Cthulhu
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2017
- Messages
- 2,997
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
This is the last thing that Persians should do.
We can block Strait of Hormuz , but USA can open it : Former IRGC Commander
- Thread starter OldTwilight
- Start date
VEVAK
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2013
- Messages
- 2,406
- Reaction score
- 1
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not much to be honest.
See my explanation above. Do not take MC-02 simulation seriously.
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.
See my explanation above.
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
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.
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.
Take your own advice.
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.
Iraq was weak in Naval front. Their wasn't much to destroy in this case.
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
NONSESE After Nonsense
1st Do you even read the links you post??? LOL!
2ndly Iran has over 350 CONFIMED Kills IN THE Air alone mostly Iraqi data (SAM & Air Defense Kills)
Here are the facts to consider
1st you have the Americans who were kicked out of Iran and despite knowing Iranians and living with Iranians it was still hard for them to imagine that Iran was even able to maintain it's Air Force even a few months after they were kicked out let alone till today because ONLY American maintenance crew were allowed to conduct major maintenance on Iranian fighters and Iranian maintenance crew were restricted to simple standard maintenance.
And during the war and after the War Americans have ALWAYS downplayed Iran's capabilities publicly in every aspect because it is in their interest to do so because clear it is NOT an example Americans would like to set and advertise amongst their other puppet states!
2ndly You have the Soviets and the Low performance of Soviet Aircraft against American Aircraft in the Iran-Iraq war was quite clear so much so that Saddam finally went to the French to buy F-1's so neither the American or the Soviets (Russian) or the Europeans have any interest in publicizing facts in Iran's favor so the links you have 1st and foremost has their interests.....
And even post 1983 with the Iraqi F-1 the Air kills NEVER flipped in Iraq's favor and although the stats improved greatly towards Iraqi favor in the Air in terms of Air to Air kills they NEVER NOT ONCE actually filled in their favor because post 82 vast majority of large air campaigns were done with and post 83 it was Iranian SAM that were doing most of the killing and the reason for that has to do with Iran's stockpile of Air to Air Missiles and NOT Iraqi Air Forces capabilities!
And if you want prof of that's fine here is ONE clear fact Iran started the war with 77 F-14 and ended the war with ~65 after 8 years of war!!!!!!!!!! SO NO! Stats NEVER flipped in Saddam's favor! And Iran wasn't even allowed to buy parts for it's fighters LET ALONE buy new fighter let alone being handed $80 Billion USD in the 80's and it's a well known fact that Iran cannibalized more fighters due to a lack of part than the Iraqi's were ever able to destroy
And Iran's overall Air Kills SAM & Air to Air kills combined outnumber Iraqi and that is a FACT and you can cry about it all you want but the numbers are clear
And striking an Air Base and having a successful strikes against Air Bases that have fighters inside fortified Aircraft bunkers are two different things!!!!!!!! And in that aspect Iran's Air Forces performance is quite clear!
And in terms of hitting financial assets again Iranian strikes were far more successful according to your own links with Iran destroying over 30% of Iraqi Oi fields early on
Another fact is If as you say Saddam's Air Force was so successful post 1983 against Iran why on Gods Green Earth would he need to resort to firing so many relatively overpriced and inaccurate Ballistic Missiles at Iran?
And Dezful was most definitely NOT destroyed in Iraq initial strikes!!!!!! After Iraq's initial attack 40 F-5's took off from Dezful airbase alone to attack Iraq's Nasereyyeh Airbase as part of Iran's Kaman99 operation making Dezful the 2nd most active Airbase in that operation in terms of the number of fighters that participated in the Kaman99 operation! SO WRONG AGAIN!
AND IF AS YOU SAY Saddam's Air Force was winning post 83 how come most of Iran's Naval fleet remained untouched by Iraqi Air Strikes? How come most of Iran's fairly large Helo Forces remained untouched?? And most of Iran's Helo forces even today don't have simple shelters let alone fortified bunkers! How come between 83-88 he couldn't even destroy 1/4 of Iran's F-14 fleet!! Fact is if his Airforce was so successful he wouldn't have needed to fire inaccurate overprice Ballistic Missiles!
AND HOW DELUSIONAL ARE YOU? Saddam invades Iran then after 2 years when Saddam had lost nearly 80% of the major weapons platforms he had started the war with and was kicked out of every inch of Iranian Territory at that point Iranians were the aggressors because they refused to accept the terms of deal offered! LOL!
Why should have Iran accepted a deal? Saddam was a fool that after the Iran-Iraq war attacked the very same people that helped him fund his war against Iran! Clearly a peace deal with such an idiot wouldn't have been worth the paper it would have been written on! And Iranian estimates that all Saddam wanted in 1982 was time to buy more weapons was right on point!
And Saddam all throughout the 8 year long war maintained an Armored Division 2-5 times the size of Iran's so yea they had a massive Armored Battalion comparatively
AND YOU CAN POST ALL THE LINKS THAT YOU WANT but the FACTs are quite evident today!
Facts like Iran was sanctioned and prevented from buying even part for it's fighters while Saddam was handed $80Billion USD to buy weapons in the 80's and compared to today's money that's easily well over 1/4 Trillion USD worth of weapons today!
Iran started the war with 77 F-14's and ended the war with 65 still in tacked! Vast majority of Iran's Helo Forces remain in tacked, Vast majority of Iran's Naval vessels remained in tacked & by the most part the Naval vessels destroyed were vessels the U.S. hit not Saddam! It was Saddam that started firing Ballistic Missiles at Iran because by the most part it's Air Force couldn't do much of anything regardless of how many sorties they flew! It was Saddam that used Chemical Weapons out of desperation and he used them even on civilian areas and on his own territory against Kurds again that is a clear desperate act!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was Saddam that started the war against and it was Saddam that invaded Iran which means Saddam's 1st and primary objective was to annex Iranian Territory and Iran's 1st and primary objective in that war was to kick out Saddam from it's territory and Iran's 2ndary objective was to ensure that Saddam never invades Iranian territory ever again both of which were reached which in a military sense it is a CLEAR victory for Iran and a clear loss for Saddam! And that is a FACT neither the American or European or the Russians have any interest in advertising!
And you can CRY all you want about it but those fact will NEVER change!
And you post absurd fact like how many sorties Iraqi fighter flew over Iranian Air Space! Iran is a relatively large country so the ONLY figure that matter is how many successful strikes against military and major financial assets they had not how many sorties they flew or how many bombs they dropped after they were handed $80 Billion USD and bought themselves a new Air Force after Iran destroyed their previous Air Force
And post 84 due to a shortage of Air to Air Missiles Iranian Air Force pilots WOULD NOT engage Iraqi fighter until they became a threat but when they become a threat they were either shot down by the fighters or Iranian SAM and that is why Saddam had to buy and use overprice inaccurate BM and fire so many at Iran because his new Air Force still couldn't do anything and Iran's Air Force reframed from engaging Iraqi fighters unless absolutely necessary and that doesn't change of the facts as to how destroyed how many fighters overall both on the ground and in the Air!
LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
If this is your attitude then do not expect further responses from me. I have more pressing matters to attend to. Nonsense, my foot.
Yes, I read them. Did you?
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war
The sources [of information] I have shared with you, offer a comprehensive critic of conduct of warfare of both Iraq and Iran. You need to read them carefully and not skim through them. Take your time; no need to rush.
What exactly is your point here?
So now you agree that Iraqi defenses [and SAM coverage] were improving over time? Good.
I have pointed out to you that IIAF began to loose its edge after 1983 due to shortage of spare parts and maintenance problems. Conversely, IQAF was improving in all spectrums, and recorded higher number of sorties over Iran than before.
Do you understand the difference between the words sortie and kills ?
You are repeating my point.
I did not assert that IQAF matched IIAF in terms of aerial kills throughout the war. IIAF performed well against IQAF in the early years of conflict (1980 - 1982), but IIAF began to loose its edge after 1982 due to shortage of spare parts and maintenance challenges on its end. IIAF then chose to avoid aerial confrontations with IQAF in large part.
As for effectiveness of Iranian SAM coverage:-
Iraqi aerial activity over Iran in 1982 = 65 sorties per day
Iraqi aerial activity over Iran in 1988 = > 250 sorties per day (~600)
Not very effective to say the least.
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
1980 - 1982
IQAF played an important role in anti-shipping activities [Tanker War phase] and in softening Iranian military positions in the years 1987 - 1988. IQAF also struck Iranian cities in order to terrorize Iranian citizens.
Ballistic missiles were also fired to terrorize Iranian citizens, and to send a message to Iranian leadership that Iraq can hurt Iranian cities in more significant ways than before.
This is argument for the sake of argument.
My statement: "IQAF struck 10 Iranian Air Bases in the initial days of war and managed to neutralize only Dezful."
I did not choose to specify how it was neutralized, and how many times it was struck. I pointed out to you that IQAF was mediocre force in 1980.
I expect from you to read my responses carefully and see them in proper context. Do not waste my time with silly arguments and rants.
Due to political restrictions.
So what exactly Iran gained from its efforts to invade Iraq?
REMINDER: 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.
Once again, an argument for the sake of argument. Useless rants on top.
Right.
I am not interested in discussing with you the specifics of Iran - Iraq war because this is pointless. I just wanted to remind Iranian members the fact that US-led forces encountered a much larger, experienced and confident Iraqi military force in 1991, and defeated it in a span of 45 days. Iran was/is nowhere as strong.
mohsen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 6,710
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Saddam hussein was nothing but a pony puppet, with a war machine totally dependent on foreign forces for everything, from soldier and human resources to intelligence and logistic support. Iraqi people who were sick from this dictator didn't even resisted against American forces, only a fool would call that a war, let alone comparing it with Iran today.
Unlike your delusions, our claims are rooted from reality.
It's funny, when Iran detects and captures American's most advanced stealth drone, you call it a worthless show for public consumption, but at the same time, an incident in which Iranian fighter escorts a U.S drone near our borders (a common practice all around the world), you call it a sign of superior stealth technology, this level of prejudice can only come out of a keyboard warrior.
Your comment and your one-sided American propaganda links are based on the presumption that Houthis are bunch of fools, who would invite Americans to an already unfair war, yes, this is the requirement of all propaganda lies.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.
Houthis have enough Saudi floating targets around themselves to hit and they have done it even against Saudi's most advanced latest french made stealth frigate which it's specialty was air defense system.
but I know how you would justify this: 1.Houthis are lying 2. french frigates aren't as advanced as U.S made super dupers and their alien techs!
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.
Hezbollah humiliated the entire Zionist military in 2006 war.
yes, Hezbollah lacked any air defense system which allowed Zionists to comfortably bombard the civilians, but on the battlefield Israeli soldiers were being slaughtered by Hezbollah forces, Hezbollah lost less than 50 soldiered while Israel lost two times more:
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/2007islamforum_israel-hezb-war.pdf
But of course, you prefer the Zionist's stories which designates all pro-people as Hezbollah fighters and even call their cities as Hezbollah stronghold! good for you.
Hezbollah launched an operation to capture the Israeli soldiers to exchange them with Lebanese prisoners in Israel, and they achieved this goal in the end of the war, while Israel launched it's invasion to annihilate Hezbollah, but not only Hezbollah remained (to become even more powerful), to the last day of war, rocket rains on Zionist settlements didn't stop till Israel bowed to all Hezbollah's demands.
Lebanon became the graveyard of Merkava tanks which propagandas were advertising as undefeatable machine, Zionists lost their stealth ship and claimed their electronic systems were off (in the middle of the war inside enemy territory) to cover up the humiliation of their super duper techs, these are what happened on the battle field.
Ayoub drone flied for 400km in Israel airspace and during it's flight, it passed over the head of U.S and NATO fleet (and their AEGIS junk) which were present in the Mediterranean sea, and it was finally discovered visually using a surveillance balloon near dimona nuclear reactor and Israel air defense couldn't lock on it that's why they resorted to the airforce, and F16 pilot couldn't lock on it too and missed the target in the first missile launch and in the second attempt he got so close to the drone that almost hit it's own plane.
the drone which recently was shot down in Israel was also spotted visually, not by radars, and again their air defense was unable to lock on it and if an Apache helicopter wasn't present in the area, now things were different. though the fact that it was flying so low to let it be seen, suggests another intention for it's launch, and many think it has been just a plot to lure Israelis to the trap which was ended by downing an Israeli F16.
This was the most ridiculous lie which can only come out of a true troll and internet warrior like yourself.
ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra and the rest of wahhabi terrorist groups are founded by U.S and Saudi Arabia, both U.S and Saudi officials have admitted it.
U.S changed it's policy against ISIS for two reasons, one was the nature of these terrorist groups which went out of their control and Americans couldn't support them as freedom fighters anymore, and secondly and more important reason was the quick advances of Iranian backed forces which promised an unprecedented Iranian influence in near future, so Americans changed their tactic to reduce their damage, otherwise now they had no presence in Iraq and Syria.
but of course, biased minds would see U.S/Israel/Europe/Gulf monarchies/Turkey defeat in Syria as a win
, good luck with the rest of your wins, soon you will experience another one in Yemen!
Kastor
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2017
- Messages
- 905
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Nice maps from Google Earth....you're soooo impressive. By your war plans in the previous post I got all I needed about your military war planning talent. So let's review, we preemptively attack U.S. bases and assets, attack S.A. Bahrain and attack UAE. I wonder how many people here with military or intelligence background laughed when they read that. The U.S. will pulverize those missile assets before you can fire off (50 each as you wrote..Lol). Nice, so openly declare war on 2 more enemies at the same time as the U.S. Brilliant! So tell me what's our plan after your first missile volley? What kind of air defences do we have that take out approx 1500 tomahawks, approx 400 fighters: F-18s, F-15s and various bombers? After every airbase, naval base and nuclear asset, electric grid, dam and major airport is hit? Don't forget how the U.S. loves blowing up military communication bases, towers and radar installations in the first day of any war. Yeah, think about that tough guy. Also you need to cool it with the exclamation marks....it feels like I'm arguing with a 14 year old!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
U.S. Naval Forces in the 5th Fleet:The 5th Fleet is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf, and as of Feb. 23, the naval forces included: two carriers, 20 ships, 103 strike aircraft, approximately 20,000 sailors and marines.
The military sealift command forces in the gulf include: 18 ships, 189 U.S. Navy personnel, 844 civilian mariners and 64 oceanographers. Naval forces enroute to the 5th Fleet include: five ships, 30 aircraft, 4,740 sailors and marines.
Currently, two U.S. naval battle groups are in the Gulf, each led by a carrier:
USS George Washington:
Crew: 5,500 – Carrier Air Wing 1:
SQUADRON TYPE AIRCRAFT No. (Approx.)
VF-102 Fighter F-14B 14
VFA-82 Strike Fighter F/A-18C 12
VFA-86 Strike Fighter F/A-18C 12
VMFA-251 Marine Strike Fighter F/A-18C 10
USS Independence:
Crew: 5,000 – Carrier Air Wing 5:
SQUADRON TYPE AIRCRAFT No. (Approx.)
VF-154 Fighter F-14B 10
VFA-27 Strike Fighter F/A-18C 12
VFA-192 Strike Fighter F/A-18C 12
VFA-195 Strike Fighter F/A-18C 12
Note: The Navy reports that a carrier airwing is usually loaded with more than 4.6 million pounds of air launched missiles, laser-guided bombs, general purpose bombs and ammunition including: Harpoon, HARM, Maverick, Sidewinder, Sparrow, Walleye, AMRAAM, Shrike, SLAM, Phoenix, and Vulcan 20mm shells.
Accompanying vessels:
Cruisers:
- USS Bunker Hill: Ship's company of 358; is Tomahawk-capable.
- USS Normandy: Ship's company of 358; is Tomahawk-capable.
Destroyers:
- USS Barry: Ship's company of 300; is Tomahawk-capable.
- USS Carney: Ship's company of 300; is Tomahawk-capable.
- USS Ingersoll: Ship's company of 339.
- USS John S. McCain: Ship's company of 300; is Tomahawk-capable.
- USS John Young: Ship's company of 339; is Tomahawk-capable.
Guided Missile Frigates:
- USS Reuben James: Ship's company of 200.
- USS Samuel B. Roberts: Ship's company of 200.
- USS Ingersoll: Ship's company of 339.
Attack Submarines:
- USS Annapolis: Ship's company of 133; is Tomahawk-capable.
- USS Charlotte: Ship's company of 133.
Fast Combat Support Ship:
- USS Seattle: Ship's company of 600.
- USS Samuel B. Roberts: Ship's company of 200.
- USS Ingersoll: Ship's company of 339.
Mine Countermeasures Ship:
- USS Ardent: Ship's company of 81.
- USS Dextrous: Ship's company of 81.
USS Guam Amphibious Ready Group:
USS GUAM: Is a multi-purpose amphibious assault ship which essentially acts as a small aircraft carrier that serves to put troops on hostile shores.
Ship's company numbers 900, including 2,000 combat-ready Marines from the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is also capable of Special Operations. The ship also has an Aviation Combat Element Reinforced section which includes:
- Super Cobra Attack Helicopter Squadron – 6 AH-1Ws.
- Combat Assault/Cargo Helicopter Squadron – 12 CH-46Es.
- Combat Assdault/Cargo Helicopter Squadron – 2 HH-46Ds.
- Heavy Lift Helicopter Squadron – 6 CH-53Es.
- Ship to Shore Utility – 3 UH-1Ns.
USS Shreveport: Is a versatile ship which acts as an amphibious transport used to land Marines, their equipment and supplies. Landings are achieved through the use of embarked landing craft or amphibious vehicles augmented by helicopters in amphibious assault. Ship's company of 420.
USS Ashland (ship's company of 340) and USS Oak Hill (ship's company of 340): Are both Dock Landing Ships which serve to support a variety of amphibious operations and landings onto hostile shores.
(Source: U.S. Navy)
U.S. Air Force:As of Feb. 24, Air Force officials reported that personnel in the area numbered close to 8,000. The 100 aircraft based in Saudi Arabia for patrols over southern Iraq has seen the addition of two dozen F-15 and F-16 fighter jets to Bahrain. The Air Force has also authorized the dispatch of 12 F-117 stealth fighter jets to Kuwait, three B-1 bombers to Bahrain and 14 B-52 bombers to the island of Diego Garcia. It also has diverted dozens of support aircraft to the region for refueling, surveillance, electronic jamming and search-and-rescue missions.
Jabir Air Base, Kuwait: 36 aircraft, including F-117 stealth jets and several A-10 ground attack planes and F-16 fighter jets.
Incirlik Air Base, Turkey:
50 aircraft, 24 of which are combat aircraft, including F-16s, F-15s, refueling planes and 3 electronic warfare planes.
Sheik Isa Airfield, Bahrain
About 40 warplanes, including A-10s and 2 B-1 bombers.
Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia
More than 100 aircraft, including F-16s, F-15s, A-10s, electronic warfare and refueling planes.
Last edited:
VEVAK
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2013
- Messages
- 2,406
- Reaction score
- 1
Iran's Air to Air kills number over 230 easily with over half of them confirmed Kills and Iran easily had well over 100 unconfirmed kills where Iraqi Aircrafts ended up crashing or were put out of service due shrapnel damages in Air to Air engagements!!!!!! And it's not just Iran! Iraq also has unconfirmed kills!!!!!!!
Iranian SAM kills number near 160 kills with SAM Missiles alone
(FYI Confirmed kills are when you see the enemy Aircraft blow up or crash right in front of you or you have direct confirmation that the reason it crashed was due to a particular engagement and a lot of the times shrapnel hits and damages is not so evident until the pilot ends up crashing as he tries to fly home or lands but his aircraft is put out of service and vary rarely do those hits get recorded as a confirmed kills for either side especially with Iran's use of AiM-54 all Iranian pilots would see was a little ball of smoke and the Iraqi aircraft would either blow up or crash right there or would attempt to fly back home in which case you vary rarely knew what happened to it AND NO Airforce advertises kill for the other side that's just common sense)
And if you wanna go based on confirmed kills on wikipida then here are Iraq's confirmed kills
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iraqi_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war
Dose in look like they were winning in the Air? Even Post 83 they have how many confirmed kills again?? And how many are post 83 again? What a total of 7 confirmed kills post 83 against other fighter jets!!
So recorded confirmed kills ARE NOT all the Kills Iraq had nor are they all the kills Iran had!!!!!!!!!!
The fact that Iraqi Air Force's flew more sorties later on had to do with ONLY 2 main reason first due to an $80 BILLION USD handout from the Saudi's and 2ndly due to Shortage of Air to Air Missiles on Iran's side and due a Missile shortage Iran's Air Force was ordered NOT to engage every Iraqi fighter that entered Iranian Air Space and save their missiles for when it was absolutely necessary especially the AIM-54!!!!!!!!!!! So flying 1 million sorties over Iranian Air Space wouldn't mean a damn thing unless they could reach their target!!!!!!!!!
So post 83 Iranian pilots would NOT engage Iraqi pilots UNLESS ABSOLUTLY NESSARY! And when forced to do so they shot down Iraqi F-1's just as easily as any other Iraqi MiG! And that's why Iran has far more CONFIRMED F-1 Kill's in the Air in the last 3 years of the war then Iraq had F-14 kills all throughout the war!
And post 83 BOTH Iran and Iraq improved Air Defense and placed SAM around vital targets and that's why Saddam started firing Ballistic Missiles at Iran because his Air Force couldn't do anything and his F-1's were still getting shot down!
VEVAK
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2013
- Messages
- 2,406
- Reaction score
- 1
I'm sorry what exactly is the point your trying to make?
You think posting U.S. military assets means in an all out war with the U.S. Iran is going to fire only 2-3 Ballistic Missiles at 2-3 U.S. bases? And posting U.S. military assets helps with your argument because?
And in an all out war against the U.S. Iran is going to have to fire missiles at bases in all the countries whos bases were involved in an initial U.S. attack against Iran. And if Saudi Arabia or other Persian Gulf states allow the U.S. to use it's base against Iran it's no different than those countries declaring war on Iran because that would be considered as an act of war!!!!!!!!!! And Iran is going to have to respond by not only attacking bases in those countries but also the civilian infrastructure.
And I never said Iran should initiate a war against the U.S.! But at the end of the day closing down the Persian Gulf IS NO DIFFERENT than declaring war on the U.S. and every other country that's dependent on the Persian Gulf. And shutting down the Persian Gulf OR attacking Naval ports in the UAE, Bahrain & Saudi Arabia would both get the same response from the U.S. and it's puppet sates so if it's a choice between shutting down the Persian Gulf or attacking those countries then attacking those countries would make far more sense!
LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
A large number of countries, including Iran, import military hardware from abroad, and solicit relevant logistics support and foreign training [it is unrealistic to expect ToT in every deal]. Russia, China and North Korea are notable partners of Iran in these matters at present.
Your fallacious arguments notwithstanding, have a good look in the mirror. And enjoy following reports:
https://thediplomat.com/2016/04/the-iran-north-korea-connection/
https://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP351.html
https://sputniknews.com/military/201602171034893494-russia-iran-military-deals/
https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-01/where-did-iran-get-its-military-arms-over-last-70-years
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/05679329008448983?journalCode=tadl19
Do you think that every able-bodied person in a country is trained in the use of sophisticated weapons and/or have the courage to resist advances of a powerful army out in the open? Your assumption is misplaced.
Besides the Iraqi military, thousands of armed [and trained] Iraqi civilian volunteers (i.e. Fedayeen) fought US troops in Iraq when they invaded the country in 2003, and were advancing towards Baghdad and other cities.
CONVERSELY:
US-led forces adopted Blitzkrieg model of warfare - with the art of 'surgical strikes' in the mix - to overwhelm Iraqi defenses, and seized control of various locations of significance across Iraq with rapid advances. In this manner, US-led forces did not create any visible front-lines, and prevented Iraqi people from mobilizing against them in massive numbers and offer them a war-of-attrition. Invasion process was brilliantly executed in short.
However, US-led forces found out about a year later that they were not welcome in Iraq as Iraqi cities turned into bastions of resistance one by one. Clashes erupted in different parts of the country accordingly and US-led forces blasted several cities to ruins. Iran and Syria took advantage of these circumstances and slipped both arms and men through the gaps in borders. It took US-led forces 4 years to stabilize much of Iraq (2004 - 2008) and establish a functioning government there, and Obama administration called them off in 2011.
---
When Iraqi military invaded Iran in 1980, it made calculated advances for a time but halted its operations on a premature note. In this manner, Iraqi military established [clearly visible] front-lines within Iran, and offered Iranian people ample time and opportunity to mobilize against them in massive numbers. Iraq lost the initiative to dictate the course of war from this point onwards until 1987, thanks to Saddam Hussein's miscalculations.
Poor tactics, inadequate numbers, ill-conceived objectives, and political interference, prevented Iraqi military to achieve breakthrough in Abadan and advance much further into Iran, and take Tehran.
Thanks for the laugh. Your joke is in poor taste though.
Wait! When did I call it a worthless show for public consumption?
Re-examine my words:
"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]."
Comprehension problems?
It is, however, true that we do not have the American side of story of its loss over Iran in 2011. Mostly Iran boasting about how it got the drone.
Jeez, you do have comprehension problems.
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/
Genius! Re-examine the RED part.
In 2013, two [upgraded] Iranian F-4 Phantoms were scrambled to intercept an American MQ-1 Predator drone near the Iranian coastline. However, two F-22 Raptors also approached Iranian coastline, virtually undetected, and surprised Iranian F-4 Jets from behind with a radio message. The Iranian F-4 Jets sped away from the scene with their tails between their legs. Learn more from here: https://theaviationist.com/2013/09/19/f-22-f-4-intercept/
In that manner, USAF send a clear message to Iranian generals that stealth is far from obsolete, and their claims are worthless.
RQ-170 is advanced for a drone but is not in the league of F-35, F-22 and B-2 in terms of sophistication, capabilities (offensive and defensive) and stealthy attributes; not even close.
This is funny and ironic at the same time, and your disbelief is the cherry on the top of your cake of delusions.
Some of the most reliable sources [of information] on the web have confirmed the incidents of Houthi rebels subjecting American warships to ASCM attacks when they were operating really close to their shores in 2016 after the HSV-2 Swift incident earlier. For example: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/slcm-2016-10-12.htm
Among those American warships, USS Mason neutralized all ASCM attacks with its robust defenses whereas USS Nitze neutralized 3 Houthi-operated radar installations near Yemeni shores which were being used to guide ASCM attacks on ships. I have seen the clip of USS Nitze launching Tomahawk cruise missiles towards relevant targets in Yemen in response to Houthi aggression in 2016.
My take: actions of USS Mason were concealed from the public in order to preserve the sales of ASCM. Common perception is that sea-skimming cruise missiles are invisible to radars [true to large extent but some radars can detect them], and a good choice for anti-shipping strikes [absolutely true].
Nevertheless, I shared with you the footage of a live-fire exercise in 2014 [FTM-25] involving an American Arleigh Burke class destroyer which neutralized a barrage of one SRBM and two ASCM with its formidable defenses. The footage provide clear evidence of these intercepts. You need to step out from your shell of denial, and pay attention to valuable information.
As for Saudi-owned vessels, none are in the league of the American Arleigh Burke class destroyer. The latter is the most powerful and advanced destroyer in existence.
From the aforementioned link:
Few seemed to note that before the war, on May 27, Nasrallah had actually—and publicly—embraced the guerrilla tactic of hiding soldiers among civilians. “[Hezbollah fighters] live in their houses, in their schools, in their churches, in their fields, in their farms and in their factories,” he said, adding, “You can’t destroy them in the same way you would destroy an army.” By war’s end, it was clear that Nasrallah was right. Hezbollah, though severely wounded, remained a fighting force in defiant objection to all U.N. resolutions calling for it to be disarmed.
One thing is clear: Hezbollah doesn't have honor, and doesn't fight in a fair manner.
Same source pointed out how media played a role in shaping international opinion against Israel for its attacks on locations/structures harboring civilians and Hezbollah cowards. And Israel eventually caved in.
And;
"Hezbollah provided no official estimates of its own losses, but Israel figured that it had killed 500-600 guerrilla fighters."
Lebanon's Higher Relief Council provided premature estimates of losses at the time. Neutral sources put casualties of Hezbollah fighters at 270: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...y-in-lebanon-and-israel-idUSL0822571220070709
1. Israel had no prior experience with this kind of foe.
2. Did you read the report of RAND which I shared with you? Olmert administration's reluctance to invade Lebanon with a large force to rout Hezbollah [early on], worked in the favor of Hezbollah.
If a country is casualties-weary and complacent, then it is not ready for war; this was the Israel of 2006. Nevertheless, a war is a valuable instructor, and Israel is no longer complacent about it. FYI: https://www.timesofisrael.com/preparing-for-fight-against-hezbollah-army-tries-out-combat-reshuffle/
Equipment wise, Israel have developed and fielded Iron Dome systems to counter mortars and rockets, and Trophy APS to shield its MBT from ATGMs. Israel is also developing additional set-of-defenses to counter a wide-range of targets including cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and drones.
Where is the proof of AEGIS being stationed close to Israel at the time of this incident?
You telling me that Israeli radar systems in the vicinity could not detect a 9 feet long drone with too many edges and lack of RAM coating?
Sorry to disappoint you:
"According to the information provided by Israeli media outlets, radar stations detected the UAV when it was flying parallel to the coastline southbound from Lebanon. As said, two F-16s were scrambled to intercept the Slow Mover: they trailed the intruder for some 30 minutes before hitting the target as it was flying north of Beersheba."
Source: https://theaviationist.com/2012/10/11/hezbollah-uav/
This is the statement:
IDF Spokesman Brig. Gen. Ronen Manelis said Israel "identified an Iranian drone drone which took off from Syrian territory. The drone was identified by IAF systems and was downed by an IAF helicopter. The Iranian drone fell in our territory and is in our possession."
Source: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...-aerial-activity-in-northern-israel-1.5806508
Not sure which systems were involved.
In the latest incident, a PAC-2 system detected and killed a drone on its own which intruded into Israeli airspace from Syria: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-shoots-down-drone-infiltrating-from-syria-1.6267047
Genius! This thread tells the whole story: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...di-became-leader-of-the-islamic-state.567850/
Nice theory, but something positive. At the least, you admit that US turned on ISIS.
1. Obama administration decided against 'regime change' in Syria in 2013, in part due to ISIS movement in the country.but of course, biased minds would see U.S/Israel/Europe/Gulf monarchies/Turkey defeat in Syria as a win
2. Obama administration dispatched US troops to Syria in 2014 to counter ISIS movement there (i.e. Operation Inherent Resolve); US could not ignore ISIS footprint in Syria while confronting it in Iraq.
3. GCC is fighting in Yemen.
Last edited:
Crystal-Clear
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2017
- Messages
- 5,832
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
yepImam Khomeini (RA):
"America can't do shit against us"
You think Imam Khomeini was wrong?
more costlier then oil ?
.
.
i doubt ..usa isnt the only problem . as long as iran push the blockade it friends will turn jnto enemy.
not practical . isn will targey iranian ships whi were deploying mines .
Aramagedon
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 8,801
- Reaction score
- -13
- Country
- Location
They have cleared our Taliban enemy on our right side. They cleared Saddam on our left side. They’re milking PGCC oil money.Imam Khomeini (RA):
"America can't do shit against us"
You think Imam Khomeini was wrong?
They have pushed millions Shias and Sunni Muslims toward us.
Yet you think they have done anything wrong against us?
My post is sarcasm but truth.
America is a dumb bogey.
Whats the difference if it is based on UAE or KSA or Bahrain ?
B@KH
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,059
- Reaction score
- -11
- Country
- Location
USA can Only try opening the straight of Hormuz with the assistance from turkey and pakistan otherwise usa cannot open it. but both these usa allies are not good allies any more due to changing regional scenarios. but who knows.
timmy_area51
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2018
- Messages
- 1,217
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
i'm of course talking about the supposed iranian military plans , which don't exist at all. not the arab identity of the mentioned countries ...
it does make a difference . for instance the american f-22 's are based in UAE , not KSA or Bahrian ...
Not sure how Turkey and Pakistan can help unless they provide minesweeper ships.
Similar threads
