Iranian Chill Thread

[WudangMaster]

 

[SalarHaqq]

We were not discussing that comment anymore, but nice desperate try.

While there was no direct mention of the US in your comment, you didn't name any other state either and simply spoke of some vague "prolonged war" and went on trying to portray Iran's defence doctrine as inadequate in essence. It is therefore perfectly legitimate for me, when addressing such claims about Iran's doctrine, to focus primarily on the US, since not only is America the single most potent enemy Iran may face in a war but moreover, what's going to work against them will work just as fine against any second tier foe.

Plus, I clearly talked of the zio-American empire in the concluding paragraph, and this includes all their regional clients.

So "nice try" at a subterfuge, however this sort of rhetoric seldom made one sound more convincing.

 

[QWECXZ]

While you did not mention the US directly, you didn't name any other adversary in that post either and simply spoke of some vague "prolonged war" whilst trying to portray Iran's defence doctrine as inadequate in essence. It is therefore perfectly legitimate for me, when addressing such comments about Iran's doctrine, to focus primarily on the US, since not only is America the single most potent enemy Iran may face in a war but, what's going to work againts them will work even more against any second tier foe.

So, "nice try" at asubterfuge, however this sort of rhetoric seldom made one sound more convincing.

So, you consider enemies like Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Pakistan not potent enough for Iran to have a plan for potential threats from them in future? We had a "prolonged war" with Iraq.

I can guess what you will say though: we will destroy them with our missiles before their jet fighters can even take off. lol

Honestly, with recent global events, the US will have much less time and motivation to focus on us. I remember Khamenei ordered the armed forces to start thinking about offensive capabilities. Iran cannot have offensive capabilities even against our neighbors as long as the IRIAF is in this sad state.

 

[SalarHaqq]

And even your desperate attempt does not in any way imply suggesting a symmetric arms race with the US. If anything, it was mentioned many times here that the IRIAF can never match the US air superiority. The issue that is being discussed is completely different. If you had paid attention instead of just replying irrationally, you would've known.

Arguing that Iran will not stand a chance in a war against the US regime unless she conducts massive investment in air power is advocating symmetry, considering that air power is exactly what US military doctrine is centered around. At the very least, it's advocating a move towards greater symmetry.

 

[TheImmortal]

And what are these figures based on? All I see is plain guesswork with no justification.



These models can not only be upgraded with ready made kits and warheads, they will have their own role in a war.



What are these statements founded upon other than guesswork and estimates from US authorities (in this case the Pentagon), which have a proven history of systematically and deliberately downplaying Iran's military industrial capabilities?

- - - - -

Sejill-2 didn’t get revealed till 2008 and was a no show in many missile wargames for years. Reports of problems with the brand new missile design and newer more expensive materials was seen online.

Longer range F-110’s were not unveiled till Zolfghar in 2016.

As for where I get my production rate, it is my own personnel guess. Iran’s military rarely has leaks that are not intentional. So if you are waiting on Iran to be the one to tell you their production capabilities you might have to wait a long time.

Petramas seems to think it’s higher than 10,000 and again he uses last 12 years production due to Qiam.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1480190198143148042

I’m skeptical because he assumes 80 Qiam production lot at a high frequency. We don’t know if that Qiam production lots when delivered indicate quarterly, monthly, or semi annual production rate.

I went conservative, he went optimistic.

Also we don’t know how many missiles have been destroyed last 10 years trying to be transferred to HZ. How many missiles are used in war games and annual testing of stockpile. How many are discarded for X reason.

Maybe my estimate of 10,000 or lower was way too conservative. But I cant wrap my head around 100,000+ estimates.

Let’s say in conflict Iran fires 1,000 BMs (Russia fired 300 in 4 days) per month during war. With my estimate they would be depleted in 10 months. Another thing to ponder. Iran’s missile failure rate is 20-30% add in an interception rate. And for every 1,000 missiles Iran fires 500-600 reach their target.

So let’s say Iran has to first 2,000 per month. Any scenario where a war drags on more than a year will lead either complete exhaustion of Iranian missile supply (conservative estimate) or a high % (more liberal estimates of tens of thousands)

 

[QWECXZ]

Arguing that Iran will not stand a chance in a war against the US regime unless she conducts massive investment in air power is advocating symmetry, considering that air power is exactly what US military doctrine is centered around.

That is a false statement. Symmetry means that Iran would rely on air superiority like the US does. That would be "symmetry". Stating that the IRIAF in its present form puts Iran in a very vulnerable position even regionally has nothing to do with advocating "symmetry" against the US, which again was not the intended adversary. Iran can still use its regional proxies. One doesn't preclude the other. They both can happen.

 

[Stryker1982]

Importance and relevance of conventional capability should be the most important lesson of this war. Air superiority is critical to protect troops and equipment on ground. I was of the opinion that Iranian missiles were an effective deterrence but now I think they are not enough. Iranians should start focusing on Artesh now, more tanks, artillery, jets etc. Numbers are also very important. I think a jet like JF 17 in large numbers would do Iranians good. But given the geography of Iran. dual engine jets might be needed.

To a large extent I agree.

Can't replace everything with missiles, although a huge number is great an useful, essentially anything static you want to destroy is gone, but at the end of the day, aircraft can be hidden, helicopters than be hidden anywhere, assets can be moved around.

If anything, this is proving that ISR, and electronic warfare are probably even more important than anything.
Focusing on tanks and artillery is great, but once you lose the sky it's all easy prey. So finding the enemy airforce, and makeshift airbases is critical. iran is not strong on either of these, especially space based ISR.

 

[SalarHaqq]

So, you consider enemies like Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Pakistan not potent enough for Iran to have a plan for potential threats from them in future? We had a "prolonged war" with Iraq.

Already addressed, read what you quote. To repeat:

but moreover, what's going to work against them will work just as fine against any second tier foe

I can guess what you will say though: we will destroy them with our missiles before their jet fighters can even take off. lol

Real world events have and will keep refuting the unwarranted, unsubstantiated catastrophism we've been seeing for years from a select number of users here. You'll be entitled to laugh (so to speak) when the militaries of Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Pakistan actually launch a successful aggression against Iran. Until then, the status quo will speak for itself.

 

[QWECXZ]

Already addressed, read what you quote. To repeat:

Real world events have and will keep refuting the unwarranted, unsubstantiated catastrophism we've been seeing for years from a select number of users here. You'll be entitled to "laugh" when the militaries of Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Pakistan actually launch a successful military aggression against Iran. Until then, the status quo will speak for itself.

Except that a second tier foe, unlike the US, will have many more reasons to continue the war beyond just the destruction of Iran's vital infrastructures. Other factors such as patriotism will be involved. So, your answer is again wrong. If you think that in a potential war with Turkey (just as an example), the Turks would give up easily after they have been hit, you are dead wrong.

Americans may protest against war if Iran kills too many Americans and they see the cost of war is too much. But Turks and Pakistanis will get even more enraged and more motivated to keep the war going. And the longer it lasts, the more vulnerable Iran will become without a proper air force.

Your second paragraph adds nothing of value to the discussion. The status quo is by definition "current". It does not guarantee anything about future.

 

[SalarHaqq]

That is a false statement. Symmetry means that Iran would rely on air superiority like the US does. That would be "symmetry". Stating that the IRIAF in its present form puts Iran in a very vulnerable position even regionally has nothing to do with advocating "symmetry" against the US, which again was not the intended adversary. Iran can still use its regional proxies. One doesn't preclude the other. They both can happen.

Portraying the supposedly "sad" state of the IRIAF as a decisive criterion in determining Iran's security equals attributing a central role to air power. And that in turn translates a thinking similar to American military doctrine, hence the symmetry.

Also, greater role for the air force in countering enemy air power and in carrying out strikes, which you advocate, would represent a step towards increased symmetry and away from asymmetry.

 

[QWECXZ]

Portraying the supposedly "sad" state of the IRIAF as a decisive criterion in determining Iran's security equals attributing a central role to air power. And that in turn translates a thinking similar to American military doctrine, hence the symmetry.

Again, another fallacy. One component of power does not need to be "central" to affect the overall performance. The statement that missiles cannot cover the role of an air force does not imply that the air force should play a central role in anyway.

 

[Stryker1982]

Also another thing, I remember seeing Iran's military showing U.S. military forces after the missile strikes showing more active radars as well as aircraft being dispersed around the bases to make it less easy to destroy multiple aircraft in 1 blast. Can't find the image, but I saw it somewhere.

Yup, the Americans as usual know what they are doing.

Unless you absolutely flatten the bases, the airforce will survive with damage. And if they anticipate that very event, they will literally move their aircraft outside the airbases and park them in the open desert.

Iran has no such ISR capability to know that happened and will think it took out dozens of aircraft and helicopters.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Except that a second tier foe, unlike the US, will have many more reasons to continue the war beyond just the destruction of Iran's vital infrastructures. Other factors such as patriotism will be involved. So, your answer is again wrong. If you think that in a potential war with Turkey (just as an example), the Turks would give up easily, you are dead wrong.

Not sure what you're trying to convey here. Without specifying clearly defined political objectives and how these are supposed to be achieved through military means, any discussion about war makes no sense anyway.

Furthermore, what deters the US from launching military aggression against Iran will deter Turkey as well. Patriotism is of no relevance in this.

Your second paragraph adds nothing of value to the discussion. The status quo is by definition "current". It does not guarantee anything about future.

The status in future will not change. So yes, it adds a point to the discussion.

 

[Stryker1982]

Logistics problem? They are literally across the border on 3 sides. And have just begun the invasion. US invades countries from across the globe. Their convoys are getting ripped to shreds. Tons of vehicles just being abandoned probably due to running out of gas or getting trapped. Their supply convoys are not reaching the attack convoys who are running too far ahead. Why are there small convoys of a few vehicles driving into cities like they are lost?

No one can look at this footage coming out and being impressed by Russian war machine. Russia’s military image just took a HUGE hit globally even if they capture Kiev and split Ukraine in half (which if the will is there, they will).

Russia has the experience as they have been involved in past conflicts like Syria, Georgia, Chechnya, Crimea, etc. But the problem is Syria was mostly Russian Air Force and special forces on the ground besides security personnel to protect Russia aircraft and SAMs. Georgia and Crimea was a short war with speed and surprise nothing major and small region, Ukraine is massive! Its like invading Texas. You could go 80 to 90 mph for 8 hours driving across and still haven't left. Hence the logistics problems. Not to mention not being welcomed like they did in Crimea which by the way as we know under the guise of Ukrainian troops with no patches or insignia. I mean you think the fighting of Luhansk and Donbass for years since would have let them know it's no cakewalk.

The logistical problems we are hearing about might be more about the interception of supply lines by behind the lines partizans or special forces, and in the videos we've seen, air/drone strikes.

Their was a major article that came out years ago about the training of UKR special forces by the US to operate behind enemy lines.

 

[QWECXZ]

Not sure what you're trying to convey here. Without specifying clearly defined political objectives and how these are supposed to be achieved through military means, any discussion about war makes no sense anyway.

Furthermore, what deters the US from launching military aggression against Iran will deter Turkey as well. Patriotism is of no relevance in this.

It is clear what is being conveyed here by different commentators. You can read them again.

The status in future will not change. So yes, it adds a point of value to the discussion.

"The status in future will not change" is a stupid thing to say which adds no value to the discussion.