Iran to overhaul, manufacture up to 800 tanks: Defense Ministry

[VEVAK]

Saddam advantage in armored force cost us dearly when it come to life of our soldiers.

In the 80's Armored units help reduce casualty numbers for sure mainly due to the low number of precision guided weapons! But Tanks has little to do with it!!!!!!!
FYI Saddam used Chemical weapons against our solders and if Tanks had much value then with a 2-5 Times the Tank force it should have been an easy victory for him & he wouldn't have been forced to such extreme measures to be force to use WMD's!

And today the situation if far worse for Tanks then it was back in the 80's!!

Today an M1 Abrams cost ~ $7Million USD and the Abrams hold about ~40 Shell's each of which costs on average as much as a Safir Jeep!!!!!!!!!

So even if we could with Iran's own Domestic capabilities our Military & Civilian Leadership would have to be DELUSIONAL to buy them!

A Russian T-90 goes for $4.5 Million USD still an absurd cost compared to it's capabilities and what you could potentially produce at home instead

Even an upgraded T-72 if purchased at $2.5M is still NOT WORTH THE COST!

Just go and calculate what you could potentially produce at home for the cost of 10 Abrams ($70M) or 10 T-90's($45M) or even 10 T-72's($25m) fact is if at the end of the day the production of each Iranian Tank is going to cost us more than ~$600,000 USD then it's just NOT WORTH the cost

 

[delta2]

The Iranians can have the shiniest, biggest, baddest tanks. But all of that would amount to absolutely nothing if the USA decides to attack/invade. What the Iranians need is a nuke. That will completely change the dynamics of any future conflict. As a matter of fact, the Iranians will ensure that they aren't invaded or attacked by anyone. Only then, they can start piling up tanks.

Don't even for a second underestimate the military power of the United States. In order to survive in today's world, you need nukes.

You also need to understand how the USA government works. If President Trump gives an order, the U.S. armed forces have to carry it out. It isn't their job to determine if the order given is good or bad, their only job is to confirm what the order was.

Test a nuke now.

 

[PeeD]

@VEVAK

The goal for a mechanized force with tanks is to be always protected against air attacks. So there must be a air defense component present. There must also be infantry and artillery.

All those combined makes a still formidable weapon, cost effective and fast enough to outmaneuver the enemy.

I agree with you that only a 600k-800k$ tank makes sense for Iran, reason is its defense budget.

Once used with combined arms tactics, the tank is still a cost effective and vital weapon IF its air defense component is accordingly potent.

Irans air defense capabilities are reaching a level in which tanks can operate effectively.

Some people even say there is no other land weapon more cost effective than the tank and I think so too if it is not a million dollars system.

-Unmatched cheap precision firepower, shells
-Almost immune to unguided artillery, immune to small arms.
-High speed, long range for offensive operations
-High situational awareness due to large and potent sensors + all whether/night capable.
-NBC protection
-Its 3 man crew becomes several times more effective driving a tank than being infantry.
etc.

active protection systems will improve its worth again in future.

Those few T-90s in Syria really made a change, even if just used defensively.

 

[VEVAK]

@VEVAK

The goal for a mechanized force with tanks is to be always protected against air attacks. So there must be a air defense component present. There must also be infantry and artillery.

All those combined makes a still formidable weapon, cost effective and fast enough to outmaneuver the enemy.

I agree with you that only a 600k-800k$ tank makes sense for Iran, reason is its defense budget.

Once used with combined arms tactics, the tank is still a cost effective and vital weapon IF its air defense component is accordingly potent.

Irans air defense capabilities are reaching a level in which tanks can operate effectively.

Some people even say there is no other land weapon more cost effective than the tank and I think so too if it is not a million dollars system.

-Unmatched cheap precision firepower, shells
-Almost immune to unguided artillery, immune to small arms.
-High speed, long range for offensive operations
-High situational awareness due to large and potent sensors + all whether/night capable.
-NBC protection
-Its 3 man crew becomes several times more effective driving a tank than being infantry.
etc.

active protection systems will improve its worth again in future.

Those few T-90s in Syria really made a change, even if just used defensively.

In Syria Tanks are used in Urban warfare and against an enemy that has a complete technological disadvantage and no Air Power and yes in such situations Tanks still hold great value especially ones with Active Protection Systems!

But with Iran's security concerns and as a weapon system to be used against an invading Armored Battalion the T-90 is just NOT a great investment!!!!!

Your looking at least +$50 Million USD for 10 T-90's with Ammo, spare parts,....!

Iran can build 10 Armed Shahed-129 with 5 control centers & shelter to hold them for under $10 Million USD.
Iran can build 10 Shahed 278/285 helo's armed with Anti Tank weapons for under $10 Million USD
Iran can build 100 Aras 3/4 Ton Tactical vehicles for ~$2Million USD and equip them with up to ~$8 Million USD with of Weapons, Armor, coms and Sensors for total of $10 Million USD
Iran can build 100 Safir Jeeps for $600K USD & arm each with up to $44,000 USD worth of various types of weapons & equipment for $5Million USD
Iran can produce $5Million USD worth of Infantry Gear, Armor, Weapons, Coms,...
Iran can build 10 heavy $50K Quadcopters each equipped with $50K worth of sensors & Weapons for $1Million USD
Iran can build $1Million USD worth of Armed Unmanned Ground vehicles
Iran can build $1Million USD worth of Swarm anti Tank UAV's or short ranged cruise missiles
Iran can build at least 1 or 2 Fatteh class missile & Tel for $1 Million USD
Iran can build at least 1 or 2 Mobile command centers with AAA protection for $1Million USD

And if you were to add all these together they would cost as much as 10 T-90's!!!!!!!! You say Tanks are cost effective but to me there is NOTHING cost effective about them!!! And as you said yourself unless we are able to produce our own Tanks for ~$600K to a MAX of ~$800K per unit with live shells that cost well under $500 USD per shot then they are just NOT WORTH THE COST!

And even if our Defense budget was $80 Billion USD per year I still wouldn't pay a penny over $1 Million USD per Tank! At $2 Million USD per unit my tank would need to have the capability to turn invisible with the ability to be remotely controlled with sensor fuzzed network capability, equipped with an active protection system & equipped with it's own armed Quadcopter or armed UGV to be worth it!

 

[zartosht]

while I understand the sentiment of getting the most bang for the buck.... you cant always use that as the only measure vevak..

otherwise you would have an unbalanced army made up of only certain weaponry which would be ineffective in a combined arms conflict.


iran has many different security needs and threats. and having 1-2k Modern MBTs I think is a great necessity for iran.

iran has to consider many different defence scenarios... for example. A skirmish with Azerbaijan, Daesh like force harassing border units, A resurgent Taliban like entity in Afghanistan, etc etc...

tanks still play a major role in the battlefield. Otherwise professional military analysts the world over would not be almost universally incorporating tanks into their armies on a major basis.

it is unanimous. Every single major army that can afford it keeps a significant tank force.

 

[TheImmortal]

while I understand the sentiment of getting the most bang for the buck.... you cant always use that as the only measure vevak..

otherwise you would have an unbalanced army made up of only certain weaponry which would be ineffective in a combined arms conflict.


iran has many different security needs and threats. and having 1-2k Modern MBTs I think is a great necessity for iran.

iran has to consider many different defence scenarios... for example. A skirmish with Azerbaijan, Daesh like force harassing border units, A resurgent Taliban like entity in Afghanistan, etc etc...

tanks still play a major role in the battlefield. Otherwise professional military analysts the world over would not be almost universally incorporating tanks into their armies on a major basis.

it is unanimous. Every single major army that can afford it keeps a significant tank force.

Don’t listen to Vevak.

He honestly thinks building a military is like going grocery shopping. He also saves money by pulling out coupons.

If Vevak thinking was correct than the empires of Rome, Persia, Nazi Germany, France, England, Soviet Union would never have fallen.

A country like Iran that struggles to create an efficient assembly line of production for a single major project. Here is Vevak making a laundry list of tens if not hundred projects all requiring their own logistics supply.

The man lives in fantasy world.

And it’s hard to replace the mobility and firepower on the go that a tank provides. Russia sent an unmanned tank to the Syrian war and it performed very poorly in war conditions.

So the technology for unmanned tanks is still not mature. But even then tanks will be required.

 

[PeeD]

@VEVAK

You are basically in my position now from one our old discussions: I said fighter aircraft such as the Su-30SM are not cost effective in Irans position and you defended a purchase.

Basically what I say is that on the ground, more so in defensive position, Iran is now strong enough to get itself a extra: A moden MBT.
You seem to agree that at 600-800k$ this is ok. I agree with your critical view that alternatives must be considered.

So let us look at your points:

Iran can build 10 Armed Shahed-129 with 5 control centers & shelter to hold them for under $10 Million USD.

A great capability and I was always in favor of it but the advantage a modern MBT offers: HE-Frag shells can be shot with high precision and high numbers (firepower). Sadid guided weapons and bombs lack that firepower and are much more expensive than a tank shell.

Iran can build 10 Shahed 278/285 helo's armed with Anti Tank weapons for under $10 Million USD

A quite fragile system. Good against tanks with its expensive ATGMs, but not for the rest like infantry.

Iran can build 100 Aras 3/4 Ton Tactical vehicles for ~$2Million USD and equip them with up to ~$8 Million USD with of Weapons, Armor, coms and Sensors for total of $10 Million USD

This is a good point. We need it and have it to some extend. What it lacks is heavy armor for raids into territory where enemy has artillery ect. at high speed and all-terrain.

Iran can build 100 Safir Jeeps for $600K USD & arm each with up to $44,000 USD worth of various types of weapons & equipment for $5Million USD

Good and we have this already fortunately.

Iran can produce $5Million USD worth of Infantry Gear, Armor, Weapons, Coms,...

Ideal for defensive posture and we are already working towards it.

Iran can build 10 heavy $50K Quadcopters each equipped with $50K worth of sensors & Weapons for $1Million USD

A good asymmetric capability. Agreed

Iran can build $1Million USD worth of Armed Unmanned Ground vehicles

A good asymmetric capability. Agreed

Iran can build $1Million USD worth of Swarm anti Tank UAV's or short ranged cruise missiles

A excellent asymmetric approach, this one is more important/better than MBTs.

Iran can build at least 1 or 2 Fatteh class missile & Tel for $1 Million USD

More I think but yes this is more important than MBTs. However wer are already there.

Iran can build at least 1 or 2 Mobile command centers with AAA protection for $1Million USD

Good but I think we are already there.


One thing which I could not credibly counter back in the fighters discussion was that if there is a risk to encounter fighter aircrafts for the enemy, they need to do the extra effort, switched on radars, AAMs, AEW, etc.
The same applies here: If you have a modern MBT force, you can hold the opponent always on risk if you does not do the extra effort with tanks, ATGM etc.

 

[TheImmortal]

Too much fallacy on this topic of tanks.

People like to point out Saddam’s Tank Force and size and say it did Saddam nothing. The issue both Arab armies AND Iran have is they don’t know how to use tanks!

BOTH Iran and Iraq IMPROPERLY used tanks in the Iran-Iraq war and this was widely recognized! They became fixed artillery units and not mobile armour!

Look at Syria, during the Syrian war it was taking HEAVY tank losses because they were sending in tanks within NO infantry cover, parking tanks in OPEN space, etc.

Look at Saudi Arabia, again sending Abrams and Bradley tanks into open terrain with little support against Houthis.

It took Syria MOST of the war to learn to
Develop a jammer to equip on its armour. It DRAMATICALLY reduced tank losses when it was used.

Unfortunately, Iran didn’t learn much from how to use armour during the Syrian War. So I don’t have high hopes that they will properly use armour when in battle.

 

[VEVAK]

@VEVAK

You are basically in my position now from one our old discussions: I said fighter aircraft such as the Su-30SM are not cost effective in Irans position and you defended a purchase.

Basically what I say is that on the ground, more so in defensive position, Iran is now strong enough to get itself a extra: A moden MBT.
You seem to agree that at 600-800k$ this is ok. I agree with your critical view that alternatives must be considered.

So let us look at your points:



A great capability and I was always in favor of it but the advantage a modern MBT offers: HE-Frag shells can be shot with high precision and high numbers (firepower). Sadid guided weapons and bombs lack that firepower and are much more expensive than a tank shell.



A quite fragile system. Good against tanks with its expensive ATGMs, but not for the rest like infantry.



This is a good point. We need it and have it to some extend. What it lacks is heavy armor for raids into territory where enemy has artillery ect. at high speed and all-terrain.



Good and we have this already fortunately.



Ideal for defensive posture and we are already working towards it.



A good asymmetric capability. Agreed



A good asymmetric capability. Agreed



A excellent asymmetric approach, this one is more important/better than MBTs.



More I think but yes this is more important than MBTs. However wer are already there.



Good but I think we are already there.


One thing which I could not credibly counter back in the fighters discussion was that if there is a risk to encounter fighter aircrafts for the enemy, they need to do the extra effort, switched on radars, AAMs, AEW, etc.
The same applies here: If you have a modern MBT force, you can hold the opponent always on risk if you does not do the extra effort with tanks, ATGM etc.

The fighter discussion is completely different over here we have

On one side 10 T-90's for $50 Million USD
vs 10 Shahed-129 + 10 Shahed 285/278 + 100 Armed Aras 3.4Ton TV each armed with $80K worth of weapons & equipment + 100 Armed Safir Jeeps + Fully equipped infantry to go with the vehicles + 10 Quadcopter armed with Anti Tank weapons + Armed UGV + At least 2 Fatteh-110 & Tel + Swarm Anti Tank UAV's + 2 Mobile Command Centers all for a total of $50Million USD

And yes Tanks may have better protection against Artillery Shells but Tanks can not retaliate against them as easy as a Shahed-129 or a Shahed Helo or a Fatteh Missile.... or a heavy armed quadcopter can and for a country who doesn't have a large Fighter or bomber fleet and clearly lacks Air Superiority those capabilities are far more important!

And the difference between here and the fighter discussion is that for $50 Million USD any one of these weapon systems can take out a Tank from outside the range of the Tanks main Gun with a standard shell! And for the price of a single Tank your getting Airborne, Ground, manned and unmanned platforms that can each take out a Tank.

And there just aren't similar examples when it comes to Air Superiority for Air Defense