the extent of damage to the ship showed what hit it. and al-mayadin made the claim according to hezbollah
واضح:المیادین بررسی کرد؛ موشک کروز ایرانی «کوثر» برگ برنده حزب الله در جنگ ۳۳ روزه شناسهٔ خبر: 3740564 - یکشنبه ۲۴ مرداد ۱۳۹۵ - ۱۴:۵۴ بین الملل > خاورمیانه و آفریقای شمالی .jwplayer{ display: inline-block; } مقاومت اسلامی لبنان در جنگ ۳۳ روزه با استفاده از موشک کروز
vazeh.com
Article's from merely 5 years ago. Pictures of damage to the vessel do not offer conclusive evidence as to what type of weapon exactly was used. My point stands, there was no hard evidence of Hezbollah fielding the Kosar ASCM prior to Hezbollah unveiling them years later.
because it was a war that its end was not clear .
Hezbollah was supplied before, not during the war.
ans that was their best atgm. you won't throw away such equipment at the war time , when you knew its not that easy to replace them
Nothing can be inferred unless the reasons for the purported abandonment are known. Also these remain token numbers, not enough to assume Hezbollah was in possession of many hundreds of these missiles.
agree integration didn't make sense because the system was incomplete and not working.
That it was defective is an unsubstantiated claim. So is the assertion that it wasn't deployed. If the latter held true however, then a more plausible explanation would be that Iran obtained too small an amount for deployment to make sense.
honestly , you want proof that it was not incorporated . is such thing possible ,
If it's impossible to furnish proof, then it shouldn't be just portrayed as fact.
on other hand there is not a single proof that any s-300 in iran become active until rusia sent those S-300pmu2
Iran would still have gained from the system by examining it.
my proof is there is no single evidence that it ever fielded
This by itself doesn't constitute proof, because lots of weaponry in use by Iran is known to have been fielded prior to being presented publicly.
what choose , iran already paid for the system . do you wanted another cancelling order like after revolution that order for the aircrafts get cancelled and for years we didn't get our money back and had to pay fine for cancelling the order?
First of all Iran could have had the international tribunal condemn Russia to return the payment with interests. Secondly there's still the fact that they were integrated into the IADS, meaning that Iran is seeing benefit in deploying them - and certainly not as decoys (systems as expensive and sophisticated aren't used as decoys, not to mention the safety of the personnel manning them).
show it was not used in our air defensse , but it was used in russian ones , shows the difference in the origin of our system to the rusian one shows our system is a lot more like western system than russian ones.
Again, none of these alleged differences implies that knowledge gleaned from the study of the Nebo didn't contribute in a certain capacity to the accumulation of technical expertise underlying the design and development of those domestic radars.
they had to strike them if it want to operate freely just as simple as that and those system may no longer be threat to fighters but they are credible threat to helicopters
In other words, these assets have their use for Iran, be it a limited niche one, and are considered cost-effective. This in turn offers justification for their continued deployment. Exactly my point since the beginning.
no previously you clearly said su-35
From the outset and even before the present discussion, I referenced several comments by PeeD and even posted screen shots of them, in which both types (Su-30, Su-35) are clearly cited. As for the present discussion, I only mentioned the Su-30. At any rate, since my trusted sources are the users in question, I consider these two Flanker variants to be acceptable.
and you fail to grasp if our technician were not allowed to go near those system before revolution after it they could not use them to keep our airforce and army aviation on foot despite the sanctions
This was addressed in length before, including by user aryobarzan who has first hand knowledge on the topic from personal experience in the Iranian military before the Revolution, and who highlighted the limitations imposed by the US on Iranian technicians and maintenance crews.
Iranian personnel had the capability to perform some maintenance work, but weren't allowed to deploy it to its full extent. In part because it would have led to slashing jobs for US military advisers, but mostly because of Washington's desire to maintain a client in a state of dependency.
Also it's not simply about immediate upkeep, but also a question of long term servicing. In the long run, absence of a spare parts supply chain would have grounded much of the IRIAF especially its most valuable assets like the F-14, if it wasn't for the Islamic Republic's efforts in setting up the corresponding infrastructure. Some short term efforts were required as well.
I see no point in reiterating already concluded matters.
