Iranian Chill Thread

[TheImmortal]

Hasn't the recent pace of Israeli strikes gone down or have been somewhat stifled by Russian/Syria joint patrols near the Golan?

Nope. There like 5 strikes last 2 weeks alone.

 

[Blue In Green]

Dude, stop wasting your time trying to convince @SalarHaqq
He won't get convinced. He understands that he's wrong, but he somehow feels obliged to continue his irrational arguments which go completely against logic.

He wants to compare missile production to automobile industry. Why wouldn't he compare it to the production of fighter jets? At least the industries are more similar. How many Kowsars have been produced after 4 years? The fourth one will be completed next year.

Even 10,000 missiles would not protect Iran in a prolonged war. And by prolonged, I mean anything lasting more than a few months. And after our missile inventory runs out, we'll be left incredibly vulnerable to any offending force unless we purchase jet fighters from abroad. Even used jet fighters is a better option than leaving the IRIAF in this miserable situation.

I and a close dear friend had quite the extensive conversation about the viability of Iran's missile-centric approach to warfare and have essentially come to the conclusion that: whilst missiles will provide the devastating reach capability to destroy and hinder critical enemy operations. Their true utility lies mainly in strategic objectives almost entirely tied down to energy and other hard to replace state-assets. But they can and will obliterate many fixed military targets.

Realistically (in a build up to a conflict}. The fighters jets that Iran wants to destroy will almost surely be moved around to various places that can accommodate them (even highways if need be). But since Iran also lacks any real form of up-to-date reconnaissance, if the initial strike doesn't effectively blunt their air-capabilities. Then the rest of the conflict will see devastating retaliatory strikes from the same planes that Iran failed to destroy during the begin stages.

The tactical utility of Ballistic Missiles is always something that has been in question. If you lack real-time data to track enemy troop movements. All you're doing is striking fixed targets, of which there will be a point of diminishing returns. Fighters jets with 21st century targeting pods, data-links, sensors, radars and combat integration abilities will able to make WAY better use of their weapons during a hot-conflict minute-to-minute. A Ballistic missile just can't do that, unless we want to add in the supposed drone reconnaissance network that Iran probably has in place. Even then, the results are still questionable.

No amount of I.R.I air-defense is going to make up for a lack of modern jet-fighters and AWACS.

Nope. There like 5 strikes last 2 weeks alone.

Damn.....

 

[TheImmortal]

Dude, stop wasting your time trying to convince @SalarHaqq
He won't get convinced. He understands that he's wrong, but he somehow feels obliged to continue his irrational arguments which go completely against logic.

He wants to compare missile production to automobile industry. Why wouldn't he compare it to the production of fighter jets? At least the industries are more similar. How many Kowsars have been produced after 4 years? The fourth one will be completed next year.

Even 10,000 missiles would not protect Iran in a prolonged war. And by prolonged, I mean anything lasting more than a few months. And after our missile inventory runs out, we'll be left incredibly vulnerable to any offending force unless we purchase jet fighters from abroad. Even used jet fighters is a better option than leaving the IRIAF in this miserable situation.

I have proposed a mountain base for fighter jet design. With high alloy screens outside the opening to shred and pre detonate any cruse missile or bomb try to close the entrance during war time.

Would be exclusively for Iran’s interceptor fleet.

5-10 mountain bases (depending on need) each can house 25 or so interceptors underground refueling and ammo. Means Iran can have 100+ interceptors in under mountain bedrock each able to fly out of a prebuilt runway (or two for redundancy protection) inside the mountain base.

This in addition to Iran’s regular airbases means Iran will retain dominance of skies, protect its air defenses, and reduce its over reliance on missile.

As for bombers, I have proposed a high altitude flying wing or other LO design that would use a supersonic engine in the same class as 1960’s US D-21

Can go anywhere in Middle East at supersonic speed. Payload would be 2-4 glide bombs (4 250lb or 2 500lb) released at high altitude and returning back to Iran for next sortie run. Pre-programmed routes with passive radiation detector to avoid radar spheres. If detected high altitude (50,000 + high speed 1.5 Mach+) would mean it would be difficult to intercept.

Both of these are within Iran’s capabilities as “black projects” (mountain base and the bomber). As for interceptor that requires either foreign purchase/assistance or a miracle in Iranian aircraft production.

But the high altitude drone bomber can be ready SOON and make TB2 look like a kids drone from Walmart.

 

[QWECXZ]

I and a close dear friend had quite an extensive conversation about the viability of Iran's missile-centric approach to warfare and have essentially come to the conclusion that: whilst missiles will provide the devastating reach capability to destroy and hinder critical enemy operations. They're true utility lies mainly in strategic objectives almost entirely tied down to energy and other critical state-assets.

Realistically (in a build up to a conflict}. The fighters jets that Iran wants to destroy will almost surely be moved around to various places that can accommodate them (even highways if need be). But since Iran also lacks any real form of reconnaissance, if the initial strike doesn't effectively blunt their air-capabilities. Then the rest of the conflict will see devastating retaliatory strikes from the same planes that Iran failed to destroy during the begin stages.

No amount of I.R.I air-defense is going to make up for it....

Exactly. Iran has been planning to create an LPS (local positioning system) for years. It is absolutely necessary for Iran to go ahead with this plan to ensure our independence. Without satellite surveillance and a reliable positioning system, Iran can not even effectively use our high number of missiles to neutralize the enemy's superior aerial capabilities. Unfortunately, all of our potential enemies in the region have the upper hand in the sky.

People always exaggerate how fast our missiles can respond to our enemy's threats. They talk about destroying our enemy's assets in the matter of minutes all the time. For a country that relies on commercial satellite photos, our response time will be slow and far from instantaneous.

I have proposed a mountain base for fighter jet design. With high alloy screens outside the opening to shred and pre detonate any cruse missile or bomb try to close the entrance during war time.

Would be exclusively for Iran’s interceptor fleet.

5-10 mountain bases (depending on need) each can house 25 or so interceptors underground refueling and ammo. Means Iran can have 100+ interceptors in under mountain bedrock each able to fly out of a prebuilt runway (or two for redundancy protection) inside the mountain base.

This in addition to Iran’s regular airbases means Iran will retain dominance of skies, protect its air defenses, and reduce its over reliance on missile.

This can go the other way around too. Imagine our regional adversaries go for something like this. One more reason why Iran should not put all of its eggs in one basket.

 

[Blue In Green]

Exactly. Iran has been planning to create an LPS (local positioning system) for years. It is absolutely necessary for Iran to go ahead with this plan to ensure our independence. Without satellite surveillance and a reliable positioning system, Iran can not even effectively use our high number of missiles to neutralize the enemy's superior aerial capabilities. Unfortunately, all of our potential enemies in the region have the upper hand in the sky.

People always exaggerate how fast our missiles can respond to our enemy's threats. They talk about destroying our enemy's assets in the matter of minutes all the time. For a country that relies on commercial satellite photos, our response time will be slow and far from instantaneous.

Well said, moreover.

The missiles........ *sigh*.... missiles aren't some wonder-weapon that was going to outright ensure Iranian victory. I am positive that this was never their intended purpose no matter how many Iran plans on producing. They are a form of compensation due to necessity coming out of a lack of modern conventional assets. At best they provide a means of dishing out massive amounts of damage whilst receiving destruction in return.

The reality is beyond clear, even for me who is a proponent of missiles. They're putting way too many eggs in that basket....

 

[TheImmortal]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1498044269524885507

 

[BigMelatonin]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1498085842979536901

Everyone is getting nukes but Iran it seems.

 

[Oldman1]

I and a close dear friend had quite the extensive conversation about the viability of Iran's missile-centric approach to warfare and have essentially come to the conclusion that: whilst missiles will provide the devastating reach capability to destroy and hinder critical enemy operations. They're true utility lies mainly in strategic objectives almost entirely tied down to energy and other hard to replace state-assets.

Realistically (in a build up to a conflict}. The fighters jets that Iran wants to destroy will almost surely be moved around to various places that can accommodate them (even highways if need be). But since Iran also lacks any real form of up-to-date reconnaissance, if the initial strike doesn't effectively blunt their air-capabilities. Then the rest of the conflict will see devastating retaliatory strikes from the same planes that Iran failed to destroy during the begin stages.

The tactical utility of Ballistic Missiles is always something that has been in question. If you lack real-time data to track enemy troop movements. All you're doing is striking fixed targets, of which there will be a point of diminishing returns. Fighters jets with 21st century targeting pods, data-links, sensors, radars and combat integration abilities will able to make WAY better use of their weapons during a hot-conflict minute-to-minute. A Ballistic missile just can't do that, unless we want to add in the supposed drone reconnaissance network that Iran probably has in place. Even then, the results are still questionable.

No amount of I.R.I air-defense is going to make up for a lack of modern jet-fighters and AWACS.



Damn.....

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.

 

[TheImmortal]

Putin really needed Solemani to be alive right now.

This guys generals are beyond incompetent.

If Russia is this “rusty”, then god help the Chinese who haven’t seen war since Korea. Chinese have the toys, but not the experience. Russia has the experience, but not the toys.

 

[Oldman1]

Putin really needed Solemani to be alive right now.

This guys generals are beyond incompetent.

If Russia is this “rusty”, then god help the Chinese who haven’t seen war since Korea. Chinese have the toys, but not the experience. Russia has the experience, but not the toys.

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.

 

[TheImmortal]

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.

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).

 

[SalarHaqq]

Iran is more likely right now building 2 a WEEK. And you are saying 2 fully assembled missiles A DAY? Not happening, especially solid fuel.

Neither is Iran’s liquid/solid fuel engine daily production rate at 2 engines.

Yearly Iranian missile production might be 75-100 at best in current environment. Don’t see any indications of 10,000 a year production or even 5,000 or even 2,500.

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

Again 2000-2010 was early a Shahab-3 models production using less reliable guidance system less reliable alloys, and less reliable engine production.

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

Iran really has been producing missiles at a higher rate for maybe 8 years.

So the million dollar question is how many missiles can Iran build in 8 years? Like I said even 8,000 would be very optimistic

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?

- - - - -

He won't get convinced. He understands that he's wrong, but he somehow feels obliged to continue his irrational arguments which go completely against logic.

I am yet to come across a convincing demonstration to the contrary.

He wants to compare missile production to automobile industry. Why wouldn't he compare it to the production of fighter jets? At least the industries are more similar. How many Kowsars have been produced after 4 years? The fourth one will be completed next year.

An analogy detached from fundamental variables. The production rate of Kowsars did not reach its full potential and never will because Kowsars and the air force in general are playing a subordinate role in Iran's essentially asymmetric defence doctrine. Whereas ballistic missiles, UAV's and the likes are treated as absolute priorities and have thus been attracting the bulk of funds allocated to domestic arms procurement. Hence why this is like apples and oranges.

Even 10,000 missiles would not protect Iran in a prolonged war. And by prolonged, I mean anything lasting more than a few months. And after our missile inventory runs out, we'll be left incredibly vulnerable to any offending force unless we purchase jet fighters from abroad. Even used jet fighters is a better option than leaving the IRIAF in this miserable situation.

More like ten thousand ballistic missiles (probably much more) launched from highly survivable platforms, thousands of cruise missiles, hundreds of UAV's with thousands of munitions, as well as the existing fleet of fighter jets, not to mention Iran's naval assets.

Indeed, this does and will protect Iran in any realistic conflict scenario, protracted or short lived, just as it has actually proven successful in deterring potential aggressors including the world's leading military power itself from initiating war against Iran. Incessant polemics on this site and elsewhere calling into question the defence strategy Iran worked out are nowhere new: we've been hearing them for ages. Only, there's not the remotest sign still of the gloomy picture they paint about Iran's security. And with every passing day, ground reality corroborates Iranian planners while refuting their critics.

The notion that Iran must engage in any sort of a symmetric arms race against the US in order to ensure her safety is delusory. The American war machine is geared towards rapidly defeating adversaries in a conventional and symmetric setting, and in this regard only countries as resourceful and sizeable as China or Russia can hope to achieve (near-)parity. For any other adversary, entertaining such assumptions would represent fatal reverie. An asymmetric doctrine then becomes the only rationally conceivable means of restoring a level playing field.

This observation furthermore is rooted in empirical reality. In all its recent wars, the US regime encountered no difficulties steamrolling opponents that choose to operate in a symmetric manner. Whilst asymmetrically fighting contenders were the only ones capable of offering strenuous opposition to the Americans. Iran understood this from the outset, thank God. Hence why she is still standing strong and progressing after forty-three years of anti-imperial Resistance.

As far as I'm concerned, the four or five local users who spend time seeking to portray Iranian decision makers as blind and incompetent can go on as much as they like. It's not going to change reality anyway, on either one of the following two decisive factors: Iran is not going to drop its asymmetric defence posture against the zio-American empire, nor will this compromise her security but in fact will only keep enhancing it.

 

[QWECXZ]

The notion that Iran must engage in any sort of a symmetric arms race against the US in order to ensure her safety is delusory. The American war machine is geared towards rapidly defeating adversaries in a conventional and symmetric environment, and in this regard only countries as resourceful and sizeable as China or Russia can hope to achieve (near-)parity. For any other adversary, entertaining such assumptions would represent fatal reverie. An asymmetric doctrine then becomes the only rationally conceivable means of restoring a level playing field.

This observation furthermore is rooted in empirical reality. In all its recent wars, the US regime encountered no difficulties steamrolling adversaries operating in a symmetric manner. Whilst asymmetrically fighting contenders were the only ones capable of offering strenuous opposition to the Americans. Iran understood this from the outset, thank God. Hence why she is still standing strong and progressing after forty-threar years of anti-imperial Resistance.

Dude, stop writing nonsense. And I am really getting tired of your straw man fallacy which is basically the main content of all your replies. Nobody was talking about an arms race with the US. The US was not even mentioned in our comments. I respect you for defending Iran, but your lack of reasoning and capability to add 2+2 have become boring.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Dude, stop writing nonsense. And I am really getting tired of your straw man fallacy which is basically the main content of all your replies. Nobody was talking about an arms race with the US. The US was not even mentioned in our comments.

Cannot be bothered to cite the multiple additional references to the US in this discussion.

Your apparent short attention span does not seem to be a mere rhetorical subterfuge after all. I can understand, it's late in Tehran.

 

[QWECXZ]

View attachment 819431

Cannot be bothered to cite the multiple other references to the US in this discussion.

Your apparent short attention span does not appear to be a mere rhetoric subterfuge after all.

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

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.