Novel Iranian missile launch technique - Underground canisters

[Cookie Monster]

The highlight part = interesting plan and strategy. This has better chance to work. The more you wait, the more you are in trouble.

Maintenance is necessary nevertheless; equipment will degrade otherwise.

Right and that's why I'm trying to figure out...what are the benefits as compared to a silo.
...one of the obvious one is less cost. No need to build an underground hardened bunker...but on the flip side it exposes the missile more to the elements and therefore perhaps shortens the time between inspection and maintenance?

So in terms of potential ways the locations can be compromised...they seem to be the same as that of silos.
- Record of locations must be kept somewhere...though highly secretive...still has a chance of a leak.
- Satellite tracking of personnel movement to certain locations...detected periodically(whenever maintenance is due).
- Satellite detection of large metallic structures..buried rather shallow underground.

So then perhaps just the cost is the main advantage? Or perhaps mobility? Locations can be changed periodically? Since it doesn't require building silos...it will keep the enemy guessing.

 

[Philosopher]

Wait a sec. If they have ability for make underground cannisters which is quite impressive then there would be no big challenge for them to make their own VLS system for their upcoming navy ships.

Vertical Launch Systems have already been confirmed for Iran's up-coming ships.

 

[Philosopher]

Right and that's why I'm trying to figure out...what are the benefits as compared to a silo.
...one of the obvious one is less cost. No need to build an underground hardened bunker...but on the flip side it exposes the missile more to the elements and therefore perhaps shortens the time between inspection and maintenance?

So in terms of potential ways the locations can be compromised...they seem to be the same as that of silos.
- Record of locations must be kept somewhere...though highly secretive...still has a chance of a leak.
- Satellite tracking of personnel movement to certain locations...detected periodically(whenever maintenance is due).
- Satellite detection of large metallic structures..buried rather shallow underground.

So then perhaps just the cost is the main advantage? Or perhaps mobility? Locations can be changed periodically? Since it doesn't require building silos...it will keep the enemy guessing.

Good questions. Remember that these missile are sealed in canisters, so they're not exposed to elements per se. In terms of advantage, like mentioned in the opening statement you can literally put these canisters anywhere, it greatly increases survivability. And like you said, compared to the missile cities Iran has, these do not require expensive and deep bunkers.

The only downside to this strategy is that the missile are already fixed in terms of targeting and thus one cannot change their targets significantly without changing their positions and so on.

 

[Philosopher]

There must be a reason why major world powers don't do this.

This is a weak argument. This notion that others have not done it before and thus it cannot be significant is a fallacious way of thinking. No nations had developed an anti-radiation ballistic missile prior to Iran, it does not mean Iran making it was without a good reason. Instead, focus your comment on the merit of the strategy rather than this "other have not done it".

burying a missile canister is hardly a new and innovative idea.

Care to share instances where this methodology was utilised by any other nation?

 

[Iskander]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1288433002570227712

 

[Philip the Arab]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1288433002570227712

Humint as well bro.

 

[Philosopher]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1288433002570227712

For every 1 missile buried, there will probably be a 50 dummies. This is not as important for Iran itself given it is very difficult to attack Iran and overcome its air defences etc, but this is much more important for someone like Hezbollah and our Syrian friends.

 

[PeeD]

The reason why superpowers haven't used the concept is that it is unlikely to survive a nuclear counter-force attack. Large areas and many decoys would be needed.

More importantly: Developing a ICBM and a nuclear warhead that does not need maintenance is very difficult.
In 2020 Iran has managed to do it for a TBM class missile.

 

[Myself]

Even if they wasted the budget, even if the idea is silly, even if there are legit reasons other countries did not go for this route; yet experiencing new things is better than treading water like most other sectors.

 

[TruthHurtz]

Even if they wasted the budget, even if the idea is silly, even if there are legit reasons other countries did not go for this route; yet experiencing new things is better than treading water like most other sectors.

They didn't go for it because those countries had established credible deterrence with nukes already.

 

[Sineva]

Very old footage of an mx missile launcher breaking thru the surface of its trench/tunnel.

This was the original basing idea for the 1970s era mx [peacekeeper] missile,and is probably the closest that anyone else came to this sort of concept,tho this was naturally far more ambitious and ultimately abandoned in favor of silo placement.

 

[mohsen]

The reason why superpowers haven't used the concept is that it is unlikely to survive a nuclear counter-force attack. Large areas and many decoys would be needed.

More importantly: Developing a ICBM and a nuclear warhead that does not need maintenance is very difficult.
In 2020 Iran has managed to do it for a TBM class missile.

I don't think these missiles are meant to be buried for a long time, at most a few weeks maybe, so maintenance shouldn't be an issue. missiles will be kept in a safe place, but holes will be digged in advanced to plant the missiles as fast as possible. mass launches and an ambiguous target for enemy is the goal.

 

[Sineva]

There must be a reason why major world powers don't do this. I mean, burying a missile canister is hardly a new and innovative idea.

We need the opinion of unbiased experts on this.

Actually the americans spent rather a lot of time money and effort developing a far more ambitious version of this concept for the mx missile,this would later be known as the peacekeeper.

In the end it was the sheer cost and overambitious scale of the project that doomed it,and ironically the missiles were eventually emplaced in minuteman silos,even tho it was the supposed vulnerability of these silos to the newer and more accurate soviet missiles such as the ss18 that had led to the whole idea of mobile basing in the first place.
Even more ironically it was actually the soviets who ultimately ended up deploying road and rail mobile icbms in the 70s and 80s,not the americans.

 

[PeeD]

I don't think these missiles are meant to be buried for a long time, at most a few weeks maybe, so maintenance shouldn't be an issue. missiles will be kept in a safe place, but holes will be digged in advanced to plant the missiles as fast as possible. mass launches and an ambiguous target for enemy is the goal.

I hope not.
Storing dangerous solid fuel missiles is a headache in itself, if stored in farms underground, it would solve both the storage issue as well as the launching issue.

 

[Pandora]

Mobile Platforms have highest survivability rate. An immobile canister is an easy target and once location is pin pointed its all but toasted. Also underground Silos are hardly a new tech but it has become redundant with introduction of truck mounted missile. Only advantage it has over mobile platforms is that its readily available with no preparation. Also missiles require regular maintenance and inspections so it is also a logistic nightmare to have a completely buried silo. Truck mounted missiles usually take 5-10 minutes prep time to launch but its mobility counteracts that drawback.