IRIAF | News and Discussions

[arashkamangir]

So all this recent American saber-rattling is just PR?

Realistically yes. They have not changed or introduced any significant assets.

The Patriots that came in aren't new, they were here 6 months ago. The same goes for the air craft carrier. The only need thing is a amphebious assault ship and a few B-52s which are potatoes and only useful after Iran's Air Defenses are down.

It's all psychical warfare and time for Trumpian negotiation.

 

[PeeD]

So all this recent American saber-rattling is just PR?

Yes. Bolton's strategy. A good one even. Deception is a integral tool in war and politics. I admit that he is playing his cards well in his game. The positive PR effect on economy for the U.S side is huge and Trump has also started his role in this game.

Ordinary people don't know those details as I said, hence this PR-campaign is a very effective and I give them credit for that.

The whole "neocon and hawks driven wars" notion is a false one: Democrat Bill Clinton had a 8 year long war campaign, not much noticed going on against Saddam with the goal to sufficiently degrade his capability.
2003 they were ready for the finishing move.
American wars are well planned and executed as they can't afford 1000 KIA on the first day, a clear constrain.
Hence it is easy to spot their PR-campaigns for the opponents and its own public's.

Bolton and Trump are professionals, they can't simply start wars on such scales. At least not against opponents with strategic-level capabilities such as NK or Iran.

 

[gambit]

Do you not realize how idealistic (and woefully arrogant) you objectively sound?

Objectively -- I do. Call it 'arrogant' if you like. I do not care.

If anyone were to take your word as Gospel then any AND ALL Iranian counter-attacks or means of deterrence are meager at best according to your 'information'.

To say 'Gospel' is to mean absolute according to a non-challengeable standard. I never said I am such a standard. Everyone should know by now that unless supported by technical information, what I, and everyone else, said are essentially opinions. Of course, some opinions are weighted more than others.

Hell, why is Iran even trying?

Iran have to. Not to resist even in rhetoric would mean loss of legitimacy worldwide, not just in Iran.

...our F-35 wonder bread planes wont win this for us).

Yes, it will. Not might or could. But WILL. I am that confident.

Seems like we can take on the whole freaking world the way your describe American military strength....

The way I describe US military strength does not come from books but from books, professional military education, and actual time in service that includes Desert Storm. So yes, we can take on the world, albeit one at a time, of course.

Subjective not objective but you're entitled to your own realities.

We all know the old saying 'Perception is Reality', no?

American wars are well planned and executed as they can't afford 1000 KIA on the first day, a clear constrain.

Those who say they can 'afford' to lose X KIA have no business doing wars. Kinda sounds like your mullahs.

 

[PeeD]

Those who say they can 'afford' to lose X KIA have no business doing wars. Kinda sounds like your mullahs.

1945 you could afford 1000 KIA a day, 2019 you can't. 1945 you won against a peer state with half of the world fighting with you, where you sacrificed 10 Sherman tanks for a single German Tiger kill.
Situations change.
Iran is not a suitable for a U.S war.

 

[Blue In Green]

Objectively -- I do. Call it 'arrogant' if you like. I do not care.


To say 'Gospel' is to mean absolute according to a non-challengeable standard. I never said I am such a standard. Everyone should know by now that unless supported by technical information, what I, and everyone else, said are essentially opinions. Of course, some opinions are weighted more than others.


Iran have to. Not to resist even in rhetoric would mean loss of legitimacy worldwide, not just in Iran.


Yes, it will. Not might or could. But WILL. I am that confident.


The way I describe US military strength does not come from books but from books, professional military education, and actual time in service that includes Desert Storm. So yes, we can take on the world, albeit one at a time, of course.


We all know the old saying 'Perception is Reality', no?


Those who say they can 'afford' to lose X KIA have no business doing wars. Kinda sounds like your mullahs.

Apologies if I came off as overbearing but some of your weighted opinions come off as absolute realities which leaves little to no room for debate or discussion. It's that simple "we win, you WILL lose" mentality I can't stand. You leave damn near no room for anyone to maneuver since it wont matter, like...Whatever we will see soon I guess.

 

[gambit]

You leave damn near no room for anyone to maneuver...

Incorrect. You are free to dispute anything and everything I said.

Lay people underestimate the military significance of Desert Storm and they do so out of nationalism, not of objective analyses, of which understandably they are not capable of doing for mostly technical reasons. You guys seems to think that what happened in DS1991 is how the US will ALWAYS conduct warfare. That is so wrong I cannot begin to explain where to start. You downplayed the military impact by saying the Iraqi military were 'ill trained' as if you know what is 'well trained' in the first place, twenty-something yrs after the fact. Then you reinforced your own mistaken perceptions by saying the Iraqi military hardware were 'outdated', as if you have any experience outside of changing the oil in your cars when it comes to hardware.

But you are free to maneuver any way you want. Just note that all you have is hindsight while the US military have actual combat records.

1945 you could afford 1000 KIA a day, 2019 you can't. 1945 you won against a peer state with half of the world fighting with you, where you sacrificed 10 Sherman tanks for a single German Tiger kill.
Situations change.
Iran is not a suitable for a U.S war.

You missed the real point of what I said, but then, that is no surprise.

The point is that you cannot use that argument against US. The goal of war -- at the combatant level -- is to reduce casualties to your side while inflicting the maximum to the other side, and you do it any way you can. So just because we gather intelligence, spend an absurd amount of time analyzing, and prepared politically and militarily, does not mean we do these things out of the fear of casualties. You Iranians on this forum may have basic military experience out of conscription necessity, but it seems like your military severely lack professional military education (PME).

 

[Blue In Green]

Incorrect. You are free to dispute anything and everything I said.

Lay people underestimate the military significance of Desert Storm and they do so out of nationalism, not of objective analyses, of which understandably they are not capable of doing for mostly technical reasons. You guys seems to think that what happened in DS1991 is how the US will ALWAYS conduct warfare. That is so wrong I cannot begin to explain where to start. You downplayed the military impact by saying the Iraqi military were 'ill trained' as if you know what is 'well trained' in the first place, twenty-something yrs after the fact. Then you reinforced your own mistaken perceptions by saying the Iraqi military hardware were 'outdated', as if you have any experience outside of changing the oil in your cars when it comes to hardware.

But you are free to maneuver any way you want. Just note that all you have is hindsight while the US military have actual combat records.


You missed the real point of what I said, but then, that is no surprise.

The point is that you cannot use that argument against US. The goal of war -- at the combatant level -- is to reduce casualties to your side while inflicting the maximum to the other side, and you do it any way you can. So just because we gather intelligence, spend an absurd amount of time analyzing, and prepared politically and militarily, does not mean we do these things out of the fear of casualties. You Iranians on this forum may have basic military experience out of conscription necessity, but it seems like your military severely lack professional military education (PME).

Sure, quote/cite military doctrine and past records all you want, don't really think this applies as soundly to Iran in way you make it out to be is what I guess I'm getting at. But hey, your faithful servitude to the US imperial war-machine is dully noted

On a side-note to the other Iranians here, anyone of you guys have any Iranian views/perspectives on what's unfolding?

 

[PeeD]

You missed the real point of what I said, but then, that is no surprise.

The point is that you cannot use that argument against US. The goal of war -- at the combatant level -- is to reduce casualties to your side while inflicting the maximum to the other side, and you do it any way you can. So just because we gather intelligence, spend an absurd amount of time analyzing, and prepared politically and militarily, does not mean we do these things out of the fear of casualties. You Iranians on this forum may have basic military experience out of conscription necessity, but it seems like your military severely lack professional military education (PME).

I didn't miss that. As I said:
"American wars are well planned and executed as they can't afford 1000 KIA on the first day, a clear constrain."

The U.S is able to accept 1000 KIA a day if it is not a unjustified expedition on the other side of the globe. If U.S land is attacked or any other true reason, yes then this constrain does not apply. A war against Iran would be regarded as an insane adventure by a large part of the U.S public.

 

[WinterNights]

No, it was not. Despite what people might think the RQ UAV series was not 'stealth'. The flying wing design does have some inherent low radar obsersable traits, but that was well known since WW II. The flying wing itself was known from the 1920s when every aviation pioneer in the US, Europe, and Russia experimented with it to some degrees. Prior to the B-2, the flying wing's main advantage was range over any radar 'evading' trait.

As far as we know, according to the those who captured the drone (Iran), there was extensive measures taken to greatly reduce the RCS of this UAV, in form of RAM and others. RQ-170 is stealthy not stealth. There is nothing that is truly stealth. But I am sure you already know this.

Neither is US airpower since then.

True, but the rate of improvement was vastly more in the case of Iran. What Iran has today is "lightyears" ahead of what it was even a decade ago.

We do not rely on luck. I posted on this forum many explanations on US SIGINT efforts. It has been some yrs but they are still relevant regarding general information. You can be whatever next yr's salary you have, that we have extensive knowledge of Iran's EM signatures.

SIGNIT is not something that only the Americans are aware of, like I said, Iran has focused greatly on E warfare. Those "extensive" Iranian EM signature you refer to is probably only a small fraction of what information Iran is actually feeding the US. This is not just what I am saying, I am repeating the word's of IRADF itself.

More than most suspect. Even with 'only' two aircraft carriers.

Within the context of a conflict with Iran in that region, I think you really are overestimating the ability of those carriers. We're not talking about Iran navy vs US navy in open waters, obviously US would be easily victorious there.

We will just bypass you. And yes, we are that good.

Now this comment is based on nothing but hubris. The US could not bypass barely anyone in its military history, what makes you think you'd achieve anything close to that in the case of Iran?

My first assignment was the F-111. When I was stationed in the UK, I learned the Soviets feared and hated the 'Vark. At every arms negotiation, the Soviets always tried to have the 'Vark removed from the country. We always told them to STFU. Post Cold War, Adolf Tolkachev confirmed to US that during the Cold War yrs, the Soviets literally had no defense against the F-111. I was reassigned to the F-16 during Desert Storm and saw how lethal the F-111 became against Iraqi tanks.

I don't think anyone would deny the US military is a force to be reckoned with, but there is big different between that notion and one in which you'd think you will just "bypass" a nation.

By what standards do you measured Iran's air defense as 'too'? Compared to who and with what combat experience against US? We have learned much since the F-111 and Desert Storm. That 1960s jet proved itself against opponents who were qualitatively and quantitavely higher than Iran or at least on a par with Iran. Today, we do not need to carry the heavy bombs that the F-111 carried against Iraqi tanks. Five hundred or even 250 pounders with precision guided heads will do the job.

You'd have to have been following Iran's air defence development to see where I am coming from. I am talking about the sheer number of different air defences Iran has produced. You talk about Iraq, but like I said, the Iraqis barely had any (if any at all) EW capability. Whereas Iranians see EW (like many others do) warfare as it's own separate sector, a sector which Iran has given great attention to. And the EW is just one factor.

Iran will not be facing just the USN but the entirety of US airpower from CONUS. Iran have no defense against the combination of high altitude B-2s and B-52s, and low altitude penetration of the B-1. Those 'too' that you mentioned? They are meaningless to US. And I do not say with any malice, just objectivity based upon my yrs of service.

On what basis are you saying Iran has no defence against B-52? Based on their altitude of flight? If so, then even Iran's medium ranges SAM have had much higher flight ceiling then those planes. And Iran has had these missile for a many years now.

Contrary to what you believe, the likes of B-52 and B-1 are easy targets for Iran. B-2 is another issue, but once again, Stealth is another area Iran has focused on. Hence why it is fielding many longer range wavelength radars (mobile and static). Iran has stated it can not only detect the likes of B-2, but can target them too. I guess we would have to see in a conflict (that no one should wish for) whether any of these claims from both side hold much substance.

 

[gambit]

1st off you are talking to an Iranian and for us Military service is mandatory so I and most Iranians my age have at least limited military experience because it really wasn't a freaking choice for us!

Iran mandatory military service is 24 months. So let us break that down, shall we?

At least 2 months are spent on basic training but from what I found it is 3 months, correct? Assume there is some technical training involved, add at least another 2 months, but more like 3. Am guessing here. Then there is 4-6 months to acclimatize to the new unit, learning one's place in the hierarchy, and so forth. By now, the person have one yr left of his obligation, give or take a few weeks, and he is eager to go home.

Here is the downsize of a conscription policy: No institutional memory.

https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/institutional-memory/14802

...is the collective knowledge and learned experiences of a group. As turnover occurs among group members, these concepts must be transitioned.

What it means is that -- assuming you did your minimum of 2 yrs -- you contributed nothing to the warfighting capabilities of the Iranian military. If all you did was your 2 yrs obligation, the best you did was -- to put it kindly -- being a warm body.

This is why the US did away with conscription. The best minimum term is 4-6 yrs where a person not only learned new skills, but actually practiced those skills, refined them, and pass them onto the next generation.

I did 5 yrs on the F-111. Going hard terrain (TF) radar following over the hills of Scotland was better than any roller coaster in the world. On the same sortie, we were asked if we could help the French with their new air defense radar so our flight lead said 'yes'. He was a Lt. Col so what he said -- goes. We were a four-ship flight. We split up into two two-ship flights. One 'attacked' France from the northern route, my flight 'attacked' from the south. Over the Channel, we were 20-25 meters over the surface. I was in the WSO seat and as a test, I tuned the TF radar so fine it picked up the surface waves as if they were mountains. All four jets 'bombed' France without their new radar picked us up. Then I did 5 yrs on the F-16 with Desert Storm as my coda. Not going into details there, but I can tell you that what our squadron did with LANTIRN exceeded what was originally designed to do. Iraqi mobile launchers had limited effectiveness because of our innovative uses of the LANTIRN pods.

2ndly If your under the illusion that Iran is going to try to replicate your 2002 sim then your delusional!!!

My point is Iran capabilities today are NOTHING like the country you played your little simulation with for us to try to replicate your little exercise!

I was under that 'delusion' because you guys kept bringing it up as if somehow Millennium Challenge or whatever became our fate. Your comments about the exercises are further confirmation that you do not understand the purpose of such exercises in the first place and that is due to your short time of service.

Am not going waste my time with the rest of your post.

 

[Kastor]

I have no ties to Israel in particular or Jews in general, but I will say that if Israel wanted, Hezbollah would be gone.

You might have military experience but I must say you don't have much historical knowledge, Israel tried to take out Hezbollah in 2006 and failed, as a matter of fact IDF got it's a ss whooped...52 Merkava tanks were hit and badly damaged (some say the estimate is much higher)....it broke the invincibility bullsh!t of the IDF. So I think you better read up on that. In a war it's not just about wining against armies, the PR and propaganda battle is a just as important. After Afghanistan and Iraq (really after Vietnam) we learned that superpowers are not invincible....

I didn't miss that. As I said:
"American wars are well planned and executed as they can't afford 1000 KIA on the first day, a clear constrain."

The U.S is able to accept 1000 KIA a day if it is not a unjustified expedition on the other side of the globe. If U.S land is attacked or any other true reason, yes then this constrain does not apply. A war against Iran would be regarded as an insane adventure by a large part of the U.S public.

Not just the U.S. public...the house nor the senate will ever authorize such a war. The best the orange ape in chief can hope is a limited action in the gulf and that's if Iran attacks first.

 

[skyshadow]

The President's permission to prioritize five security and defense plans from radars to submarines.

مجوز رئیس جمهور برای اولویت بخشی به ۵ طرح امنیتی و دفاعی از رادار تا زیردریایی

1. localization and development of sub-surface technologies.

2. acquisition technology for the design, construction and testing of a cold-driven space carrier engines.

3. architectural design and implementation of the National Center for Cyber Defense and Infrastructure Systems for cyber space (MDSA).

4. a comprehensive plan for the development of technologies for equipping and updating the national air defense radar network.

5. development plan for military science and technology of the country.



After 6 years, stopping these important plans by the the president Ruhani him self. After six GOD DAMN years, he concluded that he should continue where Ahmady nejad delivered Iran's military program to the president Ruhani.


https://snn.ir/fa/news/764064/مجوز-...ی-به-۵-طرح-امنیتی-و-دفاعی-از-رادار-تا-زیرسطحی

 

[Kastor]

Sure, quote/cite military doctrine and past records all you want, don't really think this applies as soundly to Iran in way you make it out to be is what I guess I'm getting at. But hey, your faithful servitude to the US imperial war-machine is dully noted

On a side-note to the other Iranians here, anyone of you guys have any Iranian views/perspectives on what's unfolding?

Sure, I'll take a stab at it, Trump in accordance with Kushner's wishes has given rope to Bolton for now, but I'm sure he has warned him he better see results. Knowing Bolton, who punches down but kisses up, he has promised Trumpy Iran's capitulation in 6 months or less. So as long as oil prices remain steady Bolton's got time, but if the oil prices keep rising Trump will kick that human cartoon out of the white house so fast that he won't know what hit him. I think Iran is moving in the right direction, low impact, low foot print saber rattling to keep increasing oil prices. you've heard me say this before, this entire team are a team of second stringers, if they were smart, they'd be attacking one foreign policy challenge at a time. They got their Venezuela plan in flames, NK plans in flames, China trade war in flames, Cuban sanctions are also in flames, Iran's plan is starting to smoke too. Need I say more? As a matter of fact second stringers is too good of a term for this bunch.

 

[Tamiyah]

I dont understand it why all the IRANIANS here underestimate their enemy and overestimate their own assets.
I dont underestimate my nation's enemy and never overestimate my country's armed forces.

And how can IRAN counter F35???
Are those air defences so capable that it can bring down a (most) 5th generation

 

[skyshadow]

I dont understand it why all the IRANIANS here underestimate their enemy and overestimate their own assets.
I dont underestimate my nation's enemy and never overestimate my country's armed forces.

And how can IRAN counter F35???
Are those air defences so capable that it can bring down a (most) 5th generation

well we detected f_22 and we warned them not get close to the borders of Iran. that's one way or we can hit there base.

when a Khalij Fars anti ship ballistic missile fired it needs to see you in order to target you and you need to detect it before it hits you in order to intercept it so you need to turn your radars on at all time until interception but at the same time a Hormuz-1 and -2 the world’s first anti-radiation ballistic missiles are fired at you, in order to target you Hormuz 1_2 missiles needs your radars to be on until it hits you so if you want to neutralize them you need to turn all of your radars off so that the anti-radiation ballistic missiles can not find you but if you turn all of your radars off how you want to intercept Khalij Fars anti ship ballistic missile that is coming at you at the speed of at least mach 3_4 ? you need your radars on to see it and intercept it but if you do that than what are you going to do with anti-radiation ballistic missile that is coming for you at even grater speed than Khalij Fars anti ship ballistic missile at least mach 5_6? perfect irony.



Khalij Fars anti ship ballistic missile

Hormuz-1 and -2 the world’s first anti-radiation ballistic missiles