yeah yeah, I know how Americans advertise their junkie toys as undefeatable, undetectable, impenetrable systems, Like this one:
I suppose that super-duper Iranian assets are unstoppable?
You are taking an isolated incident very seriously, and this overconfidence would be your undoing in a war. Remember this: Saddam Hussein was also over-confident.
Consider another isolated incident; of an Iraqi combat aircraft striking an American warship in 1987:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident
Emphasis mine. One can draw wrong conclusions from an isolated incident. Pulling a USS_Stark on USN became an impossible task for IQAF in a full-scale war with US-led forces.
US-led forces (USAF and USN in particular) utterly outgunned and demoralized IQAF (36 Jets lost in aerial engagements; 105 Jets lost on the ground); bombing runs were so intense and effective that IQAF lost much of its infrastructure and over 10,000 personnel in the process, and surviving IQAF pilots chose to take their combat aircraft to Iran instead of risking certain death in engagements with the duo of USAF and USN. On the whole, US-led forces
humiliated a much larger (and better prepared) Iraqi military force in 1991 - in a span of 41 days only - something that your country could not manage in a span of 8 years.
You need to understand that US will 'prepare' for the conventional phase of engagement with any country in advance, and it enjoy clear advantage over Iran in manpower, industrial capability, scientific matters, network-centric warfare capabilities, quantity of equipment, quality of equipment, offensive options, defensive options, training regime and battlefield experience. As a neutral observer, I see considerable asymmetry in this hypothetical clash.
---
Regarding the drones: MQ-1 Predator, MQ-9 Reaper and RQ-4 Global Hawk are relatively rugged and hardened drones. Americans have used these to assassinate thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq and Syria since 2001. These drones have impressive safeguards, and have proven their reliability in the intense EW environment of Syria (created by Russia since 2016).
RQ-170 is an experimental product and is mainly utilized for surveillance. Bear in mind that Americans were using this drone for surveillance operations over Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan since 2007; this revelation suggest decent penetration rate in contested environments, and the drone works as advertised [although this drone is one of the least advertised products in the public]. They have noticeably improved RQ-170
[1] after its loss over Iran in 2011 but this product is a stop-gap solution; the upcoming RQ-180 would be superior in every aspect and mainstay for future operations.
[1] Evidence in this link:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...0-stealth-spy-drone-appears-at-vandenberg-afb
Drones have their uses but they are just a component of modern warfare techniques. Don't fret over them.
FYI:
Commander of Khatam ol-Anbia Air Defense Base Brigadier General Farzad Esmayeeli said “The radar is capable of detecting stealth (radar-evading) targets and cruise missiles and enjoys a high movement and mobility capabilities and acts in different ranges,” FARS reported.
Actually, this is not the first time Iran announces a new radar system capable to detect radar-evading planes, cruise and ballistic missiles: in May 2012, the IRGC (Islamic Revolution Guards Corps) Aerospace Commander Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh announced a 1,100 km range radar system, called Gahdir, designed and built to identify aerial targets, stealth planes and low-altitude satellites.
Still, at least according to what the U.S. Air Force has recently disclosed, in March 2013, Iranian radars were unable to detect F-22 Raptors flying a few miles off their coastline: one the U.S. stealth fighters intercepted two F-4 Phantoms without them noticing it until the American fighter jock radioed: “you really ought to go home!”
Source:
https://theaviationist.com/2013/09/22/irans-air-defense-radar/
Iranian claims are good for public consumption and RQ-170 drone incident is a source of celebration for your country, but you are in for a rude awakening when the real shit hits the fan.
Houthis have denied any missile launch against U.S ships, even American themselves called it
possible missile launch, cause there was no sign of any actual missile, let alone proving it was from houthis.
only a fool would believe that houthis will divert their attack on a third party to give them an excuse to destroy their coastal radars and helping Saudis.
posting unproven and one-sided American/Saudi propaganda wont help you in this discussion.
Did the Houthis sink a warship or hit an oil tanker?
1. Why would Houthi admit their failures? [
Honesty is not a quintessential trait of Asians in general]
2. The term "possible missile launch" is an example of
bad press.
My thread contain ample information but you chose to ignore it.
FYI:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-the-us-navy-learning-beat-anti-ship-missiles-22535
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-had-90-seconds-to-defend-itself-yemen-houthi-2016-10
https://www.stripes.com/news/aegis-defense-system-helped-stop-missile-attack-on-uss-mason-1.433974
Houthi destroyed an HSV-2 Swift vessel (operated by UAE) with a C-802 cruise missile and broadcasted their achievement with great pride.
However, American Arleigh Burke class destroyer have formidable defenses. In 2014, a single Arleigh Burke class destroyer defeated a barrage of one SRBM and two ASCM in its path in a complex test designated as FTM-25.
You want to keep your eyes shut, be my guest. I have informed you.
You may believe their propaganda, but in reality, what we have seen in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen wars is ineffectiveness of their junkies and nothing more.
Regarding Lebanon:-
Failure is a valuable teacher. Thanks to Hezbollah, Israel is developing new forms of defenses to counter asymmetric threats and improving its precision strike capabilities as well. On the whole, Israel is much better prepared for Hezbollah today. It is foolish to underestimate ingenuity of Israel.
Your silly ranks notwithstanding, Israel devastated much of Lebanon during the war.
"The most compelling criticism that can be levied against the IDF with regard to its conduct of Operation Change of Direction has to do with the remarkably widespread destruction that its 34-day bombing effort wrought on Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure and economy as the result of a misfounded assumption that the Lebanese government had any coercive influence over Hezbollah whatsoever. By the end of the war’s first week, some 500,000 Lebanese had reportedly fled their homes to escape the IDF’s air and artillery attacks."
Lebanese PM was in tears:
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3287703,00.html
Please tell me what Hezbollah achieved from its ill-advised acts besides suffering significant losses?
Israeli Air Force have struck Hezbollah positions in Syria repeatedly; their bosses in Lebanon no longer have the guts to bombard Israeli territory with Katyusha rockets. War is not a joke and you need to get your facts straight, keyboard warrior.
Regarding Syria:-
It took Iran + Hezbollah + Assad regime + Russia to reverse gains of Syrian rebels. Unfortunately, ISIS reared its ugly head in 2013, and it ruined the prospects of Syrian rebels to formulate a single unified front and topple Assad regime. ISIS and Assad regime were a match made in hell and their collusion is an open secret
[2]. Syrian rebels were out of luck because Obama administration decided
against 'regime change' in Syria and
redirected SDF
[3] to defeat ISIS instead (i.e. Operation Inherent Resolve). Secondly, Syrian rebels were lacking in equipment to negate collective strengths of Iran + Hezbollah + Assad regime + Russia.
[2] Evidence in this thread:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...di-became-leader-of-the-islamic-state.567850/
[3] Details in this link:
https://www.newsdeeply.com/syria/ar...gins-of-the-syrian-democratic-forces-a-primer
Scholarly assessments of effectiveness of Western equipment in Syria:
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russia-s-involvement-in-syria-proves-that-its-far-behin-1794966734
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2018/03/27/saa-vehicle-losses-2011-2017/
Rather embarrassing for Iran + Hezbollah + Assad regime + Russia.
Regarding Yemen:-
Houthi are contending with GCC in Yemen. GCC does not have much experience in warfare but they are learning.
---
My focus is on the 'strengths' of US in this discussion. Israel and others, are irrelevant.
We have seen how Israel was unable to find Hizbollah's bases in 70 km area just next to their borders.
Wrong:
"Although Operation Change of Direction, much as the IDF’s subsequent Gaza operation, ended in a less than decisive outcome for Israel given the inherent nature of the opponent, Hezbollah’s combat capability was severely diminished by the IDF’s unexpectedly and disproportionately massive retaliatory measures. For example, the IDF killed as many as 700 of Hezbollah’s most skilled and valued combatants. In addition, a considerable portion of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure was either destroyed or badly damaged during the course of the IDF’s relentless aerial and artillery bombardment. Furthermore, the IDF learned much about Hezbollah’s organization and strategy as a result of its campaign experience, rendering both more susceptible to focused and effective attacks than they had been before."
Treasure-trove of information for you in this link:
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG835.pdf
US is much more resourceful and capable than Israel in the matters of surveillance and otherwise.
We have seen how super duper American weapons and intelligence destroyed Yemeni's ballistic missile bases, but only in their wet dreams!
We know how U.S/Saudis claim Patriot intercepted all of the Yemeni's ballistic missiles, the only problem is that even American experts don't believe it.
but you are free to believe it.
This is a GCC-led conflict, and Saudi Arabia will learn from its experiences. US is not fighting in Yemen.
PAC-2 and PAC-3 systems have intercepted scores of ballistic missiles over Saudi Arabia as soon as they came within striking distance; Houthi are unable to harm Saudi Arabia in a meaningful way, courtesy of these advanced defenses. FYI:
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile-war-yemen/
Saudi Arabia doesn't need to shield its entire territory; only key locations such as airports, military bases, power plants, centers of power and communication hubs (and they have). Ballistic missiles also vary in their capabilities and resultant accuracy. Scud-type ballistic missiles are known to veer off-course and strike an unintended target which might not be defended. A ballistic missile might even disintegrate due to a technical fault before reaching its target. So many variables. Their is no need to intercept every ballistic missile, just the vital ones.
If Houthi are trying to make war costly for Saudi Arabia, then they are not succeeding in this respect; courtesy of PAC-2 and PAC-3 systems in large part.
did you wanted to confirm my words? cause that's what 's in that article, in fact it shows how in previous simulation, Americans have cheated as well, to cover up the ineffectiveness of their junkies! I bet you didn't even read it!!!
The simulation in question [Millennium Challenge 2002; ME-02] doesn't prove anything in regards to capabilities and ingenuity of Iran, and have fueled much debate instead. However, war-gaming have its benefits and is a valuable exploration avenue for radical ideas and possibilities.
In ME-02, American military professionals war-gamed each other, bringing their respective
smarts to the table. Paul Van Riper was a decorated USN veteran and a brilliant tactician; he was given the honor to serve as the commander of RED forces in ME-02. He used his intricate knowledge of USN to his advantage while planning his strategy and he made some major leaps of logic while at it.
"Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World War II light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications. … In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces’ electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. … Another significant portion of Blue’s navy was “sunk” by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue’s inability to detect them as well as expected."
1. In order to launch cruise missiles towards potential targets, radar system is needed. Radar system should be able to identify and track a target in the waters. However, radar system produce emissions which can give its position to relevant surveillance assets in the air and space. US will be aware of their positions across Iran in advance, thanks to
their extraordinary surveillance capabilities. Wait, they already are:
They surely know much more than that. Just a glimpse for the naive:
2. USN will not park a fleet near Iranian shores and make it easy for Iran to engage it. Their modus operandi is to neutralize important set of targets inside and around
the target country with a massive barrage of long-range cruise missiles and airstrikes. And they will try to destroy Iranian naval assets as well.
3. Even the earliest variant of Aegis can track and distinguish over 100 high-value targets at a time and develop engagement solution for multiple targets at a time. Now each Aegis platform have sensor fusion capabilities, and is able to receive valuable information from a number of other assets in the vicinity. Sensor fusion capabilities make it impossible for an adversary to overwhelm the entire sensor architecture of the aggressor force. Google "Raytheon Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)."
It is absolutely impractical to expend dozens of costly munition on a lone [heavily defended] target in a war; you would want to hit as many targets at a time as possible. And a well-armed force like USN would be actively trying to degrade your offensive options in the process. How USN will position its assets is another issue. Iranian radar systems and surveillance capabilities are nowhere close to that of US in range and sophistication, mind you.
4. American sensor systems (including Aegis) can track and identify targets about the size of golf ball from considerable distances without any issue, at present. They won't have a problem in tracking movement of an armada of patrol boats heading in the direction of their naval assets, and their are numerous methods to engage them. USN doesn't have shortage of aerial assets to engage these vessels before they get too close. USN is also experimenting with laser weapon systems and smart micro-drones for similar ends.
Terrifying, right?
Iran have about 240 patrol boats and their armaments vary - not a huge force.
---
You need to understand that much have changed since 2002. USN have developed robust defenses against ballistic and cruise missiles today, which was not the case in 2002. Their network-centric warfare capabilities are approaching 5th generation sensor fusion standards [TRON warfare]. Their stealthy armada have vastly increased in size and capabilities since 1991. They have a huge force of battle-proven drones today which can utilized for various ends. Their electronic warfare capabilities are increasingly potent and now incorporate EMP weapons which are potent enough to disable rugged military hardware including TEL for missiles. Their surveillance capabilities have vastly improved since 2002 with new generation of satellites, aircraft and monitoring systems. Above all, their equipment automation levels have significantly increased, which in turn have lifted the burden of various tasks from the shoulders of their troops/crew. On the whole, they are much better equipped than Iran in all spectrums of warfare. They also have superior training regime.
Trump administration is adopting measures to strangulate Iranian economy and create mass unrest in your country in this way [people need food and jobs to endure]. Once the ball of unrest is rolling, all they need to do is to cripple Iranian regime and its military apparatus with overwhelming firepower. The leftovers will fall apart on their own. I am not saying that they will
one-shot Iran in conventional warfare but they will overcome your defenses and severely degrade your military capability via USAF and USN; they do not need to send an army to Iran. They have the option to buy loyalties with USD and use their Special Forces to mobilize interested elements into a fighting force who will gladly topple Iranian regime much like in Libya.
Nobody suspected that Benghazi would produce elements who will pave way for NATO to end the era of Muammar Qaddafi in 2011. When economic conditions are not good and/or excessive policing is going on, fault lines appear somewhere. I hear that Iran is also facing water crisis - not good.
back in 2012, Hezbollah's drone "Ayoub" humiliated all of these junkies, beside the Israeli junkies!
And an Israeli F-16 shot it down after tracking its movement for
30 minutes. What makes you think that they were not aware?
Secondly, drone was used to infiltrate Israeli airspace during
peacetime situation. Israeli surveillance apparatus might not be operating at its peak capacity at the time.
Nevertheless, Israel is learning; Iranian forces attempted something similar from Syria in 2018 but their drone was shot down immediately. Here is an example:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/irani...israel-in-february-was-armed-with-explosives/
I do not say that Israeli defenses are infallible, but they are getting better with time; experience is a valuable teacher. Continue to teach them more though isolated means - works for them.
---
American surveillance capabilities outstrip the same of Israel by a huge margin and they can work in tandem (refer back to Raytheon CEC video above) to produce unprecedented situational awareness for their assets across a vast expanse of territory. I do not say that these systems are infallible but unless an object is smaller than a golf ball, its chances of slipping through them
undetected [when they are operating at their peak capacity, and in CEC mode], are slim to none.
It's not a question of what the U.S. can do to Iran it's a question of what Iran can do to U.S. Military, political and financial assets in the region and will it be worth the effort!
Not much to be honest.
U.S. 2002 1/4 Billion USD simulation showed exactly what Iran could have done in 2002! U.S. lost an Aircraft Carrier and 20,000 troops in a matter of day's...
See my explanation above. Do not take MC-02 simulation seriously.
And in 2002 Iran's Cruise Missile capability was 450km vs 1500km today with a stockpile well over 50X it's 2002 stockpile
FYI:
AGM-86B ALCM range = 2500 KM
AGM-86C ALCM range = 950 KM
AGM-86D ALCM range = 1320 KM
Tomahawk cruise missile range = ~2500 KM
They have a large fleet of strategic bombers to launch ALCM. Every strategic bomber incorporate formidable electronic warfare capabilities to jam/spoof radar systems, and B-2 Spirit [in particular] is virtually invisible to any radar system by virtue of its structure, size and materials.
In 2002 U.S. Military & Civilian assets beyond 500km of Iran were practically untouchable from Iranian Missile retaliatory capabilities
See my explanation above.
In 2002 Iran's most accurate Ballistic Missile was 250km Fatteh with a CEP of 150-300meters and Iranian BM beyond 500km all had a CEP of 7km or more so you couldn't even target a Military Base with them! Where as today Iran can easily target sections of Air Bases 2000km away and take out targets with an accuracy of 20 meters (Good enough for building and large bunkers) up to 700km away
1. Ballistic missiles are not good for destroying bunkers [with conventional warheads]; bunker-buster munition does the trick.
2. Iranian ballistic missiles do not have CEP of 20 m in reality. Learn from an Iranian strike on a ISIS-held region in which Iran used its new generation of ballistic missiles:
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org...-strikes-reveal-potential-military-weaknesses
3. American military bases in the Middle East feature PAC-2 and PAC-3 defenses at present, and these systems have proven their mettle since 2003; over 100 intercepts recorded by now.
4. Military bases are huge compounds with numerous hardened shelters and potential targets. You might have to expend [many] ballistic missiles on a single military base in order to render it inoperational, and you will have to overcome its defenses first. To give you an idea, USN rained down 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles on the Syrian Shayrat airbase in 2017 and some of its sections were still intact [Tomahawk cruise missiles have pinpoint accuracy and much better suited for surgical strikes]. Best way to render a military base inoperational is through massive number of airstrikes - and Iran is lacking in this spectrum today. And US won't let you bombard its military bases across the Middle East with ballistic missiles unchallenged; your assets across the country would be under attack. Additionally, when you strike at other countries, you motivate them to retaliate; Iran would be up against multiple countries in this situation.
This is an American military base in Qatar:-
Take a good look at its sheer size. You need hundreds of ballistic missiles to render it inoperational, and still no guarantee due to its formidable defenses. You won't have the time and luxury to ruin it when USAF and USN will be subjecting your military assets, command & communication systems, power grids, radar systems, centers of power, military bases and naval assets to heavy firepower with long-range ALCM, LACM and airstrikes.
Iran’s ballistic missiles have poor accuracy. The successful destruction of a single fixed military target, for example, would probably require Iran to use a significant percentage of its missile inventory. Against large military targets, such as an airfield or seaport, Iran could conduct harassment attacks aimed at disrupting operations or damaging fuel-storage depots. But the missiles would probably be unable to shut down critical military activities. The number of transporter-erector-launchers (TELs) available and the delays to reload them would also limit the impact of even a massive attack.
Source:
http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/irans-ballistic-missile-program
Yes U.S. can easily wipe out or disable 80% of Iran's military in a matter of day's using a large scale nuclear strike but there will be NOTHING to gain from doing so!
80%? In a matter of days? Do you think that nuclear weapons are firecrackers?
Bomb dropped over Hiroshima = 15 KT
Bomb dropped over Nagasaki = 20 KT
Each bomb destroyed the entire city.
These two bombs
sapped the will of Japan to fight further, and brought its leaders to the negotiation table. Keep in mind that the Imperial Japanese were renowned for their stubbornness and bravery back then.
Let us take a look at the payload of Trident D5 SLBM:-
- Number of warheads = 8
- Warhead types = W76 [100 KT] (or) W88 [475 KT]
- Each warhead have pinpoint accuracy [SuperFuze modification] and suitable for destroying even deeply buried targets
A single Ohio class submarine pack 24 x Trident D5 SLBM; we are looking at up to 192 warheads [a combination of W76 and W88]. This lone submarine can ruin an entire continent, and in a span of minutes. Nukes not only devastate landscapes but pollute the environment [and atmosphere] with toxic radioactive releases. Nukes also kill electronic infrastructure with their EMP emissions. Should US unleash its entire nuclear arsenal, it will ruin entire Earth and cause human extinction.
Just a few Trident D5 SLBM can turn entire Iran into a radioactive wasteland. Their radioactive fallout will be immense and spillover into neighboring environments, polluting them in the process as well. A W88 warhead (or two) over the Strait of Hormuz will sink/kill anything in the region, and render the strait impassable for human beings for some years; if a chunk of Iranian assets are invested in blocking this strait, they will be history in an instant. In a span of few minutes, much of Iranian society will be gone, and the leftovers will be easy pickings.
You guys live in some kind of lalaland, and have no idea about the destructive power of your potential adversaries.
And in a conventional war against Iran the U.S. would have to put every Military, Political & Financial asset it has within 2000km of Iran at risk & to gain what?
So it's not a question of whether or not the U.S. would come out on top at the end it's a question of what the U.S. will lose in the effort and whether or not will it be worth the reward!!!!!!!!! And it's the job of Iran's military to make sure it never is!
There is a major asymmetry in the capabilities of Iran and US in all spectrums of warfare - a ground reality which an average Iranian citizen doesn't realize. Don't believe me? Let us compare
each military asset of Iran with that of US on a case-by-case basis and see where it goes.
Take a look at this:
Their forces operate in different parts of the world. They have also fought more wars than any other country in existence. The wealth of knowledge and experience they have acquired from their expeditions cannot be negated with bookish knowledge and distant observations.
Whenever I talk to an Iranian, his/her opinion is that we have so many ballistic missiles and cruise missiles in our inventory. We will simply rain them down on their military bases and naval assets and be done with it. This is an exceedingly uni-dimensional thought process in which you guys mistakenly assume that your forces will be doing everything and others will just sit in the trenches and let you. Do you guys study American conventional warfare tactics? If they manage to destroy your major radar systems and various communications systems in the opening salvo, then what? How many assets in their inventory? How many targets they can hit in the opening salvo? What qualitative and quantitative advantages they enjoy? What if they fool your forces with realistic diversions? What if they blanket your environment with jamming/spoofing instruments?
War between Iraq and Iran devolved into WW-1 style clashes of attrition, and it have constrained Iranian thought process accordingly. I warn you that US is not Iraq, and does not have similar set-of-constraints and limitations.
Clearly you live in a delusional reality!
Take your own advice.
1st off Iran totally destroyed Iraq's Air Force twice over!
Proof?
IQAF was a mediocre force in 1980, with aircraft noticeably lacking in range and sophistication in comparison to F-14, and light munitions. Lack of access to Soviet Satellite feeds was another issue. IQAF struck 10 Iranian Air Bases in the initial days of war and managed to neutralize only Dezful. Learn more from this declassified report (pages 57 - 58):
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a263552.pdf
IIAF was not in good shape either due to purges. IIAF retaliated to IQAF incursions by attacking targets of strategic value in Iraq. Learn more from this declassified report (pages 58 - 59):
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a263552.pdf
During the period 1980 - 1982 [initial phase of the war], IQAF would try to avoid aerial engagements with IIAF due to its qualitative inferiority. However, situation began to shift in 1983 with IQAF receiving new (and more capable) combat aircraft from France, and its pilots becoming more skilled with experience. IIAF began to loose its edge in the absence of logistics support from US.
Fighter-against-fighter combat was only common during the first phase of the war. Iran's air force was the more successful force during this phase, but this was as much due to Iraqi incompetence and the lower performance of the sensors, avionics, and missiles on Iraqi fighters as to Iranian ability. In retrospect, there is little doubt that the Iraqis misjudged Iran's ability to fly air combat missions in spite of the revolution, and overestimated their own effectiveness. Iraqi planners also overestimated their own level of air combat training, the performance capabilities of their aircraft, the operational readiness of Iraq's best squadrons, their reconnaissance assets, and their command and control capabilities.
In the first phase of the war, the Iranians had the fuel and endurance to "win" most air encounters by either killing with their first shot of an Aim-9, or forcing Iraqi fighters to withdraw. They also seem to have had a distinct edge in training, although one observer of air combat between the two sides is reported to have commented, "They can fly, but either they can't shoot or they can't aim." Iran has since lost that edge. It has suffered from repeated purges and it has conducted only minimal training since 1979.
Most of the air-to-air combat seen by outside observers tended to be inconclusive. Engagements that should have taken less than two minutes have lasted as long as five. In most air-to-air combats, the successful pursuer either succeeded with his first missile, or was not able to keep his opponent from breaking off and escaping. This may reflect the fact that air combat tends to spiral down to altitudes where neither side was properly trained to fight, but it may also reflect the fact that many of the IR missiles held by both sides were relatively ineffective in anything other than tail chase firing at medium to high altitudes.
Iraq, however, steadily improved its training during the course of the war, and made increasingly effective use of its new French aircraft and missiles. After 1982, it had the edge in most of the few encounters that took place, although its kill capability per encounter remained low. It still is unclear how much Iraq really improved versus how much Iran degenerated in operational readiness.
Iran lost most of its few air-to-air encounters after 1983, unless it used carefully planned ambush tactics against Iraqi attackers flying predictable paths of attack. Iran not only lost its technical edge over Iraq, the entire Iranian Air Force probably could not generate more than 30 to 60 sorties per day under surge conditions after 1983. Iran also lost one F-4 or F-5 on January 17-18 1985, under conditions suggesting the Iranian aircraft had serious missile or radar problems. This indicates Iran has be committed fighters to air combat with at least some inoperable avionics. Iran has reported growing reliability and survivability problems with all of its U.S.-made missiles and smart ordnance since 1984.
Iraq, in contrast, was able to generate fairly high sortie rates from 1983 onwards, increasing from a maximum of 65 sorties per day, early in the war, to levels of 150 per day in 1984, and over 250 in 1986-1988, with claims of peaks as high as 600. Iraq had little reason to devote much of this sortie generation capability to air defense after the early 1980s, but it did demonstrate that it could generate a high number of air defense sorties with well-armed and fully operational aircraft. It is also interesting to note that Iraq claimed in late 1988, that its pilots had flown a total of 400,000 sorties of all types during the war.
Source:
https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/...ia/csis/pubs/9005lessonsiraniraqii-chap13.pdf
Iran have only
itself to blame for its poor performance in its war with Iraq, thanks to Khomeini-led revolution and its implications [purges; severing of ties with US].
Saddam stood no chance against Shah's Iran, IMO.
2ndly Iran destroyed 80% of Saddam's Navy early in the war which they never recovered from!
Iraq was weak in Naval front. Their wasn't much to destroy in this case.
3rd With 2-5 times the Tank Force Saddam was forced to withdraw from every inch of Iranian territory it had invaded.
Iraqi Army wasn't a huge force in 1980 [~190,000 troops; 12 mechanized divisions]. Two divisions were reserved for defense of Iraqi mainland whereas the rest were dispatched into Iran which managed to occupy over 11,000 sq. KM of Iranian territory, severing Iran's access to Shatt al-Arab in the process.
However, Iran is a big country with considerable able-bodied manpower, and Khomeini found it easy to motivate his followers to fight Iraqi forces alongside Iranian Army [Basij and Pasdaran]. Iranian forces fought back bravely, overwhelmed Iraqi forces with sheer numbers and managed to push them out of Iranian territory by 1982. On the verge of defeat, Saddam proposed ceasefire to Khomeini but Khomeini squandered this offer with his calls for Saddam to step down or continue to face the music
[4].
[4] FYI:
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/06/13/weekinreview/iran-rejects-iraq-s-call-for-cease-fire.html
Khomeini's anger was understandable but a wise leader is pragmatic in geopolitical matters. Iran defeated Iraq in the battlefield by 1982, and should have capitalized on its hard-fought victory in a meaningful way; Khomeini was in the position to seek favorable terms for ceasefire with Saddam, and project himself as a pragmatic leader to the world. He was in the position to make Saddam
look bad in front of the world, but he was not wise.
Finally, wars are won and lost based on objectives! NOT based on how many troops you lost in the process or how much equipment each side had at the end of the war!
True.
Iranian forces reversed all gains of Iraq in the period [1980 - 1982] and brought Saddam to the negotiation table. In other words, your country emerged victorious.
However, Khomeini [being a doofus] rejected Saddam's offer of truce and re-ignited the war with unrealistic goals. Now Iraq was defending itself and was willing to adopt extreme measures for this end. For instance, Saddam approved the use of chemical weapons to prevent Iranian forces from making considerable inroads into Iraq. Iranian forces suffered tremendous losses while trying to break through Iraqi defenses over the course of years, with limited gains to show on the ground [Al-Faw peninsula and a few other locations]. Iranian acts of aggression motivated many countries to provide equipment to Iraq and finance its war-effort, enabling Iraq to establish a powerful military force in the process.
In 1988, Iraq had enough of Iranian harassment and made heavy use of chemical weapons, airstrikes, armored units and ballistic missiles to decimate Iranian forces within and outside Iraqi borders. Khomeini finally came to his senses and agreed to lasting ceasefire.
Iraqi use of ballistic missiles against Iran in 1982 = 3
Iraqi use of ballistic missiles against Iran in 1988 = 193
Iraqi aerial activity over Iran in 1982 = 65 sorties per day
Iraqi aerial activity over Iran in 1988 = > 250 sorties per day (~600)
By 1988, Iraq had a domestic chemical weapons industry, and had produced sufficient quantities for use in virtually any battle with Iran.
Iraqi Republican Guards - elite armored divisions with best equipment and training - emerged in 1986, and gave a sound thrashing to Iranian forces on the ground in 1987 and 1988:
"The Republican Guards were Iraq's most effective force. Iraq had recognized the need for elite forces once Iran had invaded Iraqi territory, and had expanded a guard force originally designed to protect the capital and the president. The Republican Guards forces received special equipment and training during the Iran-Iraq War. They played a major role in defending Basra in 1987 and the Iraqi offensives 1988. As a result of their success, they had grown to eight divisions by the end of the Iran-Iraq War, plus a large number of independent infantry and artillery brigades."
Source:
https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/media/csis/pubs/iraq88-93.pdf
Clear enough?
FYI the ONLY reason Saddam military equipment was increasing had to do with only 1 reason and that's because of an $80 BILLION USD handout from the Saudi's to continue the war!
$80 Billion USD in the 80's is easily equal to well over $400 Billion USD worth of weapons today!
So the fact that Saddam's military equipment was increasing doesn't show the realities of the battlefield!
Syria shut down Iraqi Kirkuk–Baniyas oil pipeline to deprive the Iraqis of revenue in support of Iran. This is when the GCC stepped in, to level the playing field for Iraq in its war with Iran.
Clear enough?
If you look at How many Tanks and armored vehicles Iran destroyed as appose to Iraq or Who had more Air to Air victories and who's Air Defense had more kills and who had more successful strikes against military bases, who destroyed whos Navy....
and who achieved what objective and who became desperate enough to use WMD the answer is quite clear!
If you wanna know how the war was going here are some facts to consider
1.Iran started the war with 79 F-14 and ended the war with 65. Today ~24 F-14's are on active duty with another 20 in storage. Same statistic holds true with Iranian F-4's & F-5's and Iran still operates it's 70's era Tankers and transport aircrafts! While after the 1st 2 years of the Iran-Iraq war almost all of Saddam's most vital Air Force aircrafts were destroyed and were replaced with the Soviets and the French running to the rescue and an $80Billion USD handouts from the Saudi's while Iran was sanctioned and prevented from buying part for it's Aircrafts and was forced to cannibalize it's own aircraft!!! FYI Iran cannibalized more fighters than the Iraqi's were able to destroy.
2.Today most of Iran's Frigates, all of Iran Corvettes, about half of it's FAC, most of it's most vital blue water support vessels,.... were all purchased and delivered prior to the Iran-Iraq war!
3.Today vast majority of Iran's current Helo forces are helo's purchased prior to the war!
These are just
SOME of the Helo's located in
Isfahan ALONE!
View attachment 491097
View attachment 491098
View attachment 491099
So in this DELUSION reality you reside at this 6th largest Air Force Saddam had couldn't even take out most of Iran's helo forces!!!!!! LOL!
1. Iran have
rebuild its military force over the course of years with technical assistance of North Korea, Libya, China and Russia. Iran have some equipment from Iran-Iraq War days, but much have changed since.
2. Iranian tactic of warfare was to commit militia and infantry in large numbers to battles (human-waves), and preserve important pieces of equipment.
3. Iraqi forces did not restrict their attacks to Iranian military assets only; many attacks were directed towards targets of economic value in Iran:
http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu21le/uu21le0e.htm
Yes at the start of the war Iraq was able to invade a good portion of Iranian territory but that was ONLY because Iran had just had a revolution and Iran's new leadership didn't believe Iran's Air Force Commanders when they were warned of the threat of an Iraqi invasion!!!!
Yes Iran gave up more casualties 1.Because Saddam used WMD's 2.Because Saddam had a much larger Armored battalion 3.Because Iraq had invaded Iranian territory so clearly Iranian casualty numbers would be higher and that fairly standard world wide.
Just as Hitler had far less casualty numbers than allied forces regardless of the outcome of the war!
See above.
I do not wish harm to Iran but your country have an unfortunate history of interfering in the matters of other countries and creating problems for itself. Bear in mind that their is no Saddam Hussein to preoccupy US today. Your country is trying to encircle Israel, and this ill-advised strategy can backfire spectacularly.
. RIP logic 
