U.S. Will Not Let Iran Buy Arms When U.N. Embargo Ends: Pompeo

[GWXP]

If your theory were right, then entire world would have armed themselves with ballistic missiles instead of fighter jets....

War is not just about destroying enemy powerplant, or temporarily shut down an airfield.

Ballistic missiles can not be a substitute for airpower.

Unlike airpower, missiles can not provide close air support for the ground force and this is crucial in the battlefield.

Unlike airpower, missiles can not protect the skies and crucial infrastructure ( air defenses are usually less effective in protecting the skies and infrastructure compared to airpower).

And enemies ground force enjoying close air support while you dont will probably defeat you.

So again, Iran without air power is much weaker and vulnerable than Iran with strong air force.....and purchase of 100-200 jets will change local balance of power in the Persian Gulf.....something Saudis will not like.

 

[QWECXZ]

If your theory were right, then entire world would have armed themselves with ballistic missiles instead of fighter jets....

War is not just about destroying enemy powerplant, or temporarily shut down an airfield.

Ballistic missiles can not be a substitute for airpower.

Unlike airpower, missiles can not provide close air support for the ground force and this is crucial in the battlefield.

Unlike airpower, missiles can not protect the skies and crucial infrastructure ( air defenses are usually less effective in protecting the skies and infrastructure compared to airpower).

And enemies ground force enjoying close air support while you dont will probably defeat you.

So again, Iran without air power is much weaker and vulnerable than Iran with strong air force.....and purchase of 100-200 jets will change local balance of power in the Persian Gulf.....something Saudis will not like.

They don't sell you ballistic missiles as easily as jet fighters. That's why the entire world hasn't armed itself with ballistic missiles yet. It's not like they don't want to, they can't. The entire world hasn't armed itself with nuclear bombs either. Guess why?

The Shah of Iran requested the US to sell Iran short range ballistic missiles. The US refused but accepted to sell us F14s (the most potent jet fighter of that time that the US refused to sell to anybody else, including Israel) instead of that. This shows you how strategic ballistic missiles are.

And your sentence that missiles can't protect the skies and crucial infrastructures is not very accurate. Even jet fighters launch air-to-air missiles. Numerous surface to air missiles and artillery can protect civilian and military infrastructures well.

As for ground support, Iran and Saudi Arabia do not share any border. So, a ground invasion by either of us is extremely ridiculous to think of.

 

[Philosopher]

If your theory were right. Then entire world would have armed themselves with ballistic missiles instead of fighter jets....

This is not my theory. I am telling you the realities on the ground. Do you think IRGC and Hajizadeh's open statements etc are also my theories?
You also need to look at this in a historical context. You can not just compare Iran to every other nation. Iran started its missile program out of dire necessity and through sweat and blood got it to where it is today. How many nations have the capability to produce or even purchase accurate ballistic missiles like the ones Iran possess? Iran has got its missile program to a state where its systems are very cheap, can mass produce them, and they have the accuracy to target whatever it wants. I think the Israeli expert Uzi Rubin put it nicely when he said (I am paraphrasing) that Iran does not even need nuclear weapons when it can just use these long range system to destroy places like power plants etc and paralyse nations. If you want the full speech, here it is:

War is not just about destroying enemy powerplant, or temporarily shut down an airfield.

This is a very strange comment. If you destroy a nation's power plant, they will come to a stand still. As for temporality shut down an airfield, how will their airforce operate then? This is what war is all about. You dismantle the adversaries ability to wage war and then enforce your other objectives.

Ballistic missiles can not be a substitute for airpower.

I did not say it was a complete substitute.

Unlike airpower, missiles can not provide close air support for the ground force and this is crucial in the battlefield.

Hence why I said Iran needs some new jets to fill such a role in places like Syria.

Unlike airpower, missiles can not protect the skies and crucial infrastructure ( air defdnses are usually less effective in protecting the skies and infrastructure compared to airpower).

Already addressed this point in my last comment.

And enemies ground force enjoying close air support while you dont will probably defeat you.

These are specific scenarios. I can say we could have destroyed an enemies airfields using missiles rendering their airforce almost useless.

So again, Iran without air power is much weaker and vulnerable than Iran with strong air force.

This is not something I have contested. Where we differ is your definition of a "strong airforce". Also, I do not believe Iran is in need of such an airforce today.

...and purchase of 100-200 jets will change local balance of power in the Persian Gulf

I simply don't agree with this. I think Iran needs much more than that. Don't just focus on Saudi Arabia by itself either.

 

[zartosht]

why do people never account for survivability and velocity when factoring missiles?

Irans enemies are not ISIS monkeys roaming around towns... those monkeys would get slaughtered before they got a chance to look at Iran the wrong way..

Iran's number 1 enemy is current (fast declining) world hegmon US. with its 600b-1 trillion defense budget. and massive commitment to airpower not even the soviets could match...

Even their vassals in the region boast one of the most modern airforces on earth. Iran Is surrounded by states armed to the teeth with state of the art aircraft...

in this scenario is it wise to

A. buy up a whole bunch of inferior aircraft (even if possible) from China and Russia. just to have a far shittier version of what your enemies have. and then get slaughtered in 2 hours in a real war scenario even if your lucky enough to have airfields survive the tomahawk assaults.....

this airforce would not last a week if it went on any offensive.

B. Arm yourself to the teeth with pinpoint accurate missiles. where you can hit and anahilate any square inch of the enemy territory with 500kg of explosives coming in at mach 3-5 (which exponentially increases its lethality)

Iranian missile attacks have repeatedly humiliated the most advanced western defense systems.. no Iranian fighter jet could survive against the us military.

 

[Mithridates]

guys i think the @GWXP is right, if we have a capable fleet of ~200 fighter jet then we can use missiles just as the first wave of strikes against any enemy. in this case we can take out their air force first, then finish them.
also there are some exclusive missions that only a fighter jet can do. close air support, SEAD, air defense (i know we have a good air defense web but did you know a fighter jet with harm missiles can fly low and get dangerously close to our radars without being detected??) and etc.
so yes an small fleet of su-30 still can change a lot of things in our favor, if it was not US would not try that hard to prevent it.

 

[Hassan Al-Somal]

Pompeo is full of hot air. Iran launched a rocket that can take a satellite into space this week. That was virtually an ICBM. What is his threat going to do with the country that has that capability? Iran just needs nukes. All of this talk about buying fighter jets is misplaced in my view. They just need to focus on perfecting their domestic fighter jet program and other areas. However, nukes should be a priority for Iran. Cash-strapped DPRK is definitely an option.

 

[GWXP]

Are you comparing ISIS with no infrastructure of its own with a country that actually has infrastructures to protect and worry about?

And even if you can damage enemy infrastructure with ballistic missiles (expensive single shots) what will you do against enemy's ground force?

Lets imagine Iran-Turkish war---how ballistic missiles can defeat Turkish ground forces?

Airpower, however, can provide close air support, delivering tons of payload to enemy in multiple sorties.....Airpower can bomb enemy ground forces degrading their fighting ability, can destroy enemy supplies and prevent arrival of troops reinforcement. Air power can support your own ground force and guarantee its victory. Ballistic missiles can't

In war there are many many targets and 2500 ballistic missiles are not enough to deal with all of them

Iran didn't have a ballistic missile arsenal back then. Sure, we had purchased a few missiles from Libya and Syria, but the number didn't top 50. And missiles were used in the last 2 years of war and they created such a terror that people in both sides wanted the war to end as soon as possible.

So you argue that ballistic missiles could have defeated Saddam with his million man army and thousands of tanks? HOW?

I think air force with ability to degrade Saddam's army and its supplies and reinforcements was required. And that's how it worked in 1991 Gulf War

During 1991 Gulf War US Air Force dropped 90.000 tons of payload on Saddam' Iraq........Just imagine how many ballistic missiles will be required to deliver the same amount of payload.

Regarding terror caused by ballistic missiles and how terror can finish war....Hitler and Britain thought the same way when they started carpet bombing each other's civilian cities --they thought that terror will force the other side to capitulate-----and yet neither side capitulated, until German ground forces were beaten in the open battlefield.

Iran's Khorramshahr missile carries up to 1800 kilograms of multiple warheads.

And out of Iran's 2700 ballistic missiles (according to CENTCOM) most are short range ballistic missiles like Fateh 110.

Since Fateh 110 has 500kg payload, Iran can deliver with its entire ballistic missiles arsenal some 1400-1500 tons of payload...

For comparison one Su-30 can carry 8tons of payload in one sortie....Su-34 can carry 12tons of payload....

So, 150 Su-30s can deliver the same amount of payload in ONE SORTIE as entire Iranian fleet of ballistic missiles (expensive single shots). And now, Su-30s can make multiple sorties within one day.

Of course ballistic missiles are good, because they can target enemy's strategic infrastructure deep inside enemy's line.....and this detters the aggressor.....However ballistic missiles can not seriously degrade enemy's ground force and win wars, unlike air power.

That's why I argue that 100-200 Su-30s in Iranian hands changes the balance of power in the Persian Gulf

Assuming that there's no air defense, yes. Fighters have pilots. If you shoot down a fighter, the country will lose pilots that it took them years to train. And shooting down a jet fighter where there's good air defense is much easier than a ballistic missile.

but when you calculate how much payload and damage can vulnerable pilots deliver in multiple sorties and how much damage ballistic missiles can delivers as expensive single shots---air power is a better choice....especially as air defenses can be overwhelmed by such tactics like flying at low altitude, using anti-radiation missiles, decoys etc.....

Example---despite Syria having air defenses, Israeli air force bombs Syria constantly.

By the time Iran exhausts its missiles, there will be no economic or military infrastructure left in Saudi Arabia for them to respond. Their highly oil dependent economy will collapse. Jet fighters need airports. Their airports will be effectively unusable. Their jet fighters won't even get a chance to take off.

And yet enemy ground force will survive.

Infrastructure can be rebuild just like airfields....however once you quickly exhausted your ballistic missiles arsenal you are lost...

As I said, Saudi airports will be inoperable very fast. It will take us less than 10 minutes to completely make their airports inoperable. The good thing about missiles is that you can launch them from almost anywhere, but for jet fighters, you need airports. Also, we have good air defense. Saudi pilots will have a nightmare flying over our skies. We also have good radar coverage over Saudi Arabia. Our OTH radars will provide early warning before they can surprise us.

But once Saudis rebuild their airfields, they can target multiple Iranian targets like oil refineries in Khuzestan and oil terminals in Kharg Island....This will be a terrible shootout with loses on both sides....

Your comment was about fighter jets being a "mortal threat" to Saudi Arabia. As for Syria, I have already said:

Yes, but the airforce we'd need to do this is different to one you want to create a change in the balance of power vs the Persian Gulf states, Israel etc.

And with those "single shots" you could paralyse a nation with much relative ease compared to a fighter jet. Furthermore, how much does a missile in Iran cost? When you actually look at the costs, you'll realise you can buy 1000's of missiles for a price of even a small number of modern fighter jets. This is what Commander Hajizadeh himself said a while back.

Like mentioned previously, ballistic missiles in Iran's inventory can deliver a serious blow and are much less vulnerable compared to a fighter jet. The problem with your assumption here is that the jets will not be shot down and will be able to keep doing sorties. When you're against adversaries that have very robust air defence and large number of advanced fighter jets, this is a not a wise assumption.

This "some damage" is clearly inaccurate. The reality is, in a major conflict, Iran will obviously target major sites such as oil facilities, electrical power plants etc, that is not "some damage". You will basically paralyse them. Not to mention if Iran ever actually targeted something more sensitive like desalination plants.

You're simplifying things greatly. Iran has a large air defence capability than can seriously downgrade region airforces. And if there is a conflict, the saudis airfields will be one of the first targets. Their air force can do damage, no on the scale you're trying to claim.

There is a huge difference between fighter jets adding on to a threat faced by the Saudis, then your claims of "mortal threat". Iran being able to protect it's skies better with a 200 or so SU-35s is a different matter than this claim you made. In order for Iran to be able to cause a serious shift in the balance of power, it will need more than just 200 SU-35s. Furthermore, such a large number of fighter jets would take a long time to be fully delivered. Even if Iran were to order this number today, by the time it is fully done, its adversaries will be flying 5th generation fighters. Thus, going back to what I said from the start, Iran needs a few dozen new jets to help it in places like Syria, if it is to go after an airforce to create a true shift in the balance of power, then it will need an extremely large investment which clearly the Iranian planners have no indicated, because their missiles can do a very potent enough job.

Place like Syria?

You can imagine an Iran-Turkish war starting tomorrow.....what will you do?

Ballitic missiles will target powerplants and airfields in Ankara and so what---they will rebuild it like Germans did in WWII.

When it will come to ground war---Iran doesn't have control of the skies and so it will be unable to degrade Turkish ground force by providing close air support, destroying supply depots and preventing reinforcements from arriving...

Turks, however, with 250 F-16 they have can do substantial damage to Iranian army...probably, having a better air force, Turks will probably defeat Iranian army thanks to airpower they have.

Just look at Arab-Israeli wars....air power was crucial

That's why I say that 200 fighter jets will change the balance of power in Iran's favor

They don't sell you ballistic missiles as easily as jet fighters. That's why the entire world hasn't armed itself with ballistic missiles yet. It's not like they don't want to, they can't. The entire world hasn't armed itself with nuclear bombs either. Guess why?

There are at least 10.000 nuclear warheads at the hands of great powers.

And while nuclear weapons are of little utility in great power wars, because neither side will dare to use them because of fear that the opposing side will retaliate with nukes as well---nukes can always be used against non-nuclear power...Example Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Regarding "They don't sell you ballistic missiles as easily as jet fighters....It's not like they don't want to, they can't"

US and Russia have technological and industrial capacity to build any kind of ballistic missiles....Yet Russia has more S-30s and Su-35s than it has Iskander missiles...

US doesn't employ ballistic missiles at all, instead relying on its massive airpower.

And your sentence that missiles can't protect the skies and crucial infrastructures is not very accurate. Even jet fighters launch air-to-air missiles. Numerous surface to air missiles and artillery can protect civilian and military infrastructures well.

Air defences historically were less effective compared to own air force.....Syria has air defenses, yet Israel bomb them and their infrastructure from distance with gliding munitions (without even entering Syrian airspace).

So again, unless you have your own strong airforce, Saudis can do substantial damage to Khuzestan oil facilities and air defences will not be able to guarantee anything.

As for ground support, Iran and Saudi Arabia do not share any border. So, a ground invasion by either of us is extremely ridiculous to think of.

There is a book by Vice President for Analysis from Stratfor think tank--Peter Zeihan...it is called Accidental superpower and second book-Absent Superpower....

He claims that Iran is a superior regional power whose army can beat Iraqi+Saudi+Persian Gulf country's armies combined....And without US, there is nothing that can deter Iran.

He argues that in the next decade with growing US debt and oil self-sufficiency, US will lose interest in protecting Saudi Arabia...as US will decrease its forces in the Persian Gulf, Iran will go to conflict with Saudi Arabia...

First Iran will attack Saudi oil tankers and launch ballistic missiles at Saudis-----however, Saudis having East-West pipeline that transport oil to the Red Sea will not capitulate...So Iran will have to invade...

Iranian army will cross the border with friendly Iraq and will move to Saudi Arabia via a river bridge north of Basra.....after entering Kuwait Iranian army will move to Saudi Arabia.

Saudi ground force can not stop Iran, however Saudis have 250 fighter jets that practiced high rates sorties in Yemen and this air force will pound Iranian ground force thus making Iranian invasion stall in the desert....

(in other scenario however, Saudi air force will fail to stall Iranian invasion and Iran will occupy Ghawar oil field)

This is a very strange comment. If you destroy a nation's power plant, they will come to a stand still. As for temporality shut down an airfield, how will their airforce operate then? This is what war is all about. You dismantle the adversaries ability to wage war and then enforce your other objectives.

By temporarily taking out powerplants and airfield you do not degrade enemy's ability to fight.

There are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousand of targets that needs to be destroyed in war....and tens of thousands of tons of bombs need to be delivered to the enemy ----simply taking out powerplant and temporarily disabling airfield is not enought to achieve victory.....

Destroying enemy's ground force is one thing you need to achieve victory and airpower providing close air support, degrading enemy's army and destroying its infrastructure and supply depots and preventing reinforcements from coming is crucial

Hence why I said Iran needs some new jets to fill such a role in places like Syria.

You think about place like Syria....you better think about potential Turko-Iranian war and how airpower will be crucial in defeating Turkey.

 

[Philosopher]

You can imagine an Iran-Turkish war starting tomorrow.....what will you do?

Ballitic missiles will target powerplants and airfields in Ankara and so what---they will rebuild it like Germans did in WWII.

Destroying their power plans will bring them to a stand-still, economically etc. They can try to rebuild them, it will take months/years and in the meantime, they will be severely hurt.

When it will come to ground war---Iran doesn't have control of the skies and so it will be unable to degrade Turkish ground force by providing close air support, destroying supply depots and preventing reinforcements from arriving...

Iran can create no fly zones with its airdefence and its missile forces are more than capable of attacking ground forces. Yes, of course a strong airforce could aid, but it is not essential.

Just look at Arab-Israeli wars....air power was crucial

Arabs had much bigger combined fire power than Israel, on paper, they should have won. But as you saw, numbers are not everything. Competence plays a big role.

That's why I say that 200 fighter jets will change the balance of power in Iran's favor

No, it will not.

Regarding "They don't sell you ballistic missiles as easily as jet fighters....It's not like they don't want to, they can't"

US and Russia have technological and industrial capacity to build any kind of ballistic missiles....Yet Russia has more S-30s and Su-35s than it has Iskander missiles...

Not every country is US or Russia. Those two nations have the technology to produce fighters jet in whatever quantity their economy allows. Iran did not have that luxury. Like stated here, Iran had no choice but to go the missiles route, and today, it got the capability to a level where it does not need the great investment in a large airforce.

US doesn't employ ballistic missiles at all, instead relying on its massive airpower.

We're talking about missiles generally not just ballistic missiles. And as for USA not deploying ballistic missiles, obviously they could not because they were prevented by a treaty, which they have recently pulled out of. And now, they're planning to build 2,400 Precision strike missiles, to start off with.

The Army this morning hosted the third successful flight test of the Precision Strike Missile built by Lockheed Martin, the sole competitor for the program to replace the Army Tactical Missile System. As of the fiscal year 2021 budget request submission, the service was planning to spend $1 billion on the PrSM program across the future years defense program and to acquire a total of 2,422 systems. Today's test, at White Sands Missile Range, NM, was the shortest distance of...

https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...ccessful-test-flight-precision-strike-missile

Air defences historically were less effective compared to own air force.....Syria has air defenses, yet Israel bomb them and their infrastructure from distance with gliding munitions (without even entering Syrian airspace).

Air defence are not "less effective". They are effective in a different way. As for Syria, that is a discussion in of itself. Competency is a word that comes to mind then it comes to that and also, don't forget that an effective air defence is a well developed integrated systems. I am not convinced the Syrians have the capability for something like that. And the Russian systems in Syria are probably under their own control and it seems to me they are not using them to down the Israeli assets.

So again, unless you have your own strong airforce, Saudis can do substantial damage to Khuzestan oil facilities and air defences will not be able to guarantee anything.

This is your own conjecture. The purpose of an airdefence is precisely to protect such assets. You have no guarantee they could by-pass those systems.

First Iran will attack Saudi oil tankers and launch ballistic missiles at Saudis-----however, Saudis having East-West pipeline that transport oil to the Red Sea will not capitulate...So Iran will have to invade...

Iran will destroy their oil producing capability, their oil transport capability will mean little then.

By temporarily taking out powerplants and airfield you do not degrade enemy's ability to fight.

A strange logic being displayed here. If you destroy their airfields, their fighter jets cannot take off from there. How does that not equate to degrading to their ability to fight? As for power-plants, if you paralysed a nation, yes, that does mean they cannot fight to anywhere the same level.

There are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousand of targets that needs to be destroyed in war....and tens of thousands of tons of bombs need to be delivered to the enemy ----simply taking out powerplant and temporarily disabling airfield is not enought to achieve victory.....

First of all, "victory" is not a set definition, it is defined by whatever the objective is. Usually that could mean the capitulation of the opposing side. You can achieve this capitulation by bringing the state down to its knees, no need to destroy every single military assets.

Destroying enemy's ground force is one thing you need to achieve victory and airpower providing close air support, degrading enemy's army and destroying its infrastructure and supply depots and preventing reinforcements from coming is crucial

Explain to me how you would run a war without power, fuel etc? You seem to have this imagination where the army is wholly independent from this strategic assets that will be struck. That is not how it works.

You think about place like Syria....you better think about potential Turko-Iranian war and how airpower will be crucial in defeating Turkey.

This a hypothetical war that is not likely to happen. Furthermore, I don't need to think of a Iran-Turkey conflict, when a Iran-US conflict is much more likely, and yet, despite facing this foe with great airpower, Iran is still not going showing indication for a interest in a large investment in airforce.

 

[Mithridates]

i do not know why this discussion is going this direction but i need to remind you right now we have a large fleet of f-4 with 80km radars and combat radius of around 500km with a serious payload. an unarmed fleet of mirage f-1 which at best carries two sidewinders/pl-7/crotale missile and free fall bombs. a fleet of f-7 which is capable of carrying four IR missiles or four rocket pods at best.
all those planes fly right now and they are our best multi-roles, our best hopes to bomb enemy and protect our sky. and they cost us to keep them fly worthy.
also if an air force was so bad then why IRGC itself made it's own air force and recycled ex-iraqi su-22?? another burden to our crew chiefs??
this was never about fighter jets vs missiles...

 

[Philosopher]

Iran's current air fleet is lacking both in terms of quality and quantity. What I am talking mostly is this notion of investing large sums of money for an airforce that could give Iran the ability to challenge its adversaries in the air superiority realm. Given the airforce fielded by Iran's adversaries, I think it is folly to think Iran could match that in anytime soon nor will it invest the money for that. Why? because fielding such an airforce is not essential for Iran. Your comment on IRGC's SU-22 is to do with ground attack and close air support, that is a different matter. I have said already that Iran could by getting a few dozen to a 100 new planes greatly increase that capability. But that is a different discussion to the air superiority comment. And as you can see from this news, the Americans will do everything to stop even a single fighter jet being sold to Iran.

 

[QWECXZ]

And even if you can damage enemy infrastructure with ballistic missiles (expensive single shots) what will you do against enemy's ground force?

Are we talking about defense or offense? As far as defense is concerned, I told you earlier that even our F4s, F5s, F14s and Mig29s are good enough to provide air support for our troops inside our territory because they will be covered by a network of ground radar stations and SAMs.

Lets imagine Iran-Turkish war---how ballistic missiles can defeat Turkish ground forces?

Airpower, however, can provide close air support, delivering tons of payload to enemy in multiple sorties.....Airpower can bomb enemy ground forces degrading their fighting ability, can destroy enemy supplies and prevent arrival of troops reinforcement. Air power can support your own ground force and guarantee its victory. Ballistic missiles can't

Air support can't win battles on the ground either. The best example of this is the war in Yemen. Saudi Arabia has established complete air superiority since 5 years ago, but they are losing all main battles on the ground in Yemen. Another example is the US war against the Taliban in Afghanistan which I don't want to discuss it.

In war there are many many targets and 2500 ballistic missiles are not enough to deal with all of them

And who said Iran has 2500 ballistic missiles? The same Americans who claimed that none of the Iranian missiles have a CEP smaller than 100 meters? Even 2500 ballistic missiles can literally decimate a country's economic and military infrastructure.

So you argue that ballistic missiles could have defeated Saddam with his million man army and thousands of tanks? HOW?

It would've been very useful. If we had accurate ballistic missiles, we would've used them instead of endangering our pilots to execute the attack on H-3 airfield. If we had accurate ballistic missiles, we wouldn't have lost Abbas Doran to penetrate into Baghdad's sky to change the place of the Non-Aligned Movement conference. If we had accurate pin-point missile, we would've completely flattened Osirak reactor the first time and there would've been no need for Israelis to take action against it.

During 1991 Gulf War US Air Force dropped 90.000 tons of payload on Saddam' Iraq........Just imagine how many ballistic missiles will be required to deliver the same amount of payload.

You are talking about the US. They have an impressive fire power. No other country other than Russia or possibly China can match them in this respect.

Regarding terror caused by ballistic missiles and how terror can finish war....Hitler and Britain thought the same way when they started carpet bombing each other's civilian cities --they thought that terror will force the other side to capitulate-----and yet neither side capitulated, until German ground forces were beaten in the open battlefield.

You are wrong. Demoralizing the enemy plays a huge role in forcing them to capitulate. This is why Iraqi forces showed almost no resistance against the US invasion of Iraq.

And out of Iran's 2700 ballistic missiles (according to CENTCOM) most are short range ballistic missiles like Fateh 110.

Iran has over 10,000 missiles and the IRGC boasts about having 100,000 missiles. I'd rather believe a number closer to the IRGC estimation than the CENTCOM. So, your arguments hold no merit here.

Since Fateh 110 has 500kg payload, Iran can deliver with its entire ballistic missiles arsenal some 1400-1500 tons of payload...

The majority of Iranian missiles have been designed to carry a 650 kg payload, not 500 kg.

So, 150 Su-30s can deliver the same amount of payload in ONE SORTIE as entire Iranian fleet of ballistic missiles (expensive single shots). And now, Su-30s can make multiple sorties within one day.

Again, your calculation is wrong. Iran has over 10,000 missiles. And your calculation is based on an invalid assumption that 150 Su-30s will make it to the target and they have an endless stream of bombs and armaments without considering the need for overhauling them after few sorties. That's not true in reality. There's an economic factor to it as well. F35 in beast mode carries 11 tons of armaments but it costs about 100 million dollars per unit. Iran can produce more than 100 missiles with that price. Now 100 Fateh-313 missiles will carry 65 tons which is equal to nearly 6 sorties of a F35 in beast mode.

Of course ballistic missiles are good, because they can target enemy's strategic infrastructure deep inside enemy's line.....and this detters the aggressor.....However ballistic missiles can not seriously degrade enemy's ground force and win wars, unlike air power.

Air force can't do that either. As I said, look at Yemen and Afghanistan.

That's why I argue that 100-200 Su-30s in Iranian hands changes the balance of power in the Persian Gulf

Nobody is arguing with this.

but when you calculate how much payload and damage can vulnerable pilots deliver in multiple sorties and how much damage ballistic missiles can delivers as expensive single shots---air power is a better choice....especially as air defenses can be overwhelmed by such tactics like flying at low altitude, using anti-radiation missiles, decoys etc.....

Air defenses can be overwhelmed by missiles as well. And tracking and shooting down a missile is way more difficult.

Example---despite Syria having air defenses, Israeli air force bombs Syria constantly.

That's because Syria never hits Israel in return. If they hit Israel, Israelis wouldn't feel so confident to attack them. That's a whole other story.

Infrastructure can be rebuild just like airfields....however once you quickly exhausted your ballistic missiles arsenal you are lost...

Yeah, they can be rebuilt but it takes years to rebuild them. It takes months and even years to rebuild a power station, or a water sanitation plant, or critical oil infrastructures.

But once Saudis rebuild their airfields, they can target multiple Iranian targets like oil refineries in Khuzestan and oil terminals in Kharg Island....This will be a terrible shootout with loses on both sides....

By the time Saudis rebuild their airfields and oilfields, Iran has rebuilt its missiles forces ;-) It's not like we will stop producing missiles during the months or years that it takes them to rebuild their lost infrastructures.

You can imagine an Iran-Turkish war starting tomorrow.....what will you do?

Ballistic missiles will target power plants and airfields in Ankara and so what---they will rebuild it like Germans did in WWII.

Again, rebuilding them will take years. And Turkish economy will be crippled because tourism is one of its main sources of money which will be completely stalled during a war.

When it will come to ground war---Iran doesn't have control of the skies and so it will be unable to degrade Turkish ground force by providing close air support, destroying supply depots and preventing reinforcements from arriving...

Turks, however, with 250 F-16 they have can do substantial damage to Iranian army...probably, having a better air force, Turks will probably defeat Iranian army thanks to airpower they have.

You keep thinking that air power wins battles on the ground. The Iraq-Iran war proved this to be completely false. Iran had a much better air power than Iraq in the first years of the war, yet we lost several hundred kilometers of our territory in the first 2 years of the war. You need prepared ground forces to win a war on the ground. Iraqi T72 MBTs did much more damage to our ground forces than their air force ever could.

There are at least 10.000 nuclear warheads at the hands of great powers.

And yet there are fewer than 10 countries having nuclear warheads. So, that still answers why the entire world hasn't switched to ballistic and cruise missiles instead of jet fighters.

Regarding "They don't sell you ballistic missiles as easily as jet fighters....It's not like they don't want to, they can't"

US and Russia have technological and industrial capacity to build any kind of ballistic missiles....Yet Russia has more S-30s and Su-35s than it has Iskander missiles...

US doesn't employ ballistic missiles at all, instead relying on its massive airpower.

How many jet fighters do Russia and US have combined? How many nuclear warheads do they have combined? Let alone their conventional missiles.

Air defences historically were less effective compared to own air force.....Syria has air defenses, yet Israel bomb them and their infrastructure from distance with gliding munitions (without even entering Syrian airspace).

How many times do you repeat yourself? Your arguments are getting repetitive. You bring up the same things over and over again in one post. I told you that if Syria had the gut to hit Tel Aviv and Haifa with missiles, Israel would've thought twice before launching an air strike on Syria. Israel hasn't attacked Lebanon since 2006. Have they? And Israel has used missiles to hit Syria several times as well.

So again, unless you have your own strong airforce, Saudis can do substantial damage to Khuzestan oil facilities and air defences will not be able to guarantee anything.

I told you why they can't do that. And this is like the third time you are saying this.

First Iran will attack Saudi oil tankers and launch ballistic missiles at Saudis-----however, Saudis having East-West pipeline that transport oil to the Red Sea will not capitulate...So Iran will have to invade...

Our missiles can accurately hit any point in Saudi Arabia. Including the East-West pipeline and Saudi ports in the Western parts of Saudi Arabia.

By temporarily taking out powerplants and airfield you do not degrade enemy's ability to fight.

Really? So an enemy that has no airports and no power stations has not been degraded and can fight back as well as before?

There are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousand of targets that needs to be destroyed in war....and tens of thousands of tons of bombs need to be delivered to the enemy ----simply taking out powerplant and temporarily disabling airfield is not enought to achieve victory.....

So they can rebuild power plants and airports, but can't buy new weapons? LOL
Do you even think about what you say? It takes much less time to replace lost weapons than it takes to rebuild an airport or a power station.

You think about place like Syria....you better think about potential Turko-Iranian war and how airpower will be crucial in defeating Turkey.

You think of wars like video games. Destroying a country's vital infrastructures is much more important than destroying their forces. This is a point you fail to acknowledge.

 

[GWXP]

The point of the posts above are these:

1) airforce is crap----better buy ballistic missiles----only Iran does it because it CAN while the rest of the world can't---Iran is smarter than the rest of the stupid world who spend billions buying useless planes instead of developing and producing own missiles---world needs to learn from Iran probably

2) Guerilla warfare in Yemen and Afghanistan is evidence that air force is useless crap LOL. Why they spend billions on fighters-- all these countries--better need to learn from Iran....2700 missiles that make 2700 hits will win war LOL----Of course example of 1991 Gulf War and Yougoslav bombing campaign that delivered more ordinance that all Iranian missiles combined doesn't matter

3) Missile quantity is around 10.000 or even fantastic 100.000....Believing IRGC propaganda is better than analysis by US CENTCOM

4) Terror bombing that failed to cripple Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan still can bring enemy to its knees---Evidence----Third world state-- Iraq's---- compliance in face of global superpower

5) Iranian missiles can be a substitute for airpower and cheaply deliver tons and tons of payload---no need for useless airforce----so probably Iran has revolutionized warfare and everybody needs to learn from it

6) It takes years to rebuild power station-----and the fact that it took 5 days to repair Abqaiq doesn't matter

7) missiles will cripple Turkey and its economy because of damage to tourism----(idea that tourism is 2% of Turkish GDP of course doesn;'t matter)

8) air force in general is not very useful in supporting ground forces---example yemen and afghanistan----useless aircrafts--why they even buy them

9) Syria doesn't have courage to hit back at Israel---and the fact that Israel bombs Iranian targets and Iran doesn;t hit back with its "deadly" missiles of course doesn't matter

10) the guy believes that his missiles can totally destroy airfields and power plants-------rather it will be damage that can be quickly fixed-----taking out airfields by cluster munitions for example can be fixed withing 5 hours---damage to Abqaiq was fixed in couple of days

11) Guy claims that destroying infrastructure is more important than defeating enemy's army----example of massive bombing campaign by Allies during WWII that failed to bring Germany to its knees of course doesn';t matter

And after all this nonsense the guy claims I think of wars like video games....


The truth, however, is that 2700 ballistic missiles is only 2700 hits compared to airforce that can make 270.000 hits.

Ballistic missiles can do temporal damage and even detter aggressor but it will never win war --not through terror ---nor through making temporal damage to infrastructure

Ballistic missiles are low tech response made out of despair---because of inability to produce or purchase fighters jets who are true kings of war.

Truth is that there is no need to develop own amateur theories that contradict globally accepted idea of importance and even crucial nature of airpower.

 

[QWECXZ]

The point of the posts above are these:

1) airforce is crap----better buy ballistic missiles----only Iran does it because it CAN while the rest of the world can't---Iran is smarter than the rest of the stupid world who spend billions buying useless planes instead of developing and producing own missiles---world needs to learn from Iran probably

2) Guerilla warfare in yemen and afghanistan is evidence that air force is useless crap that can't win wars LOL. Why they spend billions on fighters-- all these countries--better need to learn from Iran....2700 missiles that make 2700 hits will win war LOL

3) Missile quantity is around 10.000 or even fantastic 100.000....Believing IRGC propaganda is better than analysis by US CENTCOM

4) Terror bombing that failed to cripple Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan --Can bring enemy to its knees---Evidence----Third world state-- Iraq's---- compliance in face of global superpower

5) Iranian missiles can be a substitute for airpower and cheaply deliver tons and tons of payload---no need for useless airforce----so probably Iran has revolutionized warfare and everybody needs to learn from it

6) It takes years to rebuild power station-----and the fact that it took 5 days to repair Abqaiq doesn't matter

7) missiles will cripple turkey and its economy because of damage to tourism----(idea that tourism if 2% of Turkish GDP of course doesn;'t matter)

8) air force in general is not very usefull in supporting ground forces----useless aircrafts

10) Syria doesn't have courage to hit back at Israel---and the fact that Israel bombs Iranian targets and Iran doesn;t hit back with its "deadly" missiles of course doesn't matter

11) the guy believes that his missiles can totally destroy airfields and power plants-------rather it will be damage that can be quickly fixed-----taking out airfields by cluster munitions for example can be fixed withing 5 hours---damage to Abqaiq was fixed in couple of days

12) Guy claims that destroying infrastructure is more important than defeating enemy's army----example of massive bombing campaign by Allies during WWII that failed to bring Germany to its knees of course doesn';t matter

And after all this nonsense the guy claims I think of wars like video games....


The truth, however, is that 2700 ballistic missiles is only 2700 hits compared to airforce that can make 270.000 hits.

Ballistic missiles can do temporal damage and even detter aggressor but it will never win war --not through terror ---nor through making temporal damage to infrastructure

Ballistic missiles are low tech response made outs of despair---because of inability to produce or purchase fighters jets who are true kings of war.

Truth is that there is no need to develop own amateur theories that contradict globally accepted idea of importance and even crucial nature of airpower.

1) Nobody said the rest of the world is stupid. They invest in what they can buy. And they don't sell you ballistic missiles as easily as jet fighters. If it's otherwise, prove it.

2) You said ballistic missiles are crap because they failed to stop the ISIS and now are upset that air force has also failed against guerilla warfare in Yemen and Afghanistan LOL

3) It is a basic principal in military strategy that you do not rely on what your enemy says about you. They overestimate Iran's power when they want to sell weapons to Arabs and they underestimate Iran's power when they want to demoralize us and our allies. Some American sources still believe that our missiles are as good as modified Scud missiles. We have been producing missiles for 20 - 25 years. I am sure if we built even 1000 missiles a year in average, we have more than 10,000 missiles by now. Considering that we have spent most of our military budget on missiles and not military imports, that's not far-fetched at all.

4) Terror forced the Japanese army to capitulate to the US demands without delay. Two nuclear bombs did what years of war couldn't do.

5) As a matter of fact, people do need to learn from Iran when it comes to asymmetric warfare. We have successfully stopped the US, the world's biggest army, from launching a war against us.

6) It didn't take 5 days to repair Abqaiq. Don't be stupid. Just because they replaced the oil production, it doesn't mean it has been repaired. Experts believe it takes months to repair them and I have linked an article from Business Inside about that for you. The US bombed Iraqi power stations in 2003 and to this date Iraq has to import electricity from Iran for Baghdad's electricity. As another example, it took Iran more than 30 decades to rebuild our lost oil infrastructures during the Iraq-Iran war.
https://www.businessinsider.com/repairs-to-saudi-arabian-oil-facilities-could-take-months-2019-9

7) Turkey's income from tourism was 34.5 billion dollars in 2019. Turkey's budget that year was about 175 billion dollars. That's almost one third. That's basic arithmetic. GDP and government's budget are different things.

8) Main battle tanks, heavy artillery, anti-tank missiles, well-trained ground forces, tactics and strategies are also important. Iran's air force was a formidable force in 1980s. Read about Operation Kaman-99. Did it end the war? Or did the war continue for 8 years after that?

9) What happened to 9? You missed it.

10) Iran can't target Israel inside Syria because Syria is divided as it is in a civil war and Iran's ultimate goal in Syria is to keep Assad in power. However, Hezbollah's missiles has kept them safe since 2006. About a year or two years ago, Hamas fired a few hundred basic rockets at Israel and Israel asked for a ceasefire before 48 hours had passed. That's called deterrence.

11) Again, you are repeating yourself. Refer to number 6.

12) Yeah. Because civilian and military infrastructure can be repaired in days but military weapons lost in war can never be purchased or replaced. They are lost forever and the country will never be able to replace them ever! An internet war hero's logic!

It's funny that you talk about WWII when you want to defend air superiority. Air superiority didn't mean much back then. Why are you even talking about 7 decades ago which has no relevance to today's warfare? LOL

Also, 100 missiles produced by Iran cost less than 1 F35 fighter. You ignored it on purpose. I just wanted to remind you of it. ;-)

 

[Philosopher]

The point of the posts above are these:

1) airforce is crap----better buy ballistic missiles----only Iran does it because it CAN while the rest of the world can't---Iran is smarter than the rest of the stupid world who spend billions buying useless planes instead of developing and producing own missiles---world needs to learn from Iran probably

I did not claim that airforce is "crap".
As for ballistic missiles, not every nations will have the ability to produce accurate ballistic missiles. The rest of world are limited in terms of what they can buy. Unless you can make your own systems, then you are limited by INF treaty and so on.

2) Guerilla warfare in yemen and afghanistan is evidence that air force is useless crap that can't win wars LOL. Why they spend billions on fighters-- all these countries--better need to learn from Iran....2700 missiles that make 2700 hits will win war LOL

It is common knowledge that airpower alone cannot win a war. That is what @QWECXZ is trying to tell you. As for the rest of your comment, refer to what I said about.

3) Missile quantity is around 10.000 or even fantastic 100.000....Believing IRGC propaganda is better than analysis by US CENTCOM

CENTCOM would not have enough info that make claims such as how many missiles Iran has. Even they themselves admitted they cannot be certain.

4) Terror bombing that failed to cripple Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan --Can bring enemy to its knees---Evidence----Third world state-- Iraq's---- compliance in face of global superpower

You're comparing apples and oranges here.

5) Iranian missiles can be a substitute for airpower and cheaply deliver tons and tons of payload---no need for useless airforce----so probably Iran has revolutionized warfare and everybody needs to learn from it

I suggest you listen to what the actual experts say:

Here is an Israeli experts lauding Iran's method of waging war as compared to the west when using their fighter jets.

6) It takes years to rebuild power station-----and the fact that it took 5 days to repair Abqaiq doesn't matter

What does Abqaiq have to do with a power plant? Only containers were hit, right? A power plant comprises of turbines, control rooms etc.

7) missiles will cripple turkey and its economy because of damage to tourism----(idea that tourism if 2% of Turkish GDP of course doesn;'t matter

I am still waiting to hear how a country will continue to run without electrical powers.

8) air force in general is not very usefull in supporting ground forces----useless aircrafts

There is a difference between something not being essential and it not being very useful.

10) Syria doesn't have courage to hit back at Israel---and the fact that Israel bombs Iranian targets and Iran doesn;t hit back with its "deadly" missiles of course doesn't matter

The reason why Syria and Pro-Syrian forces are not replying to those attacks is to prevent escalation given Syria is no position right now to open a new front.

11) the guy believes that his missiles can totally destroy airfields and power plants-------rather it will be damage that can be quickly fixed-----taking out airfields by cluster munitions for example can be fixed withing 5 hours---damage to Abqaiq was fixed in couple of days

There is a difference between an actual power plant and something like Abqaiq (addressed already). As for air fields being fixed in 5 hours, I think you've been watching too many movies.

12) Guy claims that destroying infrastructure is more important than defeating enemy's army----example of massive bombing campaign by Allies during WWII that failed to bring Germany to its knees of course doesn';t matter

Germany's army were continuing to fight due to hitlers delusion. Hitler had lost the war but did not choose to realise it. An army cannot continue to fight effectively once a nation's vital supplies have been destroyed.

The truth, however, is that 2700 ballistic missiles is only 2700 hits compared to airforce that can make 270.000 hits.

A fighter jet will probably be shot down, a ballistic missiles? not likely so.

Ballistic missiles can do temporal damage and even detter aggressor but it will never win war --not through terror ---nor through making temporal damage to infrastructure

No one system will win the war. No one is making these claims. You are showing to have little to no comprehension of the overall picture. You are indeed thinking terms where nothing else matters except your jets. You seem to think these jets will not need an airfields, fuel. A nation needs power to continue to run.

Ballistic missiles are low tech response made outs of despair---because of inability to produce or purchase fighters jets who are true kings of war.

"Ballistic missiles are low tech". Do you really believe this statement?

Truth is that there is no need to develop own amateur theories that contradict globally accepted idea of importance and even crucial nature of airpower.

But these amateur theories are being backed by what experts are saying.

 

[Mithridates]

-targeting civilians even if does not provoke a UN resolution has negative effect. that is why iran did not do it in iran-iraq war except for a short time.
-IRGC has more credit than any western organisation and i have a proof for that. US analyzers used to tell iranian missile have 100m CEP, Iranian air defenses are propaganda and Iran can't decode the RQ-170 stored data. in all cases they were shocked when saw Iran did all the things it promised. that is not how propaganda works, their all analyzers lost their credibility on that and they did not have a backup story. so they are not as professional as we used to think and they are just arrogant people. they are the same country that some dozen terrorist managed to kill thousands of their civilians.
-in my opinion air force and missile power complement each other. first use your missiles to paralyze enemy air force, do SEAD and use your cargo planes and deliver ground units in cities/take out enemy positions with cheap free fall bombs. this way enemy would not have air superiority over you (no matter how advanced their fleet is) and you can preserve your precious BM stockpile for a longer period of time.
i would not complain if Iran manage to build a very large version of RQ-170 with capability of carrying ~8 tons of munitions for ~1300 km. even though it will not help Iran in case of an enemy strike but still it is an alternative.