Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions
- Thread starter The SiLent crY
- Start date
skyshadow
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2017
- Messages
- 5,056
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
there is a third stage that no one knows if its liquid one solid , first stage is liquid the second stage is solid and the third stage is unknown.
Stryker1982
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2016
- Messages
- 4,864
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
US Air Force Says New Hypersonic Missile Will Hit Targets 1,000 Miles Away In Under 12 Minutes
The U.S. Air Force says the hypersonic boost-glide vehicle warhead in its forthcoming AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid-Response Weapon hypersonic missile will fly at an average speed of between 5,000 and 6,000 miles per hour. This would be roughly between Mach 6.5 and Mach 8. At that speed, it will...
defence.pk
Sejjil can do it in 8.
skyshadow
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2017
- Messages
- 5,056
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
According to some military analysts, many of the weapons which were shown in the recent North Korean parade are more prototypes rather than actually mass produced weapons.
The tank they showed off for example, it looks very much like an Abrams or even a more polished Zulfiqar 2 tank. Interesting how it seems to have MANPADS attached to the side and even an APS but no reactive armor. When the new Abrams upgrades have some reactive armor.
The cannon and engine / power pack could very well be Chinese or North Korean variants / copies ? Who knows.
Iran could easily produce an ICBM, however because of political reasons Iran doesn't. Iran would risk losing the support of Russia, China and the EU if it were to go ahead with an ICBM.
Claiming that the Khorramshahr only has a range of 2000 km is questionable enough. If Iran were to come out with a massive ICBM and say "ooooh but it only has a range of 2500" there's no way anyone would buy that. Iran almost has enough fissile material for a few bombs right now.
www.thedrive.com
The tank they showed off for example, it looks very much like an Abrams or even a more polished Zulfiqar 2 tank. Interesting how it seems to have MANPADS attached to the side and even an APS but no reactive armor. When the new Abrams upgrades have some reactive armor.
The cannon and engine / power pack could very well be Chinese or North Korean variants / copies ? Who knows.
Iran could easily produce an ICBM, however because of political reasons Iran doesn't. Iran would risk losing the support of Russia, China and the EU if it were to go ahead with an ICBM.
Claiming that the Khorramshahr only has a range of 2000 km is questionable enough. If Iran were to come out with a massive ICBM and say "ooooh but it only has a range of 2500" there's no way anyone would buy that. Iran almost has enough fissile material for a few bombs right now.
We Take A Closer Look At North Korea's New Prototype Main Battle Tank
What we are seeing is likely more aspirational than operational, but that can change quicker than most care to admit.
www.thedrive.com
Thought the new Korean tank look like the Armata.According to some military analysts, many of the weapons which were shown in the recent North Korean parade are more prototypes rather than actually mass produced weapons.
The tank they showed off for example, it looks very much like an Abrams or even a more polished Zulfiqar 2 tank. Interesting how it seems to have MANPADS attached to the side and even an APS but no reactive armor. When the new Abrams upgrades have some reactive armor.
The cannon and engine / power pack could very well be Chinese or North Korean variants / copies ? Who knows.
Iran could easily produce an ICBM, however because of political reasons Iran doesn't. Iran would risk losing the support of Russia, China and the EU if it were to go ahead with an ICBM.
Claiming that the Khorramshahr only has a range of 2000 km is questionable enough. If Iran were to come out with a massive ICBM and say "ooooh but it only has a range of 2500" there's no way anyone would buy that. Iran almost has enough fissile material for a few bombs right now.
We Take A Closer Look At North Korea's New Prototype Main Battle Tank
What we are seeing is likely more aspirational than operational, but that can change quicker than most care to admit.
Bahram Esfandiari
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 1,848
- Reaction score
- -24
- Country
- Location
According to some military analysts, many of the weapons which were shown in the recent North Korean parade are more prototypes rather than actually mass produced weapons.
The tank they showed off for example, it looks very much like an Abrams or even a more polished Zulfiqar 2 tank. Interesting how it seems to have MANPADS attached to the side and even an APS but no reactive armor. When the new Abrams upgrades have some reactive armor.
The cannon and engine / power pack could very well be Chinese or North Korean variants / copies ? Who knows.
Iran could easily produce an ICBM, however because of political reasons Iran doesn't. Iran would risk losing the support of Russia, China and the EU if it were to go ahead with an ICBM.
Claiming that the Khorramshahr only has a range of 2000 km is questionable enough. If Iran were to come out with a massive ICBM and say "ooooh but it only has a range of 2500" there's no way anyone would buy that. Iran almost has enough fissile material for a few bombs right now.
We Take A Closer Look At North Korea's New Prototype Main Battle Tank
What we are seeing is likely more aspirational than operational, but that can change quicker than most care to admit.
Are these the same "military analysts" that kept insisting that Iran's F-14 fleet was kept flying through 8 years of war through "Canalizing" parts? or the ones that insisted that Irans Missiles were "Photoshoped"? Seems like any Moron can become a Military analyst as long as what they spew forth is in line with what their pay masters want to hear.
SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
If I humbly may: there are, perhaps, two aspect that could be added to the above comparison.
* Iran is invested in active, comprehensive and direct Resistance against the zionist entity, the DPRK not that much. While Pyongyag does indeed oppose the illegitimate apartheid regime of Tel Aviv and has even concretely contributed to the Resistance over the past decades (unlike most Arab states), which is very commendable on its part, its reach in this regard is nonetheless limited by virtue of geographic distance alone.
Had north Korea represented a similar challenge to the zionist entity as does Iran, US attitude (and pressures, including on China to prevent the latter from assisting her ally) would be of a different degree and nature. Since as we know, international zionism is one of the main pillars of power within America's governing structure.
* North Korean democracy is not pluralistic, unlike Islamic Iranian democracy. And what is more, one of the two halves of the establishment in Iran is actually apologetic towards the zio-American enemy and its imposed world order, thoroughly uninterested in resisting the latter and therefore also not keen at all in developing Iran's military might (see Zarif's statements that Iran stands "no chance" against the US militarily, or Rafsanjani's famous "in dore, doreye mushakbāzi nist").
Another consequence of this difference in political systems is that our north Korean friends tend to be, shall we say, a tiny tad more draconian in suppressing dissenting or subversive views and activism. If a north Korean ventured into insulting or wishing ill upon their beloved Leader like some Iranians do online (including ones residing in Iran), you would never hear of them again as they would surely vanish in a detention facility... in fact, you would never come to read such a thing from a resident of the DPRK anyway, since unlike Iran, north Korea has her own national internet system that is cut off from the zio-American dominated global network.
This access of the Iranian public to anti-IR media (satellite TV + internet) means that at least portions of the Iranian population are susceptible to propaganda, psy-ops and social engineering from Iran's foreign enemies, if these efforts aren't relayed by the in-house liberal fifth-column. This portion of the population can and is used to exert constant pressure on the patriotic, sovereignist and anti-imperialist half of the IR establishment, akin to a sword of Damocles.
Therefore, Iran cannot implement a DPRK-style 'Military First' policy as the one conducted by Great Leader Jong-Il Kim in the 1990's. Now western propaganda is doubtlessly exaggerating the scope of the issue, but nonetheless the 'Military First' effort, which created the modern military industrial infrastructure and R&D centers Pyongyang is currently benefitting from, came at a price for the valiant Korean people in terms of food security and material living standards. Already now, you can see how segments of the Iranian public brainwashed by the BBC, Manoto and Instagram / Telegram resort to slogans such as "na Qazze, na Lobnān"... imagine their reaction if Iran invested so much in her defence industries that the food security of these privileged middle classes seriously came into question.
Last edited:
SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Syrian Arab Army test of Yakhont supersonic anti-ship missile:
Syrian Arab Army test of ballistic missiles and heavy artillery rockets, including Iranian supplied M-600 (Fateh derivative) and Zelzal:
These sequences were uploaded to "YouTube" in 2012. Maybe that's also the year the tests took place.
By the way, the reported number of Yakhont deliveries to Syria was of 72 missiles. A random guess would then be, maybe 5 or 6 gifted to Hezbollah and a couple to Iran for reverse-engineering.
After the S-400 and Pantsir AD systems, yet another weapon Iran is expected or known to have produced a dometic equivalent of, which presumably Russian sources claim Tehran is interested in importing. Now that the sanctions on Iranian arms exports are going to be lifted, this could well be disinformation intended to undermine a possible competitor in the eyes of potential clients, by suggesting Iran herself is unsure about the quality of her domestically-made armaments and thus still seeking to buy equivalents from Russia. Chances are that this is untrue.
raptor22
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2011
- Messages
- 7,064
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
All stages except the 1st one are solid.
aryobarzan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2019
- Messages
- 4,586
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Thank you my friend and we are in full agreement on what you mentioned ..My point in making that comparison was to highlight two points:
1- The current "Main" target of iran against a possible US attack is to retaliate against US bases in middle east (as opposed to NK's US main land). Secondary targets for Iran are Israel and Arab banana kingdoms in Persian gulf. North Korea's secondary targets are South Korea and Japan. This target selection seems odd to me ...What is the rational behind omitting the US mainland as a target !
2- Somewhat related to "Target" selection...Is the choice of weapons...By not targeting US mainland, Iran has decided to stay within the 2000 km range limit and precision conventional strikes against pinpoint targets (morally applaudable but the enemy has no such standards). NK in contrast has decided on nuclear and ICBM delivery system (mass casualty in US before being eradicated from geography!). This approach is a one time deal and forces the US to think very hard before striking the NK.
In Iran's case the strategy allows the US to have "Calibrated" strikes against Iran with the full knowledge that even if the situation escalates to a nuclear strike against Iran, the US mainland is free of danger..This Iranian strategy at first glance seems not very well thought of to an uninitiated fellow such as myself.
I realize that my current assessment is solely based on public information and other unknown factors could be involved
.
jauk
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2016
- Messages
- 1,576
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Thanks for your thoughts. Note, your premise resides on Iran not having a nuclear strike capability. I'm personally confident they do and have had for at least a decade--maybe as far back as early to mid '90s and post defae moghadas. The execution must've started in parallel the moment the first plan was drawn for the various civilian nuclear fuel supply chain efforts. Almost certainly zeere bayraghe bakhshhaye veezheye goonagoone sepah. Everything ranging from ostensible tech know-how, industrial and scientific base to geopolitical actions/counteractions by various parties make this undeniable. The question to me is the quantity and radius of that reach mostly which you alluded to.Thank you my friend and we are in full agreement on what you mentioned ..My point in making that comparison was to highlight two points:
1- The current "Main" target of iran against a possible US attack is to retaliate against US bases in middle east (as opposed to NK's US main land). Secondary targets for Iran are Israel and Arab banana kingdoms in Persian gulf. North Korea's secondary targets are South Korea and Japan. This target selection seems odd to me ...What is the rational behind omitting the US mainland as a target !
2- Somewhat related to "Target" selection...Is the choice of weapons...By not targeting US mainland, Iran has decided to stay within the 2000 km range limit and precision conventional strikes against pinpoint targets (morally applaudable but the enemy has no such standards). NK in contrast has decided on nuclear and ICBM delivery system (mass casualty in US before being eradicated from geography!). This approach is a one time deal and forces the US to think very hard before striking the NK.
In Iran's case the strategy allows the US to have "Calibrated" strikes against Iran with the full knowledge that even if the situation escalates to a nuclear strike against Iran, the US mainland is free of danger..This Iranian strategy at first glance seems not very well thought of to an uninitiated fellow such as myself.
I realize that my current assessment is solely based on public information and other unknown factors could be involved
Last edited:
SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Thank you my friend and we are in full agreement on what you mentioned ..My point in making that comparison was to highlight two points:
1- The current "Main" target of iran against a possible US attack is to retaliate against US bases in middle east (as opposed to NK's US main land). Secondary targets for Iran are Israel and Arab banana kingdoms in Persian gulf. North Korea's secondary targets are South Korea and Japan. This target selection seems odd to me ...What is the rational behind omitting the US mainland as a target !
2- Somewhat related to "Target" selection...Is the choice of weapons...By not targeting US mainland, Iran has decided to stay within the 2000 km range limit and precision conventional strikes against pinpoint targets (morally applaudable but the enemy has no such standards). NK in contrast has decided on nuclear and ICBM delivery system (mass casualty in US before being eradicated from geography!). This approach is a one time deal and forces the US to think very hard before striking the NK.
In Iran's case the strategy allows the US to have "Calibrated" strikes against Iran with the full knowledge that even if the situation escalates to a nuclear strike against Iran, the US mainland is free of danger..This Iranian strategy at first glance seems not very well thought of to an uninitiated fellow such as myself.
I realize that my current assessment is solely based on public information and other unknown factors could be involved
Simple, brother: my response could be summarized in one word, namely Isra"el".
The US regime will never risk considerable damage to the zionist entity, given that successive US administrations have systematically been "Isa"el"-firsters" for the past several decades. The American political class and their regime are entirely under the thumb of international zionism.
Therefore efficient deterrence against Tel Aviv is just as good as deterrence against Washington. The US is every bit as sensitive - and arguably even more so, to large scale desctruction on Isra"el"i soil as it is to large scale destruction on US mainland.
And when it comes to the zionist entity, given three characteristics, massive conventional offensive capability is preferable to a nuclear one:
1) Even if nukes were used merely as a deterrent, Iran would not want an Islamic holy place like Masjed Al-Aqsa, as well as native Palestinians (Muslim, Christian, Jewish) to fall into the crosshairs of such a deterrent.
2) Isra"el" is tiny, its population small, its critical infrastructure limited in numbers. Conventional power can do the trick when the target list is so reduced.
3) Being a settler state and considering its relatively high level of development - inversely proportional to the population's patience and willingness to take casualties, its entire security calculus and in effect its viability as a functioning polity hinge upon its capability to convey an image of invincibility. If that public perception is seriously, palpably scarred or undermined, it'll be over, literally. For then, settlers from the west along with their capital will flee Palestine in the blink of an eye. Again, no nukes needed to finish off the viability of the zionist project.
So Iran's conventional deterrence is much, much more potent in keeping at bay the US and far more responsive to the challenge and threat Washington poses to Iran than meets the eye, due to the peculiarity and overwhelming weight of the Isra"el" factor in our equation.
Last edited:
Similar threads
