Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

TheImmortal · Dec 8, 2017

mohammad45 said:
I mean the term of 5 years delay was voluntarily chosen by our team. Even China and Russia were complaining about it but our team willingly trusted western side. They shouldve insisted on removing arms embargo immediately right after signing the deal. BTW, it's in the past bro, i hope you were right. Otherwise that's a big loss.

It was chosen due to mixture of naiveness/inexperience of negotiating team as well as the thinking it's still probably improbable that Russia or a China would sell iran weapons wether the embargo was lifted sooner.

I have my doubts that Iran will acquire substantial offensive weaponary from either country. Russia is easy to be pressured. And China is not desperate for money and likes to keep "balance" in the Middle East.

Iran needs a class of navy destroyers with a modern design it can later reverse engineer on its own (Chinese or Russian) , another long range air defense system (s-400 or wait for s-500) as well as possible short range air defense system, fighter jets, AWACS, refueling aircraft, attack helicopters.

Things like tanks, APCs/IFVs are also needed but not a priority as the threat of major land invasion is relatively low.

AmirPatriot · Dec 8, 2017

mohammad45 said:
I mean the term of 5 years delay was voluntarily chosen by our team. Even China and Russia were complaining about it but our team willingly trusted western side. They shouldve insisted on removing arms embargo immediately right after signing the deal.

No-one willingly puts themselves under an arms embargo. IIRC, Khamenei himself said that while economic sanctions should be lifted immediately, while arms sanctions could wait a bit.

TheImmortal said:
it's still probably improbable that Russia or a China would sell iran weapons wether the embargo was lifted sooner.

I have my doubts that Iran will acquire substantial offensive weaponary from either country. Russia is easy to be pressured. And China is not desperate for money and likes to keep "balance" in the Middle East.

Iran needs a class of navy destroyers with a modern design it can later reverse engineer on its own (Chinese or Russian) , another long range air defense system (s-400 or wait for s-500) as well as possible short range air defense system, fighter jets, AWACS, refueling aircraft, attack helicopters.

Things like tanks, APCs/IFVs are also needed but not a priority as the threat of major land invasion is relatively low.

raptor22 · Dec 11, 2017

Arminkh said:
Agreed. But it is not any closer to them then it was to Iraq. And in case nothing gets in or out of the country, Iran has a much larger chance of survival than KSA.

I forgot to mention that Saudis have missiles too, if you attack they would respond.. surly not in same proportion but they do. they've got df-3 from 80s and df-21 from 2007.

Arminkh · Dec 12, 2017

AmirPatriot said:
But back then we had a proper air force to defend them. Now we don't have that. And we don't have potent air defence based in the Persian Gulf. Relying on land based air defence alone cannot prevent offshore platforms from aerial attack. The SDB, for example, is a glide bomb carried by Saudi F-15s that has a range of 110 km. That means Saudi F-15s could launch attacks on offshore oil and gas rigs using just bombs and not more expensive missiles (though cost doesn't really matter for them).

Another reason why we need a good air force, and also a potent air defence destroyer.

I agree. I didn't say we are not going to suffer any losses. However, in a case of war, it will be a decisive war that both sides will hammer each other to death until only one will barely survive. I simply said Iran has a larger chance of survival just because of its geography.

AmirPatriot · Dec 12, 2017

Arminkh said:
I agree. I didn't say we are not going to suffer any losses. However, in a case of war, it will be a decisive war that both sides will hammer each other to death until only one will barely survive. I simply said Iran has a larger chance of survival just because of its geography.

Well, I don't know about that. While I maintain that the Saudis have escalation dominance (because of the US), that doesn't mean they will go all out. Iran is more than capable of outright shutting down Saudi oil production. The Saudis do not want to run that risk, so they wouldn't escalate it to the point of hammering each other to death. Most likely it will be limited to a naval/aerial battle. There is little material gain in a victory (if they can attain it) of this type for the Saudis, but it would embarrass us and make them look good.

Arminkh · Dec 13, 2017

AmirPatriot said:
Well, I don't know about that. While I maintain that the Saudis have escalation dominance (because of the US), that doesn't mean they will go all out. Iran is more than capable of outright shutting down Saudi oil production. The Saudis do not want to run that risk, so they wouldn't escalate it to the point of hammering each other to death. Most likely it will be limited to a naval/aerial battle. There is little material gain in a victory (if they can attain it) of this type for the Saudis, but it would embarrass us and make them look good.

That's why I think it will be to death. They may like to stop at some point but would Iran? Not sure about that. No Iranian, pro or anti government would accept defeat in this particular war. Government would face public rage and fury at home if they suffice to a limited battle and a resulted loss for Iran.

AmirPatriot · Dec 13, 2017

Arminkh said:
They may like to stop at some point but would Iran?

Of course it would. We cannot overthrow the Saudi regime with military force. We couldn't even do that to Saddam. Continuing a war would only damage Iran as wars are inherently bad for the development of a country.

Arminkh said:
Government would face public rage and fury at home if they suffice to a limited battle and a resulted loss for Iran.

That is why Iran wouldn't lose. At worst, it would be a stalemate. We would try to "get our own back" with reciprocal action.

Any effort to end the war with a truce/ceasefire should entail pressuring the enemy into realising they cannot satisfy their casus belli. Defeating an enemy's attempt to do this has already embarrassed them enough. If this is not enough, the embarrassment can be added to with strategic and economic damage that can just force them to accept a ceasefire (which would ideally be favourable to Iran, with reparations and various other miscellaneous concessions).