It seems like it is impossbile to convince you and you continue to post nonsense, probably because "You do not understand much about of warfare even in theory" (how you wrote in one of your posts...).1/2
Again, the incident involving one of these ballistic missiles on 25-02-1991: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-02-26-mn-1889-story.html
- is very telling.
That wasn't the only ballistic missile which approached Saudi Dhahran International Airport housing American military barracks back in 1991, additional number of ballistic missiles also approached this airport at different points in time (during the course of war) but Patriot defenses neutralized the more threatening ones which might have scored meaningful hits otherwise. These defenses were however down on 25-02-1991 and tragedy occurred.
See Table 3 in this link: https://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/scud_info/scud_info_s04.htm
Ballistic missiles posit a threat to large stationary targets including military bases; a volley of ballistic missiles will increase the probability of scoring meaningful hits on a military base. This much should be clear to anybody with a functioning brain by now.
Saddam regime subjected Israeli cities to ballistic missile strikes in 1991 in an effort to drag Israel into the war - a move which might have distracted coalition forces from their mission. Although, Israel was furious but did not take the bait due to intense American pressure behind-the-scenes. In no way or form, these strikes are instructive in regards to the viability of Iraqi al-Husayn ballistic missiles to threaten military bases; strikes on Saudi Dhahran International Airport however are/were.
You need to revisit your assessment.
Link: https://www.eurasiareview.com/09092...nd-to-chinas-conventional-deterrent-analysis/
No, ballistic missiles cannot hit 'moving' ships.
You can clearly see Khalije Fars ASBM striking a 'stationary' target in the sea. Target(s) which are apparently defenseless - cannot move at high speeds, cannot maneuver, and do not have sophisticated defenses to counter external threats of any type.
Try something like that on an American Arleigh Burke class destroyer, and you will be severely disappointed.
Depends upon which country Iran is taking its chances with.
Such strikes cannot render American war-machine, and its capability to destroy Iran, ineffective. American war-machine is an expeditionary force with mobile C&C infrastructure to manage military operations in distant lands.
Understand the difference.
Again, what have you achieved with those strikes on Iraqi Al-Asad military base? This military base is largely optimized for managing Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq, and it is evidently lacking in high-end defensive arrangements in its present form because ISIS does not posit much of a threat to this military base as is.
Trump administration allowed Iranian armed forces to strike at Iraqi Al-Asad military base as a matter of compensation for assassinating Iranian general Qassem Soleimani (1). They were monitoring developments within and around Iran in real-time otherwise; they could neutralize Iranian TELs on the move if they wanted to but they didn't. Trump administration is preoccupied with politics back home; Iran is safe for a while.
To be fair to Iran, Iraqi Al-Asad military base represented a low-risk target to IRGC. They even alerted Iraqi PM to potential strikes on this military base in advance.
There might NOT be a 'next time' for Iran to demonstrate much. Iranian attack on Iraqi Al-Asad military base is not really instructive in regards to how an actual war with US will pan out - refer to (1) above.
You want to prove something? Take your chances with Prince Sultan military base in Saudi Arabia. This is one of the largest and better protected military bases in the Middle East. Better is an understatement in fact - this military base is housing two Patriot batteries and a THAAD battery at present (excellent radar coverage). Americans have stationed lot of firepower in this military base.
I will make some replies anyway:
1) You post sources claiming Patriot successfully intercepted Saddams Scud in 1991----while it is well known that US initially claimed it intercepted 46 out of 47 Scuds for propaganda purposes--and a decade later they acknowledged that real effectiveness of Patriot was 10%---some claim even lower----make your own research....
2) You claim that volley of ballistic missiles is required to hit a single target----this is true for old missiles with their poor accuracy---but not true for super-high precision missiles with 5m CEP that Iran demonstrated in Ain-Al Assad----"this should be clear to anybody with a functioning brain by now"
3) Saddam attacked not only Israel "to drag in into the war", but also Riyadh---why?---isn't it better to use those missiles to attack military bases?----but he couldn't do it effectively due to poor accuracy of his missiles-----
4) You post a source with assessment from 2010 (a decade ago) and claim that I have to reasses my estimate when it is actually a recent fresh estimate by the Pentagon.
Your source claims Iranian missiles have a CEP of 100-2000m....But even a retard will know that after Ain-Al Assad it is clear that actual CEP of Iranian missiles is 5-10m.
Even older missiles like Shahad-3 from early 2000s were modernized by adding a new highly accurate manuevering warhead and called "Emad"
And this is a demonstrated accuracy of Khorramshahr 2000km range missile
5) What Iran achieved in Ain-Al Assad? Iran demonstrated to all retarded "experts" who claim 500m CEP for Iranian missiles and to US that it has highly accurate missiles that can destroy high value targets in all US bases in the Middle East with high precision, from 500-1000 km aways, and within 3-4 minutes.
6) Regarding "Trump allowed"----if a president of a great nation allows a slap in the face, then what kind of a great nation is this?---Trump simply didn't have the balls to fight back and 64 soldiers of the Great USA suffered brain injuries even despite Iran didn't have intensions to hurt anyone in this demonstration of power.
7) Regarding "taking a chance against Prince Sultan air base"-----Iran has already taken a chance against Patriot protected Abqaiq and Khurais oil refineries----- and if Saudis make a mistake, Iran can easily take on Prince Sultan air base as well----this base has a better protection, but I have already posted a source describing poor performance of US ABM defenses even against primitive missiles that don't have countermeasures or decoys
8) You post a source with propaganda claims of Ratheon and Saudi government of how well Saudi Patriots performed against primitive missiles.
You better read independent sources:
Quote:
Laura Grego, a missile expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, expressed alarm that Saudi defense batteries had fired five times at the incoming missile.
"You shoot five times at this missile and they all miss? That's shocking,” she said. “That's shocking because this system is supposed to work.”
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/04/world/middleeast/saudi-missile-defense.html
9) If Israel which has one of the most powerful militaries in the world failed to neutralize non state actor like Hezbollah
US air power will fail against Iran because Iran prepared itself for this kind of war even better than Hezbollah
Last edited: