Iranian Chill Thread

[ytterbium]

Missiles vs Fighter jets ? Which one would be better ? I think it depends on the adversary. Against the US, missiles are the weapon of choice, since fighter jets would be more or less useless against a far superior airforce.

Fighter jets carry missiles. Various types of missiles. Air to air. Air to ground/sea. Anti radiation missiles.

Air to air missiles are no different from portable surface to air missiles carried on fighter jets.

If fighter jets can win, so can ballistic and cruise missiles, and vice versa.

Question is, which one is better?

Fighter jets are more expensive to buy, to operate, to maintain, to train pilots and maintenance personnel for.

They are also more verstaile offering a wider variety of options.

Ballistic missiles are harder to intercept, moreso when you add greater variations with maneuverable reentry vehicles or multiple reentry vehicles.

Fighter jets are easier to target.

Take your pick.

I think Iranian policymakers decision of mass producing ballistic missiles to defeat their American adversaries is alright. Nothing wrong with it.

If Iran can't defeat Americans with their ballistic missile force, then they can't do so with any fighter jet purchased from any number of countries either.

So yes, ballistic missiles - MASS PRODUCED - over fighter jets.

Against a regional adversary however, a mix of missiles and fighter jets would be the best option.

I'm not sure how many missiles Iran can launch at one time but with Iran's mobile launchers and launch sites from underground silos, 100 targets hit on a daily basis, especially at the start, would be preferable.

If the max number of ballistic missiles that Iran can fire is only 100, then Iran stands no chance against any regional adversary, forget the USA.

Iran is king in practical terms, although numerically and probably capability wise the Chinese are ahead yet they haven't used any of their weapons in a modern combat setting whereas the IRGC has on numerous occasions.

Is there any proof - not just propaganda rumours from the Americans - that Chinese are ahead of Iranians in quantitative terms? That CN possess more ballistic missiles than Iran?

Any evidence?

 

[Blue In Green]

In other words knowledge of the tactics and strategies using this type of warfare.

Also technology as well. It's no miracle that Iran has managed to attain this level of accuracy at range for its missile arsenal. Years and decades of hard-work into figuring how to achieve such precision was needed in order to reach this current level.

For example, KheybarShekaan represents a gigantic leap in Iranian Ballistic missile technology since it uses a tri-conic HGV with ABM capabilities. Only a handful of nations on Earth have this sort of active (fielded) missile technology.

 

[ytterbium]

Russia sending in reinforcements from Belarus

https://twitter.com/x/status/1498277263690842112

Russian column filmed north of Kiev

https://twitter.com/x/status/1498498770258046977

Russian tanks in Kursk heading towards Ukraine

https://twitter.com/x/status/1498387245568516102

Another Ukrainian drone targets Russian fuel supplies

https://twitter.com/x/status/1498388026245984258

Ukrainians target Russian BUK SAM north of Kiev

https://twitter.com/x/status/1498325387650256897

Ukrainians using tires and makeshift Czech hedgehogs to block advance

https://twitter.com/x/status/1498276102250373121

So the Russians are sustaining losses. Ukrainians are putting up stiff resistance. However Russians are sending in reinforcements to consolidate their positions. The Russian convoy heading to Kiev is 65 KM long. Russians are slowly but surely advancing, especially in the east and south.

A crude estimate - Russians didn't use even 2% of their military potential in this invasion/annexation. They want Ukrainian infrastructure and military to be largely intact and taking extreme care not to hurt Ukrainian civilians.

And yet, Russian expansion in the largest country exclusively in Europe has been faster than Yankee/Pommie/axis of devil coaliation which also included Ukraine, Poland, Japan, Korea and the likes in 2003.

While that "Axis of Devil" coalition also indulged in wanton massacres and bombings without a care for civilian casualties whatsoever. The sanctions and embargo prior to the invasion in 2003, the no fly zones enforced from 1991-2003 already caused an estimated half a million deaths in Iraq, with more than another million or two since 2003.

 

[Blue In Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1498550217083396098

And now the gloves are off...

 

[Xerxes22]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1498550217083396098

And now the gloves are off...

It was an Azov nazi recruitment center due to open later. Problem is they took out civilian cars around it too.

 

[sha ah]

If you're using Trump to gauge history then you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Iranians currently have a culture of martyrdom and self sacrifice that most westerners cannot begin to understand.

As far as history is concerned, Iranians built several great empires throughout the last 2500 years. However unlike the British, who run away to their little island every time they are defeated, Iran is in the middle of the world and therefore Iranians have nowhere to run or hide.

Throughout history only the greatest conquerors were able to successfully conquer established Iranian empires or nation states, including the likes of Alexander the great or Ghenghis Ghan.

The Romans on the other hand tried countless times but failed. Several Roman emperors were either killed or captured. Valerian for example was made into a servant/footstool of the Shapur I. The Ottomans also tried and failed miserably despite conquering a good portion of Europe.

Despite surrounding Iran (Iraq/Afghanistan), the Americans never tried to invade Iran. Not just because of Iran's missile and air defense network but because Iranians would humiliate them ten times worse than what you saw in Afghanistan. Keep in mind that was not just the US in Afghanistan but all of NATO, the entire west basically were humiliated by a bunch of narco bandits. LOL

Next time actually open a history book before talking rubbish.

If you don't mind me saying the obvious, Iranians are a soft, weak willed people. Surrender monkeys, if you like. I mean it's not like you are a nation of powerful warriors with great warfighting ethos or such.

You lost much more than you won. As Trump said, Iran never won a war in history. I think only Indians may have been conquered more frequently than Iran.

If North Korea had the abundance of riches and the strategic location that Iran enjoys, simply, North Koreans would have driven out Americans out of the Middle East decades ago. Its location, population size, lack of oil, gas, mineral, other resources makes it hard for them to expand out to neighbouring regions and create a coaliation of free/Juche/aligned countries.

 

[sha ah]

Russian speed of advance may be greater than the Americans in Iraq during 2003, but this operation is not going as smoothly as Putin would have liked. So far the Russians have sustained a decent number of casualties and their losses in equipment is not insignificant.

The Russians have lost quite a bit of armor and even expensive air defense units like BUK, Pantsir, TOR. Of course their losses are nowhere near as high as some western sources claim, but regardless they are sustaining losses as they tighten the noose.

Of course when the Americans invaded Iraq, the Iraqis weren't as well equipped as the Ukranians. They barely had any modern ATGMs or MANPADS to speak of. Ukraine is being supported by all of NATO with weapons.

Also by that time not many Iraqis supported Saddam and the Americans were didn't give a damn about civilian casualties or as they referred to it back then "collateral damage"

Russian speed of advance has been much greater than American coaliation which incl Ukraine, Britain, Poland, Japan, Korea and many others, advance in Iraq in 2003.

Yankee/Ukie propaganda on their social media and mass media has been stupendous, that's all.

Maybe it's fair to say the speed of their media propaganda has surpassed the speed at which Russian armed forces - with only a fraction of their troops at their disposal - has been expanding across Ukraine the largest country in Europe after Russia.

Most wars are not waged like a sprint but rather a marathon. 100+ missile strikes a day, especially against a regional adversary, is not insignificant. That's 3000 targets in one month. On top of that Iran also has 1000+ UAVs, MLRS and lots of artillery among other options.

Fighter jets carry missiles. Various types of missiles. Air to air. Air to ground/sea. Anti radiation missiles.

Air to air missiles are no different from portable surface to air missiles carried on fighter jets.

If fighter jets can win, so can ballistic and cruise missiles, and vice versa.

Question is, which one is better?

Fighter jets are more expensive to buy, to operate, to maintain, to train pilots and maintenance personnel for.

They are also more verstaile offering a wider variety of options.

Ballistic missiles are harder to intercept, moreso when you add greater variations with maneuverable reentry vehicles or multiple reentry vehicles.

Fighter jets are easier to target.

Take your pick.

I think Iranian policymakers decision of mass producing ballistic missiles to defeat their American adversaries is alright. Nothing wrong with it.

If Iran can't defeat Americans with their ballistic missile force, then they can't do so with any fighter jet purchased from any number of countries either.

So yes, ballistic missiles - MASS PRODUCED - over fighter jets.





If the max number of ballistic missiles that Iran can fire is only 100, then Iran stands no chance against any regional adversary, forget the USA.



Is there any proof - not just propaganda rumours from the Americans - that Chinese are ahead of Iranians in quantitative terms? That CN possess more ballistic missiles than Iran?

Any evidence?

 

[Jalut]

Most wars are not waged like a sprint but rather a marathon. 100+ missile strikes a day, especially against a regional adversary, is not insignificant. That's 3000 targets in one month. On top of that Iran also has 1000+ UAVs, MLRS and lots of artillery among other options.

I will have to disagree here example look at this Russian campaign how much do you think will missiles hand over to russia? Nothing really they max destroyed only 4 jets in the beginning because Ukraine was caught of guard that is about it the rest was downed by fighter jets in dog-fights and besides the air is still contested.

It is the airforce and ground forces where Russia will have to win or lose this conflict main while missiles are an afterthought. If you are thinking missiles will win conventional war then you are extremely mistaken.

Morocco won't even be able to take over an inch of Mauritania with missiles which is a small fiefdom that is a Moroccan protectorate we may do small insignificiant damage but that is about it let alone take on heavily armed regional players with such flawed doctrine. Iran will lose airspace in the country and the rest will be from there on like climbing a mountain that gets stiff and stiffer including full pronged ground incursions

 

[sha ah]

Russia launched 160 missiles in the initial salvo. I'm pretty sure they destroyed more than 4 fighter jets. Recently I saw one picture which showed half a dozen or so MIG-29s completely destroyed on the ground.

Iran's military doctrine is based on defense and deterrence, which is completely different than the Russian doctrine. The goal is to inflict so much damage and casualties onto the enemy that it becomes too costly to continue waging war.

100+ missile strikes daily focusing on vital infrastructure including communications, command and control, industrial facilities, etc would be devastating on anyone but especially for a regional adversary.

You see the war in Yemen. The Houthis never launch more than a dozen or so missiles at the most. Imagine if they could launch 100 missiles daily on Saudi targets. I'm pretty sure the war would have ended a long time ago. The Saudis would have been forced to stop. How long has it been ? 7 years ? 100 missiles a day would have been 255,000+ targets. Again war is not a sprint but rather a marathon.

I will have to disagree here example look at this Russian campaign how much do you think will missiles hand over to russia? Nothing really they max destroyed only 4 jets in the beginning because Ukraine was caught of guard that is about it the rest was downed by fighter jets in dog-fights and besides the air is still contested.

It is the airforce and ground forces where Russia will have to win or lose this conflict main while missiles are an afterthought. If you are thinking missiles will win conventional war then you are extremely mistaken.

Morocco won't even be able to take over an inch of Mauritania with missiles which is a small fiefdom that is a Moroccan protectorate we may do small insignificiant damage but that is about it let alone take on heavily armed regional players with such flawed doctrine. Iran will lose airspace in the country and the rest will be from there on like climbing a mountain that gets stiff and stiffer including full pronged ground incursions

 

[Jalut]

Russia launched 160 missiles in the initial salvo. I'm pretty sure they destroyed more than 4 fighter jets. Recently I saw one picture which showed half a dozen or so MIG-29s completely destroyed on the ground.

Iran's military doctrine is based on defense and deterrence, which is completely different than the Russian doctrine. The goal is to inflict so much damage and casualties onto the enemy that it becomes too costly to continue waging war.

100+ missile strikes daily focusing on vital infrastructure including communications, command and control, industrial facilities, etc would be devastating on anyone but especially for a regional adversary.

You see the war in Yemen. The Houthis never launch more than a dozen or so missiles at the most. Imagine if they could launch 100 missiles daily on Saudi targets. I'm pretty sure the war would have ended a long time ago. The Saudis would have been forced to stop. How long has it been ? 7 years ? 100 missiles a day would have been 255,000+ targets. Again war is not a sprint but rather a marathon.

This is not militarily realistic example Israel has poor stragetic depth but Hamas launched around 5000 in 11 days and note having poor stragetic depth means you are at great handicap but still they didn't manage to do more then insignificiant damage and yes I admit they did damage something but it was not above insignificiant and this was only possible due to poor stragetic depth it overwhelms the defensive. Example if Houthis were to launch 100 per day Sanaa, Saada could be levelled within days entirely to the ground hence it would be disasterous for them then the other side and besides very few will get past ADS unlike Hamas who found some success because Israel has poor stragetic depth. Meaning it will not damage KSA but only assure a genocide in Yemen. BMs and CMs are not a deterence not even remotely in a fully fledged war..

It would be like bringing a knife to a gun fight and thinking it would yard off someone whos armed with pistols, guns and machine guns it doesn't work like that but an army has to combine everything but most realistic ground changes can only come via ground forces they can change reality main while airforce is major bonus but it can't change the ground reality main while missiles are good for only targetting stragetic assets.

 

[sha ah]

Hamas don't possess missiles. They launch tiny rockets which are comparable to katushas. You're comparing a tiny Katusha type rocket to a ballistic missiles with 500 kg payload ? Also Hamas has a limited number of rockets and the Israelis know this.

Regardless 100 missiles a day is not unrealistic if a nation has the capacity. Again it's not about the 100 missiles per se, it's about the accumulation over an extended period of time. Eventually after sustaining so many casualties and losing so much material, it becomes unfeasible, unsustainable to continue waging war. That's the whole point of deterrence.

This is not militarily realistic example Israel has poor stragetic depth but Hamas launched around 5000 in 11 days and note having poor stragetic depth means you are at great handicap but still they didn't manage to do more then insignificiant damage and yes I admit they did damage something but it was not above insignificiant and this was only possible due to poor stragetic depth it overwhelms the defensive. If the Houthis were to launch 100 per day Sanaa, Saada could be levelled within days entirely to the ground hence it would be disasterous for them then the other side and besides very few will get past ADS unlike Hamas who found some success because Israel has good stragetic depth. Meaning it will damage KSA but only assure a genocide in Yemen

 

[Muhammad Saftain Anjum]

100 missiles a day is not unrealistic

LoL fire even 1 missile from Iranian territory, Saudis will hit you back.If you want to destroy just their infrastructure, you also have infrastructure that will be destroyed.

You think you will keep firing missiles,and they will sit and just see it and will not retaliate?
Just think,india droped one bomb on our trees and we retaliated and you think you will fire 100 missiles and they will not retaliate!

 

[Jalut]

Hamas don't possess missiles. They launch tiny rockets which are comparable to katushas. You're comparing a tiny Katusha type rocket to a ballistic missiles with 500 kg payload ? Also Hamas has a limited number of rockets and the Israelis know this.

Regardless 100 missiles a day is not unrealistic if a nation has the capacity. Again it's not about the 100 missiles per se, it's about the accumulation over an extended period of time. Eventually after sustaining so many casualties and losing so much material, it becomes unfeasible, unsustainable to continue waging war. That's the whole point of deterrence.

Hamas has BM's and big once also but that is not important it is about passing thru. They don't do much damage saturation will be limited. The launching sites itself could be eliminated.

It will not deter someone who has set his mind on waging a conventional war hence it has zero deterence factor to it. Example if Ukraine started launching 100 BMs into Russia and lets assume 4-5 of 100 gets thru the S-400 do you think this will deter Russia? Because there is already war? Hence it has zero deterence

 

[jauk]

Barring the intense propaganda and cherry-picked videos coming from the West, Russia’s progress has been pretty good. A simple logistics calculation will reveal tank column progress at a top rate of about 60km a day. Progress is bound by number of resupply vehicles. Note, it took the US 3 weeks to get to Baghdad. Ukraine is a far larger country. I also feel bad for the Ukraine fighters. What they have is the last of their supplies as the main depos were destroyed initially and the resupply is really smuggling now. If you want to hear more reality listen to military sources (even US ones on CNN). They paint a far different picture than the talking heads. Broadly, Russia is very careful not to cause damage and destruction. They are reabsorbing Ukraine, so they don’t want to spend much on rebuilding. Also, only a third of their troops have been deployed and mostly conscripts. Given those and they’re at the gates of Kiev already is very impressive. However, there are some criticisms I’m surprised about such as quality of personnel and equipment in the first wave. Below are a popular US military channel and Medhurst with Scott Ritter:

 

[Jalut]

LoL fire even 1 missile from Iranian territory

The chance of them getting thru to KSA is less then 94% due to high level top notch defensive systems but the chance of KSA getting to them is 85% meaning conquering the Iranian skies they could flatline major cities in Iran within days and could ethbalish Yemen scenario. Destroying launching sites, ADS, airports, fighter jets, and conventional targets