway open and operations continued.

Saddam's SCUDs were terror/vengeance weapons which ultimately had zero tactical value.

 

[longbrained]

What ultimately Iran needs is this to protect it from psychopathic American rapists: