Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[skyshadow]

موشک صاعقه

 

[skyshadow]

Hi my friends, I have a video about the Khoramshahr missile, and it says inside the video that one missile and three targets. Pointing that it has 3 warheads But this site does not allow me to upload.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Hi my friends, I have a video about the Khoramshahr missile, and it says inside the video that one missile and three targets. Pointing that it has 3 warheads But this site does not allow me to upload.

https://streamable.com/

 

[yavar]

Iran IRGC chief Gen. Jafari: US sanctions will increase our missiles range سرلشکر جعفری برد بیشتر

 

[yavar]

 

[mohsen]

first unsuccessful test of solid fuel rocket "Nazeat", about 3 decade ago:
تست راکت نازعات

 

[AmirPatriot]

@PeeD do you think Khorramshahr could be an effort to increase the payload-cost ratio of Iranian SSMs? Would you think a single Khorramshahr+TEL costs more or less than 3 Qadr MRBMs with 3 TELs?

 

[PeeD]

Of course it is, plus it decreases TEL lenght to even more resemble a civilan truck.

It could even use a full bus system for 3 non-submunition warheads plus an advanced guidance system and still be cheaper than 3 Ghadr.

A good long lifetime workhorse for orbital bombardment.
A larger RD-250 based missile would approach the civilian size restrictions but still a possibility for something even better than the Khorramshahr.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Iran's Military Posture Needs An Update

By Amir Saturday, November 18, 2017
For decades, Iran's military has been geared towards countering 2 enemies - the US, and Israel. Against Israel, a large ballistic missile arsenal, coupled with a powerful Hezbollah deters Israel from aggression. Against the US, an asymmetric military designed to inflict politically unacceptable losses, while slowing down any invasion or even occupation.

This approach has been limited in some aspects, but recent changes in threats have highlighted these limitations. The most obvious new threat is, of course, a belligerent and rapidly militarising Saudi Arabia.


THAAD

Read the full blog post at the link below:

https://irangeomil.blogspot.com/2017/11/irans-military-posture-needs-update.html

 

[VEVAK]

Iran's Military Posture Needs An Update

By Amir Saturday, November 18, 2017
For decades, Iran's military has been geared towards countering 2 enemies - the US, and Israel. Against Israel, a large ballistic missile arsenal, coupled with a powerful Hezbollah deters Israel from aggression. Against the US, an asymmetric military designed to inflict politically unacceptable losses, while slowing down any invasion or even occupation.

This approach has been limited in some aspects, but recent changes in threats have highlighted these limitations. The most obvious new threat is, of course, a belligerent and rapidly militarising Saudi Arabia.


THAAD

Read the full blog post at the link below:

https://irangeomil.blogspot.com/2017/11/irans-military-posture-needs-update.html

1.The article makes wrong assumptions about cruise missiles!
The reason the U.S. chose Cruise Missiles is mainly due to weight, size, range (comparatively), footprint....

Pershing-2 Missile came in at 7.5 tones vs Tomahawk 1.3 tones also the diameter of a Pershing launcher would be much greater, launching them off ships much more difficult and an advanced country could potentially calculate the potential radius of the launch site of the BM! So at the end of the day you can launch more cruise missiles using your missile cruisers warship with a smaller footprint & they are much safer to store & launch!

BUT, Cruise Missiles have "always" been easier to intercept! Both in the past and today! & yes Iran should increase production of LACM but not as a replacement!

Saudi's spent $15 Billion USD on the THAAD for seven fire units each with a Raytheon AN/TPY-2 radar, two mobile tactical stations (with two spares for a total of 16), and six launchers (with two spares for a total of 44), 360 interceptor missiles!


2.Best option for Iran is to increase funding for weapons production & R&D to ~$21 Billion USD per year which will allow you to focus on various aspects of your military & create jobs in various fields BUT If you can't or refuse to do that at the very least they need to increase spending from the current $6B per year to $12 Billion and focus on increased spending on 4 main fields

1.$1.5 Billion for Air Superiority fighter production or procurement on a yearly bases
2.$1.5 Billion Increase on BM and LACM production (on top of what your spending today)
3.$1.5 Billion USD Increase on Air Defense equipment
4.$1.5 Billion USD Increase on remote controlled and autonomous systems of various types UAV, UCAV, UGV,...

3.Author makes another false assumption that you can somehow fight a humane war with Saudi Arabia where you have the luxury of only targeting the Saudi Military!
Look at what the Saudi's are doing in Yemen, even with a major military supremacy and full air superiority they are not focused on Yemen's military & military targets only!

In a war with Saudi Arabia Iran will have to focus on Power plants, Oil Facilities, Refineries, pipelines, Naval Ports, food, water & fuel depots, the Saudi Royal family and it's assets, telecommunication & various other targets that are NOT military targets!

If Iran wastes it's missiles on focusing on Saudi Air Force bases they'll need at least 100 direct hits on each Air Force base that's 1000 direct hits for 10 bases (You'll need 1000's of missiles to get 1000 direct hits) just to take out 10 base's with no guarantee that there were fighters on the ground at those bases at the time your missiles hit! So it's a waist of time and resources and I'm not saying you don't target them, you just can't afford to focus on them using your missiles!

 

[AmirPatriot]

Author

I'm the author. You can use direct terms.

The reason the U.S. chose Cruise Missiles is mainly due to weight, size, range (comparatively), footprint....

Pershing-2 Missile came in at 7.5 tones vs Tomahawk 1.3 tones also the diameter of a Pershing launcher would be much greater, launching them off ships much more difficult and an advanced country could potentially calculate the potential radius of the launch site of the BM! So at the end of the day you can launch more cruise missiles using your missile cruisers warship with a smaller footprint & they are much safer to store & launch!

Those are very good reasons, but my reasons are correct as well, and I think you are missing the point. I was more talking about why cruise missiles are used over air power, and that is for the reasons I gave. BMs are far more sensitive because they are, with major powers, thought of almost exclusively as nuclear delivery platforms. Hence the multitude of treaties on BM arms control.

I think I should have added this, but a big reason why Iran should include cruise missiles in its forces is that it diversifies the threat the Saudis have to neutralise, making it harder for them to do so.

BUT, Cruise Missiles have "always" been easier to intercept! Both in the past and today! & yes Iran should increase production of LACM but not as a replacement!

I agree, but I didn't say otherwise.

2.Best option for Iran is to increase funding for weapons production & R&D to ~$21 Billion USD per year which will allow you to focus on various aspects of your military & create jobs in various fields BUT If you can't or refuse to do that at the very least they need to increase spending from the current $6B per year to $12 Billion and focus on increased spending on 4 main fields

1.$1.5 Billion for Air Superiority fighter production or procurement on a yearly bases
2.$1.5 Billion Increase on BM and LACM production (on top of what your spending today)
3.$1.5 Billion USD Increase on Air Defense equipment
4.$1.5 Billion USD Increase on remote controlled and autonomous systems of various types UAV, UCAV, UGV,...

Tooooo many numberrrrrrrs

3.Author makes another false assumption that you can somehow fight a humane war with Saudi Arabia where you have the luxury of only targeting the Saudi Military!
Look at what the Saudi's are doing in Yemen, even with a major military supremacy and full air superiority they are not focused on Yemen's military & military targets only!

In a war with Saudi Arabia Iran will have to focus on Power plants, Oil Facilities, Refineries, pipelines, Naval Ports, food, water & fuel depots, the Saudi Royal family and it's assets, telecommunication & various other targets that are NOT military targets!

Saudi Arabia is not Yemen. We cannot do whatever we like without escalating beyond what we can.

There is a concept called escalation dominance. Whatever force has the most raw military power, has escalation dominance. If your enemy has escalation dominance, you don't. So you can't escalate without serious repercussions, whereas they can. The Saudis by themselves don't have escalation dominance, but with the backing of the US, they do. Suppose some sort of conflict flares up and Saudi sinks a major Iranian naval vessel, or bombs a major airbase (however unlikely, bear with me, its a scenario). What do you suppose we do, with the US towering behind Saudi? Shoot missiles at Riyadh? Jeddah? Damman? That's just asking for the world to hate you, and they'd probably be fair in doing so. Also, that's just asking for the US to join in the war. So you don't escalate. You sink some major Saudi naval vessels, or decimate a Saudi military airbase.

If the Saudis, however, bomb oil production facilities in Ahvaz... BYE BYE DHAHRAN.

 

[VEVAK]

I'm the author. You can use direct terms.



Those are very good reasons, but my reasons are correct as well, and I think you are missing the point. I was more talking about why cruise missiles are used over air power, and that is for the reasons I gave. BMs are far more sensitive because they are, with major powers, thought of almost exclusively as nuclear delivery platforms. Hence the multitude of treaties on BM arms control.

I think I should have added this, but a big reason why Iran should include cruise missiles in its forces is that it diversifies the threat the Saudis have to neutralise, making it harder for them to do so.



Saudi Arabia is not Yemen. We cannot do whatever we like without escalating beyond what we can.

There is a concept called escalation dominance. Whatever force has the most raw military power, has escalation dominance. If your enemy has escalation dominance, you don't. So you can't escalate without serious repercussions, whereas they can. The Saudis by themselves don't have escalation dominance, but with the backing of the US, they do. Suppose some sort of conflict flares up and Saudi sinks a major Iranian naval vessel, or bombs a major airbase (however unlikely, bear with me, its a scenario). What do you suppose we do, with the US towering behind Saudi? Shoot missiles at Riyadh? Jeddah? Damman? That's just asking for the world to hate you, and they'd probably be fair in doing so. Also, that's just asking for the US to join in the war. So you don't escalate. You sink some major Saudi naval vessels, or decimate a Saudi military airbase.

If the Saudis, however, bomb oil production facilities in Ahvaz... BYE BYE DHAHRAN.

Neither Cruise Missiles or Ballistic Missiles will be able to replace Air Power! Harden Targets, Carpet Bombings, Air Defense (Escort, intercept,....)
To top that off within the next 20 years continued advancements of directed energy weapons & countermeasures will further increase the need for an advanced Air Force So Iran needs to start planning for that as well!

And the reason Ballistic Missiles pushes buttons globally has NOTHING to do with NUKES it is because they are hard to intercept & allow for little warning to scramble your air force!

As for Iran's retaliation, your talking cities! Iran is not going to target cities! It's absurd and a waist of missiles!

If Saudi's target an Iranian Airbase & Sinks an Iranian Naval vessel I would say Iran should "at the very least" respond by

1. Hitting 1 Major Saudi refinery or Oil facility (within 700km regardless of what city it's in with 1-2 direct hits at least)
2. Hitting 1 Saudi Power plant (1 direct hit)
2. Targeting Saudi flagged warships with Subs (Preferably outside the Persian Gulf if possible)
3. Drop a few missiles on a Saudi Air Force bases (within 700km) NO MORE than 20 Missiles
4. Dropping a Missile on the Crown Princes mansion (one of his houses within 700km with one direct hit)
5. Dropping 1 missile with cluster warheads on a Saudi Naval Port off the Red Sea but NOT near or around Jaddeh or Mekka

And if the Saudi's don't get the message 1st time around you have to go in for a shock and awe mass missile strikes!

What Iran CAN'T do in such a scenario is restrict it's response to a Saudi Air Force base unless YOU'R 99% positive that you can take out at least 50 or more of their fighters & a few support aircraft in response with under 100 missiles(-800km)!

Fact is people that don't like Iran will dislike Iran regardless of what Iran does or doesn't do! And same goes for Saudi Arabia!
Iran's response will need to be decisive & not restrictive to make a point particularly to the UAE leaders!

And what part of Saudi behavior makes you think they are rational thinking people? If they start a war by attacking an Iranian vessel & an Iranian Air Force base is all the prof you need that they don't think rationally! And it's they who started the war NOT us in your scenario!

The escalation scenario your talking about can only be a factor in border skirmishes with attacks only in and around the boarder area & not against major military bases like an Air Force base!
Hitting an Air Force base is a declaration of full scale war not some small skirmish that could lead to war!

U.S. bombed Iraq on a yearly bases between 92-2002 and it didn't much matter that Iraq didn't escalate so unless you wanna site back and watch them take you down piece by piece then you have to respond decisively!

And in a war between Iran & Saudi Arabia I would say the U.S. would like to see Saudi facilities hit and destroyed the more damage Iran make the more money they make!

A long drawn out war with tit for tat strikes allows the U.S. to come in at the end and finish it towards Saudi Favor but a quick decisive blow by Iran with a Shock and awe mass missile attack could prompted peace talks to end the conflict, the U.S. would be happy because they'll get a bunch of contracts to rebuild Saudi Arabia, you can change Saudi leadership since the crown price has already made plenty of enemies at home & U.S. can take Saudi money without giving them weapons which will also make Israel happy as well because Iran's lost a good potion of it's missile stockpile & Saudi's won't be rearming anytime soon!

 

[N_Al40]

In the event of a Saudi-Iranian war/skirmish breaking out, Iran will (and has subtly hinted, I'll elaborate later) have to strike multiple high-value targets at once, from the West to the East coast of Saudi Arabia. High-value targets will naturally include Saudi Military bases (air force and radar installations in particular), Oil refineries, and Critical Infrastructure assets that form the life-line for the Saudi State.

Air force bases being neutralized within the high intensity phase of the war will alleviate a significant risk to Iran, as that is Saudi Arabia's main means of attacking Iran. However, in order to achieve maximum damage, the radar installations of the PAC-2, PAC-3, and THAAD systems must be destroyed to allow safe passage for our BMs and CMs. With the radars that detect and target our offensive capabilities gone, the launchers of the mentioned air defense systems will be mere decorations.

Furthermore, oil refineries and ports (Ras Tanura, Dhahran, Abqaiq, Yanbu, Jeddah) must be dealt heavy damage to make them out of use, if not destroyed completely, to stem their revenue and thus inhibit to whatever degree possible their military spending on resupplying their army, ordering maintenance of their arms, and the possible reconstruction of damages military sites. Though this is only to be considered if the hypothetical war stretches out for a long enough period of time to allow for such arms deliveries and maintenance/repairs to be carried; which I view as highly unlikely.

Moreover, with regards to critical infrastructure, they must be targeted to demoralize the Saudi populace. This isn't because I have some hatred or vengeance towards them or anything at all, in fact I warmly embrace people regardless of where their from or the political stances they hold, even though I may disagree with their respective government policies (in the case of Saudi, I very much do). But back to the main point; from my observations, and from analysts and journalist who cover Saudi politically, specifically looking at how popular the current Saudi policies are towards Iran with the Saudi populace; it is strikingly clear that they blindly, without second thought believe Iran to be public enemy no. 1, view Iran as a threat, don't mind confronting Iran militarily, and above all, have the hubris to think that a war with IRI can be won by them because they have Uncle Sam's watered down toys at their disposal.
It represents a dangerous level of ignorance and arrogance among the Saudi people. This links back to the main point about targeting Critical Infrastructure assets (CIAs), such as the desalination plant in Jeddah, power plants, their electricity grid, to name a few. This should break the will of the Saudi's to fight for their country. A nation of brainwashed people who underestimate a potential adversary, will line up to fight IRI in the tens of thousands, only prolonging the conflict. By hitting CIAs, the Saudi populace will quickly come to the conclusion that a war with IRI isn't worth it and is significantly impacting their livelihoods. It is said that if the Jeddah desalination plant is destroyed, the city will run out of water in just 11 days. Who would want to fight then?

Finally, going back to the point in the first paragraph about Iran striking multiple targets at once: I saw this documentary on IRIB (available on Youtube) about Iran's missile silos, the commander of one of the silos said the following "All the missiles in our silos have predetermined targets, with the press of the launch button, they will immediately go to strike their intended targets". Combine this with the fact that Iran has mobile BMs on TELs, and its safe to assume that multiple targets, across different sectors of the Saudi Nation will be targeted at one, complicating their efforts to defend from IRI's BMs and CMs.

 

[yavar]

 

[AmirPatriot]

Neither Cruise Missiles or Ballistic Missiles will be able to replace Air Power! Harden Targets, Carpet Bombings, Air Defense (Escort, intercept,....)

The sky is blue, the earth is round, rain is wet etc.

And the reason Ballistic Missiles pushes buttons globally has NOTHING to do with NUKES it is because they are hard to intercept & allow for little warning to scramble your air force!

Read up a bit on cold war arms control treaties in relation to ballistic missiles and then come and tell me how much they are/aren't related to nuclear weapons.

If Saudi's target an Iranian Airbase & Sinks an Iranian Naval vessel I would say Iran should "at the very least" respond by

1. Hitting 1 Major Saudi refinery or Oil facility (within 700km regardless of what city it's in with 1-2 direct hits at least)
2. Hitting 1 Saudi Power plant (1 direct hit)
2. Targeting Saudi flagged warships with Subs (Preferably outside the Persian Gulf if possible)
3. Drop a few missiles on a Saudi Air Force bases (within 700km) NO MORE than 20 Missiles
4. Dropping a Missile on the Crown Princes mansion (one of his houses within 700km with one direct hit)
5. Dropping 1 missile with cluster warheads on a Saudi Naval Port off the Red Sea but NOT near or around Jaddeh or Mekka

Most of those are industrial targets. I don't think you are understanding the concept of escalation dominance.

What Iran CAN'T do in such a scenario is restrict it's response to a Saudi Air Force base unless YOU'R 99% positive that you can take out at least 50 or more of their fighters & a few support aircraft in response with under 100 missiles(-800km)!

Fact is people that don't like Iran will dislike Iran regardless of what Iran does or doesn't do! And same goes for Saudi Arabia!
Iran's response will need to be decisive & not restrictive to make a point particularly to the UAE leaders!

And what part of Saudi behavior makes you think they are rational thinking people? If they start a war by attacking an Iranian vessel & an Iranian Air Force base is all the prof you need that they don't think rationally! And it's they who started the war NOT us in your scenario!

Fairness and setting examples are not important here. If a country is forced into a war when it cannot outright capitulate the enemy and make them surrender everything (as in actually invade that country), the objective is to end the war as quickly as possible, paying the least material, economic and political costs and taking the least risk. You don't go escalating a war you wish never happened in the first place.

The escalation scenario your talking about can only be a factor in border skirmishes with attacks only in and around the boarder area

Escalation dominance is a strategic concept. It is not limited to minor "border skirmishes". Its like if some kid calls you gay and you knock him out cold. Whoops, his dad is Anthony Joshua. What the hell are you gonna do now? Probably wish you'd just ignored him, he's a f*cking kid after all.

Same case with Saudi. They bomb an airbase? Fine, bomb their airbase back. Sink a warship? Sink 1 or 2 of there's back. They started it, just retaliating in equal measure is embarrassing enough for them to want to cut their losses.

U.S. bombed Iraq on a yearly bases between 92-2002 and it didn't much matter that Iraq didn't escalate so unless you wanna site back and watch them take you down piece by piece then you have to respond decisively!

And in a war between Iran & Saudi Arabia I would say the U.S. would like to see Saudi facilities hit and destroyed the more damage Iran make the more money they make!

A long drawn out war with tit for tat strikes allows the U.S. to come in at the end and finish it towards Saudi Favor but a quick decisive blow by Iran with a Shock and awe mass missile attack could prompted peace talks to end the conflict, the U.S. would be happy because they'll get a bunch of contracts to rebuild Saudi Arabia, you can change Saudi leadership since the crown price has already made plenty of enemies at home & U.S. can take Saudi money without giving them weapons which will also make Israel happy as well because Iran's lost a good potion of it's missile stockpile & Saudi's won't be rearming anytime soon!

I've already said. There is no fantasy situation where we can just missile the shit out of Saudi Arabia and expect there to be no consequences. There is no win-win-win situation.

You don't need to force the Saudis to back down by escalating. That is too risky. You work diplomatically to encourage the UN to impose a ceasefire, you talk big to deter an enemy escalation, and you milk the war for all it is worth PR wise.

Think about why the Saudis would start a war in the first place. Would it be an escalation of a non-direct conflict into a direct conflict? Would it be an attempt to reduce Iranian influence? Or damage Iranian prestige? Pick and choose. Either of these objectives are relatively easy to dismantle, sabotage, and deny. Without escalation.

Certainly it wouldn't be a land grab, or an attempt at direct invasion.

In the event of a Saudi-Iranian war/skirmish breaking out, Iran will (and has subtly hinted, I'll elaborate later) have to strike multiple high-value targets at once, from the West to the East coast of Saudi Arabia. High-value targets will naturally include Saudi Military bases (air force and radar installations in particular), Oil refineries, and Critical Infrastructure assets that form the life-line for the Saudi State.

Air force bases being neutralized within the high intensity phase of the war will alleviate a significant risk to Iran, as that is Saudi Arabia's main means of attacking Iran. However, in order to achieve maximum damage, the radar installations of the PAC-2, PAC-3, and THAAD systems must be destroyed to allow safe passage for our BMs and CMs. With the radars that detect and target our offensive capabilities gone, the launchers of the mentioned air defense systems will be mere decorations.

Furthermore, oil refineries and ports (Ras Tanura, Dhahran, Abqaiq, Yanbu, Jeddah) must be dealt heavy damage to make them out of use, if not destroyed completely, to stem their revenue and thus inhibit to whatever degree possible their military spending on resupplying their army, ordering maintenance of their arms, and the possible reconstruction of damages military sites. Though this is only to be considered if the hypothetical war stretches out for a long enough period of time to allow for such arms deliveries and maintenance/repairs to be carried; which I view as highly unlikely.

Moreover, with regards to critical infrastructure, they must be targeted to demoralize the Saudi populace. This isn't because I have some hatred or vengeance towards them or anything at all, in fact I warmly embrace people regardless of where their from or the political stances they hold, even though I may disagree with their respective government policies (in the case of Saudi, I very much do). But back to the main point; from my observations, and from analysts and journalist who cover Saudi politically, specifically looking at how popular the current Saudi policies are towards Iran with the Saudi populace; it is strikingly clear that they blindly, without second thought believe Iran to be public enemy no. 1, view Iran as a threat, don't mind confronting Iran militarily, and above all, have the hubris to think that a war with IRI can be won by them because they have Uncle Sam's watered down toys at their disposal.
It represents a dangerous level of ignorance and arrogance among the Saudi people. This links back to the main point about targeting Critical Infrastructure assets (CIAs), such as the desalination plant in Jeddah, power plants, their electricity grid, to name a few. This should break the will of the Saudi's to fight for their country. A nation of brainwashed people who underestimate a potential adversary, will line up to fight IRI in the tens of thousands, only prolonging the conflict. By hitting CIAs, the Saudi populace will quickly come to the conclusion that a war with IRI isn't worth it and is significantly impacting their livelihoods. It is said that if the Jeddah desalination plant is destroyed, the city will run out of water in just 11 days. Who would want to fight then?

Finally, going back to the point in the first paragraph about Iran striking multiple targets at once: I saw this documentary on IRIB (available on Youtube) about Iran's missile silos, the commander of one of the silos said the following "All the missiles in our silos have predetermined targets, with the press of the launch button, they will immediately go to strike their intended targets". Combine this with the fact that Iran has mobile BMs on TELs, and its safe to assume that multiple targets, across different sectors of the Saudi Nation will be targeted at one, complicating their efforts to defend from IRI's BMs and CMs.

Why escalate?

It is up to the aggressor to complete their objectives. All we have to do is to deny them from achieving those objectives. In any situation, they aggressor wants to make it look like the defender lost. Deny that, and you've won the war, simply by not losing.

Saudi are not a superpower. They aren't going to invade our territory (at the very least, not our mainland). So the extent of their action would be small. But we aren't a superpower either. All we need to do is not lose, and they've lost the war.

I think you and VEVAK are making the same mistake Iran made in 1982. In 1982, Iran had already kicked the Iraqis out of Iran. Iraq was begging for a ceasefire. At this stage, Iran should have accepted it. Iran didn't, everyone flooded Saddam with arms and cash, and the war dragged on for another 6 years. I guarantee you, your decisions would have the same result.