Iranian military engine development news and updates

[Stryker1982]

I think I'll chime in a little bit with the limited knowledge I know on this.



If there were to be a strike on an IRGC aerospace forces missile farms and BM bases, then they'd have to use cost effective weaponry depending on the stage of freedom of operation/movement they're in during the conflict.

If it's the opening stages of a conflict: Ideally America would want to penetrate Irans IAD network using their most sophisticated planes (F22, F35, B2s etc..), firing from subs and destroyers, launching concise strikes utilizing tactical level nukes in order to pacify the larger bases as well as strike the general area of the missile farms in order to take out as many missiles as they can. One of the biggest reasons why Iran is building so many sprawling military instillations in the mountains in due directly because of the threat of nuclear weapons being used right on the onset of a conflict.

Naturally mountains (if built into correctly) provide substantial protection against nuclear attacks and can withstand several blows. Thus allowing for the base to fire off most or the entirety of its stock before being abandoned/vacated etc... This methodology carries on with Iran's other smaller and coastal missile facilities which all rely heavily on passive protection from the Earth itself.

Unlike America, Israel and the other puppet states which are heavily dependent on a hermetic style of defense (layers of ABM, multiple batteries, CIWS, multi-billion dollar jets that protect their skies, radars on-top of radars). Iran doesn't have the budget nor air-force to defend their skies as reliably so they went underground when it comes to strategic assets.

So naturally, at least in this regard, Iran should be able to fire off the vast majority of its missile stock during the opening stages of any conflict. Israel will be effectively paralyzed as a nation and American military footprint in the region will be immensely damaged. Their (American and Co.) entire shtick is large, expansive and expensive to run air-fields and ports. If they sustain enough damage, then they can't allow the American military machine to operate as effectively; but then comes in the inevitable Diego Garcia argument (which is fine) but I think or hope that Iran has produced a yet to be unveiled BM that reach Diego Garcia reliably enough to destroy key installations there which in this case would be reliant on just how many Ballistic Missiles Iran has produced overall. Dubious at best i know, but still I hope this is the case. As Diego Garcia will be where America stages its B52s to launch massive air-strikes against any important Iranian target.

The subject of just how many missiles Iran has (the important ones) has been somewhat a point of contention for many on here. My own personal 'feeling', if you will, is that Iran sits on around ~5,000 - 8,000 missiles of various makes and types. But for a more conservative estimate, we can say 3,000 - 4,000. This is still an insanely high number given the mission these missiles will be carrying out. IRGC BM strategy will not target solely military targets, as it's beyond clear that Iran intends to dismantle regional attacking nations and deprive them of their ability to function as a country if the conflict gets to that stage. Destruction of power-stations, water desalination plants, ports, oil-refineries (nuclear option essentially) and the like will be under consideration and for smaller nation or puppet nations that rely heavily on imports and water. This sort of action imposes a heavy cost and certainly adds to the reason why Iran hasn't had a war waged on it in as of yet.



Your understanding of this is correct, if Iran's TEL fleet is indeed massive and many of the vehicles are disguised as civilian or are decoys. Then any action the opposing force takes to mitigate/neutralize this threat will have little effect during the opening stages of a conflict.

Even the cost of these missiles is not too high, over 20 years I don't see why Iran cannot have at least 5000 missiles, even 10,000 missiles at $200,000 (which is high imo) is a 2billion dollar investment (assuming liquid fuel). In 20 years this is not considered alot of money. The only constraint could be the lack of engines/parts to build them, otherwise it should be achievable.

 

[EvilWesteners]

If I may comment and ask a question about a particular aspect of your assessment (with all respect I owe and effectively have for you, of course): let's assume, as you say, that the enemy is meanwhile well informed about the numbers of Iranians ballistic missiles, as well as the launch methods and locations of dedicated missile facilities etc. However, aren't fighter jets, by their very essence, easier to locate in case of a war - unless of course Iran intends to bury them in the sand like Saddam did in 1990, instead of actually putting them to use against the aggressor? Because static air bases - precondition for the deployment of an air force, are surely as easy to detect for the enemy, as underground missile bases or storage facilities, aren't they?

In which case we'd be forced to conclude that considerable investment in upgrading the air force will offer no advantage over ballistic missiles as far as its survivability against enemy strikes is concerned. Is there not sort of a logical issue in postulating that because the enemy has improved its data on the numbers and on the locations of facilities related to Iran's BM power, the solution to this would reside in complementing these missiles with a jazzed up air force, air force which will depend on air bases that are, by definition, even easier for the enemy to identify...?

Naturally, when it comes to how well they really are informed about Iran's BM arsenal, I for one can't do anything but guesswork. If I was to give my opinion, I'd believe they're still groping in the dark to some extent and that they'd still be met by a number of surprises in case of a war. This being Iran's top strategic deterrence asset, I can imagine it will also enjoy top priority in terms of how well classified information pertaining to it will be protected. The IRGC should be capable of shielding at least some of its most prized secrets from the preying eyes of Iran's enemies and of assorted local traitors and spies, given that it will concentrate its very best capability on hermetically sealing any and all forms of undesired access to said data.

That said, even if the enemy's situational awareness about numbers and locations of missile-related facilities has grown significant, I would also wager that Iran will have deliberately spread out up to individual missiles across her 1.6 million square kilometers of territory, rather than massing them all inside a limited number of storage facilities. This, paired with a huge number of decoys should go a long way in making it much more difficult for potential aggressors.

As for Iran's buried container launchers, provided they are truly spread out and placed at a great distance one from each other, then even if their locations were known to the enemy, how is it going to effectively strike them all?

Finally, what about Iran's road mobile TEL's? If Iran did the right thing and manufactured not thousands but well over ten thousand of them, along with several times that number of decoys, to my understanding there's little the enemy could do to neutralize these assets. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'd be surprised if they were able to track and monitor at all times and all over Iran's mountainous terrain, say 20.000 TEL vehicles made to look like ordinary civilian trucks, in addition to successfully distinguishing these from some 80.000 decoys for example... Is it not?

Many thanks again for your thought provoking and insightful contributions.

So many great points you made my friend, but let me start by mentioning a few of these great points before I try to give you my opinion regarding your question:

- "aren't fighter jets, by their very essence, easier to locate in case of a war"
- "static air bases, of an air force, are surely as easy to detect for the enemy, as underground missile base"
- " IRGC should be capable of shielding at least some of its most prized secrets from the preying eyes of Iran's enemies and of assorted local traitors and spies"
- "Iran's road mobile TEL's"
- "successfully distinguishing these from some 80.000 decoys"


The only way for Iran to "win" a military conventional conflict with U.S. is to achieve some strikes against U.S. and everything go back to status quo, as it is now. I think we all know that and recognize it. Iran cannot "WIN" an all out conventional war with U.S. if winning is in terms of defeating U.S. with "weapons" of war, absent of asymmetrical accomplishments (e.g. Vietnam's success against U.S.).

What Iran CAN do is to make the COST so high, that first the U.S. would resist a conflict, and then further, if it reaches the calculus that the Pentagon COST-BENEFIT-STRATEGIC-ACHIEVEMENT is a win for U.S., then they will initiate war with a strike against Iran.

Iran's greatest weapons, (which U.S. and its European Allies are petrified of) if these can be called that:

- retaliate with an attack against oil fields in PG and in particular the two oil pipelines in UAE and SA
- retaliate with an attack against shipping in PG which will cost the global economy as much as 1% decline
- retaliate with a constant tit-for-tat that does not end
- A conflict that lasts longer than 30 days or so
- A conflict that involves Suez Canal (BM strikes) or other strategic areas

Now to your question:

Iran needs to SPREAD U.S. THIN ... which is the first thing U.S. will try to do with Iran

If Iran can hit even 20 ships with F4E launched anti ship missiles, then U.S. is going to be in FOOTLOCKER PAIN, and will avoid that at all costs.

Let's hope U.S. will indeed go after all of Iran's AF runways and AF assets, NOW that leaves Iran's BM and CM to do REAL damage, in the 24 hours after the war. Operating a war by U.S. is so incredibly expensive. Let's use that against them.

At university, during my post grad, my final thesis, was DATA PACKET SWITCHING PROTOCOLS FOR SATELITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS and this is a few decades ago.

Today, U.S. knows about 30 min before Iran launches its MOST POTENT BMs, and that gives them some degree of planning. I rather if they have NO chance in planning a protective measure.

Strategically, a second rate air force that can do 1000 sorties per day, (new planes) would make U.S. DEVOTE so much assets for its own protection (ships and other assets in the Arab countries) that FIRST Iran will achieve a great degree of deterrence, and SECOND in case deterrence fails, and war is started, the RESULTS will force U.S. to end it fast, and not ignore the economic COSTS that will affect the entire planet.

One of Iran's GREATEST assets TODAY, is that ... it DOES NOT HAVE A LOT TO LOSE (materially).

that is not the case with UAE/SA/ISRAEL/KUWAIT/JORDAN/Europe etc.

Deterrence SHOULD be Iran's goal number one. War is a loss, no matter how to look at it.

Iran's stronger air force, will allow Iran to DO MORE to fight for its rights and take what rightfully belongs to it, from its neighbors.

p.s.

I have so much respect for the pieces you write. They are excellent. Educated me so much, in areas I knew nothing about. Thank you.

 

[Stryker1982]

So many great points you made my friend, but let me start by mentioning a few of these great points before I try to give you my opinion regarding your question:

- "aren't fighter jets, by their very essence, easier to locate in case of a war"
- "static air bases, of an air force, are surely as easy to detect for the enemy, as underground missile base"
- " IRGC should be capable of shielding at least some of its most prized secrets from the preying eyes of Iran's enemies and of assorted local traitors and spies"
- "Iran's road mobile TEL's"
- "successfully distinguishing these from some 80.000 decoys"


The only way for Iran to "win" a military conventional conflict with U.S. is to achieve some strikes against U.S. and everything go back to status quo, as it is now. I think we all know that and recognize it. Iran cannot "WIN" an all out conventional war with U.S. if winning is in terms of defeating U.S. with "weapons" of war, absent of asymmetrical accomplishments (e.g. Vietnam's success against U.S.).

What Iran CAN do is to make the COST so high, that first the U.S. would resist a conflict, and then further, if it reaches the calculus that the Pentagon COST-BENEFIT-STRATEGIC-ACHIEVEMENT is a win for U.S., then they will initiate war with a strike against Iran.

Iran's greatest weapons, (which U.S. and its European Allies are petrified of) if these can be called that:

- retaliate with an attack against oil fields in PG and in particular the two oil pipelines in UAE and SA
- retaliate with an attack against shipping in PG which will cost the global economy as much as 1% decline
- retaliate with a constant tit-for-tat that does not end
- A conflict that lasts longer than 30 days or so
- A conflict that involves Suez Canal (BM strikes) or other strategic areas

Now to your question:

Iran needs to SPREAD U.S. THIN ... which is the first thing U.S. will try to do with Iran

If Iran can hit even 20 ships with F4E launched anti ship missiles, then U.S. is going to be in FOOTLOCKER PAIN, and will avoid that at all costs.

Let's hope U.S. will indeed go after all of Iran's AF runways and AF assets, NOW that leaves Iran's BM and CM to do REAL damage, in the 24 hours after the war. Operating a war by U.S. is so incredibly expensive. Let's use that against them.

At university, during my post grad, my final thesis, was DATA PACKET SWITCHING PROTOCOLS FOR SATELITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS and this is a few decades ago.

Today, U.S. knows about 30 min before Iran launches its MOST POTENT BMs, and that gives them some degree of planning. I rather if they have NO chance in planning a protective measure.

Strategically, a second rate air force that can do 1000 sorties per day, (new planes) would make U.S. DEVOTE so much assets for its own protection (ships and other assets in the Arab countries) that FIRST Iran will achieve a great degree of deterrence, and SECOND in case deterrence fails, and war is started, the RESULTS will force U.S. to end it fast, and not ignore the economic COSTS that will affect the entire planet.

One of Iran's GREATEST assets TODAY, is that ... it DOES NOT HAVE A LOT TO LOSE (materially).

that is not the case with UAE/SA/ISRAEL/KUWAIT/JORDAN/Europe etc.

Deterrence SHOULD be Iran's goal number one. War is a loss, no matter how to look at it.

Iran's stronger air force, will allow Iran to DO MORE to fight for its rights and take what rightfully belongs to it, from its neighbors.

p.s.

I have so much respect for the pieces you write. They are excellent. Educated me so much, in areas I knew nothing about. Thank you.

I should add, that Defense minister Hatami was talking about a 1500km air launched LACM. It seems they are trying to add some tactical flexibility now with regards to missile usage.

No reason why an F-4E or Su-22 cannot launch missiles from stand-off safe ranges. You can launched from Isfahan with these ranges. Uzi Rubin an Israeli missile defense expert was even talking about this when Iran initially unveiled the Soumar. This should be an important capability to develop.

 

[jauk]

So many great points you made my friend, but let me start by mentioning a few of these great points before I try to give you my opinion regarding your question:

- "aren't fighter jets, by their very essence, easier to locate in case of a war"
- "static air bases, of an air force, are surely as easy to detect for the enemy, as underground missile base"
- " IRGC should be capable of shielding at least some of its most prized secrets from the preying eyes of Iran's enemies and of assorted local traitors and spies"
- "Iran's road mobile TEL's"
- "successfully distinguishing these from some 80.000 decoys"


The only way for Iran to "win" a military conventional conflict with U.S. is to achieve some strikes against U.S. and everything go back to status quo, as it is now. I think we all know that and recognize it. Iran cannot "WIN" an all out conventional war with U.S. if winning is in terms of defeating U.S. with "weapons" of war, absent of asymmetrical accomplishments (e.g. Vietnam's success against U.S.).

What Iran CAN do is to make the COST so high, that first the U.S. would resist a conflict, and then further, if it reaches the calculus that the Pentagon COST-BENEFIT-STRATEGIC-ACHIEVEMENT is a win for U.S., then they will initiate war with a strike against Iran.

Iran's greatest weapons, (which U.S. and its European Allies are petrified of) if these can be called that:

- retaliate with an attack against oil fields in PG and in particular the two oil pipelines in UAE and SA
- retaliate with an attack against shipping in PG which will cost the global economy as much as 1% decline
- retaliate with a constant tit-for-tat that does not end
- A conflict that lasts longer than 30 days or so
- A conflict that involves Suez Canal (BM strikes) or other strategic areas

Now to your question:

Iran needs to SPREAD U.S. THIN ... which is the first thing U.S. will try to do with Iran

If Iran can hit even 20 ships with F4E launched anti ship missiles, then U.S. is going to be in FOOTLOCKER PAIN, and will avoid that at all costs.

Let's hope U.S. will indeed go after all of Iran's AF runways and AF assets, NOW that leaves Iran's BM and CM to do REAL damage, in the 24 hours after the war. Operating a war by U.S. is so incredibly expensive. Let's use that against them.

At university, during my post grad, my final thesis, was DATA PACKET SWITCHING PROTOCOLS FOR SATELITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS and this is a few decades ago.

Today, U.S. knows about 30 min before Iran launches its MOST POTENT BMs, and that gives them some degree of planning. I rather if they have NO chance in planning a protective measure.

Strategically, a second rate air force that can do 1000 sorties per day, (new planes) would make U.S. DEVOTE so much assets for its own protection (ships and other assets in the Arab countries) that FIRST Iran will achieve a great degree of deterrence, and SECOND in case deterrence fails, and war is started, the RESULTS will force U.S. to end it fast, and not ignore the economic COSTS that will affect the entire planet.

One of Iran's GREATEST assets TODAY, is that ... it DOES NOT HAVE A LOT TO LOSE (materially).

that is not the case with UAE/SA/ISRAEL/KUWAIT/JORDAN/Europe etc.

Deterrence SHOULD be Iran's goal number one. War is a loss, no matter how to look at it.

Iran's stronger air force, will allow Iran to DO MORE to fight for its rights and take what rightfully belongs to it, from its neighbors.

p.s.

I have so much respect for the pieces you write. They are excellent. Educated me so much, in areas I knew nothing about. Thank you.

Excellent post my friend (I have yet to respond to your previous superb reponse to me and I will...). Meanwhile, can you elaborate more on your comment:

"...the RESULTS will force U.S. to end it fast, ..."

What options does the US have to "to end it fast, ..."?

Thanks again.

 

[Blue In Green]

Even the cost of these missiles is not too high, over 20 years I don't see why Iran cannot have at least 5000 missiles, even 10,000 missiles at $200,000 (which is high imo) is a 2billion dollar investment (assuming liquid fuel). In 20 years this is not considered alot of money. The only constraint could be the lack of engines/parts to build them, otherwise it should be achievable.

The reason why I personally think the number is lower than what many members here on PDF think it is currently, is because of logistics and practicality.

Having 10,000+ Ballistic Missiles (this is an insanely high number for any nation, even super powers) just becomes an issue when taking into consideration storage, up-keep, firing methods, moving them around and general safety when handling them. I mean could you just imagine how utterly catastrophic it would be if a base housing 100s (1,000s?) of them just went up in smoke? Terrifying to say the least for both Iran's strategic deterrence as well as personnel manned at that installation.

But then again there are perfectly legitimate reasons to believe that Iran does have 1,000s (possibly over 10k) of missiles. Case in point, the Multiple Ballistic Missile Barrage system. This form of launch for BMs is nothing short of awe-inspiring and totally brings into question just how many BMs does Iran actually have? Because you can take that system and look at the situation one of two ways.

1. There are so many missiles within Iran's stockpile and a need for them to be launched in high-numbers/quick succession that such a system needed to be implemented in order to most efficiently get them launched or.

2. The Need of such a system came from the reality that Iran (whilst having an appreciable amount of missiles) needed a fast method of getting as many BMs fired off before the counter-attack reduces remaining stockpiles even further. Quickly destroy enemy strategic/tactical assets within the beginning stages of the war and move onto Drones, proxies, cruise missiles, whatever have you.

Beh khodam-eh eghe Iran 10,000 mushakeh ballistic dashtebashad, vali nemidoonam...

 

[PeeD]

Having 10,000+ Ballistic Missiles (this is an insanely high number for any nation, even super powers) just becomes an issue when taking into consideration storage, up-keep, firing methods, moving them around and general safety when handling them. I mean could you just imagine how utterly catastrophic it would be if a base housing 100s (1,000s?) of them just went up in smoke? Terrifying to say the least for both Iran's strategic deterrence as well as personnel manned at that installation.

Two points:
Irans missiles are not expensive "get me the best there is" strategic nuclear BMs, the are designed to be cost effective weapons.

Second: The missiles in storage are mainly empty metal shells in deep tunnels, nothing can blow up. Solid fuel missile make up only a small part of Irans arsenal, they can blow up, yes.

 

[Shawnee]

Just FYI we are in dark web now
Read this:

“According to analysts who read dark-web discussions about drone design, Iran debuted a turbine engine on an unmanned platform before the U.S. government believed such an engine was within their reach.”

Sanctions Won’t Hurt Iran’s UAV Program

The Biden administration should rethink its approach—and its real goals in the region.

www.defenseone.com

US and EU law:

“visiting the Dark Web are not unlawful in themselves. It is of course illegal to carry out illegal acts anonymously, such as accessing child abuse images, promoting terrorism, or selling illegal items such as weapons.”

البته ما دیده بودیم که مقالات مختلف مثل جروسلم پست گاهی بر اساس سایت ای ام اف بوده و پی دی اف

 

[Blue In Green]

Two points:
Irans missiles are not expensive "get me the best there is" strategic nuclear BMs, the are designed to be cost effective weapons.

Second: The missiles in storage are mainly empty metal shells in deep tunnels, nothing can blow up. Solid fuel missile make up only a small part of Irans arsenal, they can blow up, yes.

Much appreciated for the clarification PeeD!!

Still though, I'm concerned about the practical logistics of it all. Are we saying that Iran produces Ballistic Missiles off an assembly line in massive quantities, ships the missiles (liquid fuel) to the storage area of the Missile base -- then when an attack is being prepared, they're taken (the empty missile) to the staging area, fueled, armed with a warhead and either put onto static launchers, TELS or the Multi-Missile barrage launch system ready for operation. If this is the case then we're operating under the assumption that Iran has made 100s of missile bases (small and large) and is employing 1,000s of TELS and has a reliable fueling system that can quickly fuel many missiles.

Is there anything I'm missing here? I'll fully defer to your expertise on this my cursory knowledge only goes so far.

 

[Stryker1982]

The reason why I personally think the number is lower than what many members here on PDF think it is currently, is because of logistics and practicality.

Having 10,000+ Ballistic Missiles (this is an insanely high number for any nation, even super powers) just becomes an issue when taking into consideration storage, up-keep, firing methods, moving them around and general safety when handling them. I mean could you just imagine how utterly catastrophic it would be if a base housing 100s (1,000s?) of them just went up in smoke? Terrifying to say the least for both Iran's strategic deterrence as well as personnel manned at that installation.

But then again there are perfectly legitimate reasons to believe that Iran does have 1,000s (possibly over 10k) of missiles. Case in point, the Multiple Ballistic Missile Barrage system. This form of launch for BMs is nothing short of awe-inspiring and totally brings into question just how many BMs does Iran actually have? Because you can take that system and look at the situation one of two ways.

1. There are so many missiles within Iran's stockpile and a need for them to be launched in high-numbers/quick succession that such a system needed to be implemented in order to most efficiently get them launched or.

2. The Need of such a system came from the reality that Iran (whilst having an appreciable amount of missiles) needed a fast method of getting as many BMs fired off before the counter-attack reduces remaining stockpiles even further. Quickly destroy enemy strategic/tactical assets within the beginning stages of the war and move onto Drones, proxies, cruise missiles, whatever have you.

Beh khodam-eh eghe Iran 10,000 mushakeh ballistic dashtebashad, vali nemidoonam...

Dear PeeD pretty much covered it.

As PeeD mentioned, It is actually quite easy for them to handle liquid fueled missile bodies, we've seen in insider footage they have them in vacuum sealed bags (long shelf life) if I am not mistaken. With how big this country is, their is alot of flexibility in how/where to store them. Perhaps we have underground bases, specifically made for missile storage, where we do not have to create silos and launch methods for them. Missiles are deployed on TELs and removed/transported. I'm just guessing here, but not every underground base needs to be a large launch pad as well. It's definitely cumbersome, but when you cannot easily deploy a capable airforce to mix capabilities, we have a necessity to have alot of missiles.

As you mentioned launch volume is an issue, but we can see they have been addressing this issue with the newer launch method for liquid fuel missiles (rail). Aside from launch volume, my main concern is sustainability. If an enemy wishes to impose conflict on Iran, how long can we sustain a rate of fire before running out? That is the main concern. We would need a lot to impose punishing costs on the enemy for trying to sustain the conflict or wage attrition warfare. Conflict must be quick and devastating.

Much appreciated for the clarification PeeD!!

Still though, I'm concerned about the practical logistics of it all. Are we saying that Iran produces Ballistic Missiles off an assembly line in massive quantities, ships the missiles (liquid fuel) to the storage area of the Missile base -- then when an attack is being prepared, they're taken (the empty missile) to the staging area, fueled, armed with a warhead and either put onto static launchers, TELS or the Multi-Missile barrage launch system ready for operation. If this is the case then we're operating under the assumption that Iran has made 100s of missile bases (small and large) and is employing 1,000s of TELS and has a reliable fueling system that can quickly fuel many missiles.

Is there anything I'm missing here? I'll fully defer to your expertise on this my cursory knowledge only goes so far.

I think this is basically it, theirs a whole process to this work and it does take time unfortunately

But the work done on solid fuels allows for rapid responses to attack, while the liquid fueled teams are preparing to churn the missile machine.

I'm sure they've already done the calculation as to theoretically, what would be the volume of fire they can achieve, and work to optimize it to an appropriate level. Albeit, I'd imagine they'd be launched in massive salvos than a sustained rate over a period of time. 500 simultaneous "shock & awe". Mix of guided and unguided.

I mean really, how much does Ghadir cost. The body is high strength steel, it's nothing crazy, the rocket fuel is cheap, the engines are not particularly sophisticated like the Khorramshahr. Their is no cutting edge tech involved, the major cost being upgrading guidance. PeeD would probably know more about that, if their is no constraints as to parts production, it hard to imagine that Sepah would not be able to afford this investment over 10 years time. They are quite wealthy. The biggest problem they might have is too many! They don't know how to best utilize them lol

 

[EvilWesteners]

I should add, that Defense minister Hatami was talking about a 1500km air launched LACM. It seems they are trying to add some tactical flexibility now with regards to missile usage.

No reason why an F-4E or Su-22 cannot launch missiles from stand-off safe ranges. You can launched from Isfahan with these ranges. Uzi Rubin an Israeli missile defense expert was even talking about this when Iran initially unveiled the Soumar. This should be an important capability to develop.

Excellent point you make here. That is what I was referring to.

If Iran can build AL21 engines, and it can have 200+ Su-22 which are very old technology and should be easy for Iran to reverse engineer, now it has a light aircraft that can LAND on most of Iran's highways which are made on top of rock and are strong, can therefore refuel and rearm, and don't need Air Base, NOW potential adversaries at war have a huge challenge on their hands.

Or,

As per one of my previous post with PeeD, if Iran can build 200+ F5E with more powerful engines (weight the same), now F5E can carry air launch CM, or carry Fakour missiles, and once again as above paragraph, land on highways, refuel, and pose a great challenge.

Great point. Thanks.

 

[aryobarzan]

Excellent point you make here. That is what I was referring to.

If Iran can build AL21 engines, and it can have 200+ Su-22 which are very old technology and should be easy for Iran to reverse engineer, now it has a light aircraft that can LAND on most of Iran's highways which are made on top of rock and are strong, can therefore refuel and rearm, and don't need Air Base, NOW potential adversaries at war have a huge challenge on their hands.

Or,

As per one of my previous post with PeeD, if Iran can build 200+ F5E with more powerful engines (weight the same), now F5E can carry air launch CM, or carry Fakour missiles, and once again as above paragraph, land on highways, refuel, and pose a great challenge.

Great point. Thanks.

Now that we are at it...I will add to that a fleet of fateh class subs ( 20 ++) with AIP propulsion and capable of firing cruise missiles and the party will be in full swing..lol never forget the subs...just the mention of sub makes the enemy dedicate huge resources to know where they are..

 

[Stryker1982]

Now that we are at it...I will add to that a fleet of fateh class subs ( 20 ++) with AIP propulsion and capable of firing cruise missiles and the party will be in full swing..lol never forget the subs...just the mention of sub makes the enemy dedicate huge resources to know where they are..

Excellent point you make here. That is what I was referring to.

If Iran can build AL21 engines, and it can have 200+ Su-22 which are very old technology and should be easy for Iran to reverse engineer, now it has a light aircraft that can LAND on most of Iran's highways which are made on top of rock and are strong, can therefore refuel and rearm, and don't need Air Base, NOW potential adversaries at war have a huge challenge on their hands.

Or,

As per one of my previous post with PeeD, if Iran can build 200+ F5E with more powerful engines (weight the same), now F5E can carry air launch CM, or carry Fakour missiles, and once again as above paragraph, land on highways, refuel, and pose a great challenge.

Great point. Thanks.

Their are just too many things that need doing!

 

[EvilWesteners]

Excellent post my friend (I have yet to respond to your previous superb reponse to me and I will...). Meanwhile, can you elaborate more on your comment:

"...the RESULTS will force U.S. to end it fast, ..."

What options does the US have to "to end it fast, ..."?

Thanks again.

Thank you Jauk for your kind words. I have so much respect for most of the wonderful people here in Iran section of this forum.

What do I mean with "...the RESULTS will force U.S. to end it fast, ..." ?

U.S. is in a position of a super power, and currently the most economically powerful super power that controls the entire global structure in ways that really count. Hence why they manage to make sanctions against Iran work, even with Iranian so-called friends.

U.S. State Dept and also Pentagon, have many strategists and they think 10 steps ahead. In their conclusion, Iran is a very significant country, it has people that have a lot of pride in their country and their nationalism, huge population, huge resources, and it is a country that fought Roman Empire (Persian Roman wars), for about 700 years. Millions poured into the streets for General Sulleimani funeral. U.S. recognizes Iran's real strength and would like to be friends with Iran one day, although if you read Balfour Doctrine which was the British & French attempt to please the Jews in U.S. to get the U.S. to join the war against the Axis of WW1 or in particular the Ottoman Empire, it becomes quite apparent that Jews/zionists in U.S. truly control U.S. foreign policies unproportionally, compared to others. Just look back and tell me how many U.S. sectretary of States were Jewish or zionist in the last 75 years: Shultz, Albright, Blinken, ... etc.

Jews control U.S. foreign policies for decades now.

If U.S. gets entangled into a war with Iran, it will need a way OUT, quickly, as in the case of 1988, or with Iran's shooting down the U.S. drone.

U.S. does not want and ongoing war with Iran. Iran is at a point where it can hurt U.S. global control and economic structure serving it.

Additionally, U.S. does not want to tangle with a country that will fight it for decades, and it knows Iran is a fighter, not a quitter like SA or Libya. Iran also has lots of allies. It has also proven that it can use drones/UAV and BM to completely destroy SA/UAE. These are not outcomes that U.S. would want.

If Iran can damage enough of the global economic growth, U.S. would want Iran to have a way out as quickly as possible and end the conflict. They are also weary that Iran CAN BUILD a nuclear weapon if pushed.

A formidable RESULT in the first few days of a conflict with U,S., and it will want a QUICK end to conflict with Iran.

Now that we are at it...I will add to that a fleet of fateh class subs ( 20 ++) with AIP propulsion and capable of firing cruise missiles and the party will be in full swing..lol never forget the subs...just the mention of sub makes the enemy dedicate huge resources to know where they are..

Excellent point.

This is very true. U.S. paid $5m consulting fee to Sweden to help it plan a strategic defence against Iran's subs in shallow water in 2003. Sweden is one of the best sub strategists for naval warfare in the world. U.S. is very concerned with Iran's shallow water subs.

 

[EvilWesteners]

Their are just too many things that need doing!

Yes. Together they overwhelm the war planners and they offer a sensible alternative to war. War is just a negotiation strategy. That's all.

One of the longest advocates of war with Iran (although he masks it well, smart guy of course), is Karim Sadjadpour at Carnegie Endowment for International "PEACE". He shuttles back and forth to Israel on a private jet bombardier run by CIA office in Madrid, with a single goal to find ways to convince U.S. that ... WAR WITH IRAN IS PEACE LONG TERM.

Diversifying Iran's multi approach and multi tier defensive and offensive assets and strengths make people like Karim weaker in their overall ARGUMENT as military planners will repel back and define and offer the COST OF WAR.

Two points:
Irans missiles are not expensive "get me the best there is" strategic nuclear BMs, the are designed to be cost effective weapons.

Second: The missiles in storage are mainly empty metal shells in deep tunnels, nothing can blow up. Solid fuel missile make up only a small part of Irans arsenal, they can blow up, yes.

100% true. Iran has proven that BM that are cost effective is a significant AF replacement, if it is FORCED upon a nation by super powers. However, Iran cannot sit on its hands and end here. It needs to take advantage of this strength and add other COST EFFECTIVE yet deadly defensive capabilities which its adversaries DREAD. They don't need to be expensive, they do have to be EFFECTIVE in its simplicity offering both deterrence and an a REAL strategic value during the first few days of war.

 

[SalarHaqq]

I think I'll chime in a little bit with the limited knowledge I know on this.

Nice post, and I do agree with your analysis. Perhaps with the incremental exception of a few details, which do not affect your conclusions. Now I haven't read subsequent posts in detail yet, including EvilWestener's comprehensive reply, so some of what I will now write might turn out to be redundant - forgive me if this is the case.

If there were to be a strike on an IRGC aerospace forces missile farms and BM bases, then they'd have to use cost effective weaponry depending on the stage of freedom of operation/movement they're in during the conflict.

If it's the opening stages of a conflict: Ideally America would want to penetrate Irans IAD network using their most sophisticated planes (F22, F35, B2s etc..), firing from subs and destroyers, launching concise strikes utilizing tactical level nukes in order to pacify the larger bases as well as strike the general area of the missile farms in order to take out as many missiles as they can.

About the missile farms: I'm asking myself why should Iran configure its buried container-based BM launchers in large clusters to start with? If a minimum distance of 500 meters or more is kept between each buried container, and if there are many thousands of these (plus ten times that amount of decoys), then even nuclear devices will not be of any help to the aggressor. Also I don't know to what extent nuclear weapons other than dedicated nuclear-tipped bunker busters cause damage underground.

As for which stage of a hypothetical conflict I was contemplating, essentially the opening stage, yes. My reflection is mostly centered on what's needed for Iran to effectively deter any and all realistic possibility of a major aggression by her enemies.

but then comes in the inevitable Diego Garcia argument (which is fine) but I think or hope that Iran has produced a yet to be unveiled BM that reach Diego Garcia reliably enough to destroy key installations there which in this case would be reliant on just how many Ballistic Missiles Iran has produced overall. Dubious at best i know, but still I hope this is the case. As Diego Garcia will be where America stages its B52s to launch massive air-strikes against any important Iranian target.

(Much) greater distance to fly = more fuel needed thus potentially decreased weapons payload, smaller sortie rates, increased financial mission costs etc. They cannot easily replicate the same type of a massive operation out of Diego Garcia and/or aircraft carriers stationed afar.

The subject of just how many missiles Iran has (the important ones) has been somewhat a point of contention for many on here. My own personal 'feeling', if you will, is that Iran sits on around ~5,000 - 8,000 missiles of various makes and types. But for a more conservative estimate, we can say 3,000 - 4,000.

This is where I would - respectfully - differ most, if I may.

Like I wrote in the Chill Thread, it wouldn't be a surprise nor a stretch by any means if Iran possessed 20.000, 50.000 or even 80.000 operational ballistic missiles.

Why? Because after all, these are being produced since around 1987, that is nearly 34 years now... And ever since, Iran's official yearly defence budget has revolved at around 10 to 15 billion USD. I don't know what percentage of this has gone to procurement of new weaponry, but in EU countries, the figure in 2019 stood at some 23%, while it reached no less than 29% in the USA. India allocated nearly 28% of its 2020 defence budget to new procurements.

So even if we suppose Iran channeled only 10% of its military spending toward producing or purchasing additional arms, that's more than a billion USD on average per year since 1987. We know how little Iran bought from foreign suppliers since the Revolution. And we know that the bulk of Iran's defence investments have first and foremost gone into ballistic missiles, followed by air defence and UAV's (both R&D, setting up of mass-production facilities, bases, and manufacturing of missiles).

At a price tag not exceeding some 200.000 USD - but let's take a more conservative estimate and assume it's closer to 300.000 USD apiece, even a mere 300 million USD spent each year on these weapons, would have given Iran one thousand missiles per year. Multiply this by 34 and you're beginning to get the picture (we arrive at a total of 34.000 ballistic missiles already!)...

Notice that this is without counting in other sources of revenue that the IRGC might have partly employed to fund missile production, such as possible profits stemming from its economic activities.

So once again, we must logically conclude that Iran's BM arsenal is so massive that there are strictly no worries to have as to Iran's overwhelming deterrence power against a major attack, including against an impressive force such as the US plus its entire host of both western and regional allies.

The "estimates" of Iranian BM numbers announced by US authorities in public represent nothing more than propaganda and psy-ops, aimed not only at Iranian audiences but also and mostly at their own, including their armed forces personnel, who, should they learn the real extent of Iran's deadly missile arsenal, would see their morale take a serious hit in any contingency scenario in which a large scale war against Iran should actually break out.

If this is the case then we're operating under the assumption that Iran has made 100s of missile bases (small and large) and is employing 1,000s of TELS and has a reliable fueling system that can quickly fuel many missiles.

Hundreds of missile bases I don't know, but tens there definitely are.

As for (tens of) thousands of TEL's along with a reliable fueling system, it sounds amply feasible to me. Wouldn't you concur?