What's new

Will Iran enter to the war against Israel?

What the hell are you talking about?

If the USAF wanted to map out Iranian coastal defence, they would have sent EW aircraft (Like RC-135, EP-3 or EC-130) because that way you actively trap the Electronic Signal, Radiation or and other parameters instead of depends on Iranian response, not saying the USAF had not done it, but this is NOT the mission of this MQ-1

Knowing the individual defense's location is one thing, knowing the entire chain is another, just because they send up a MQ-1 and waiting on your response does not mean they don't know shit, in fact, they send up 2 F-22 chasing it means they know where the threat come from, or at least this is going to expect contact.
what about RQ-4 and P-8 Poseidon ?

I gave two tries but could not figure out WTF he was talking about. I think this guy is truly shortsighted. I doubt he could think beyond one maybe two moves.

I been to two Red Flags, once with an observer team for the F-111 and once with my own F-16 squadron participated. You can recon and/or you can provoke. You can provoke and observe responses. You can recon, guess responses, provoke, then analyze if your guesses are correct and how proximate. With technologically competent opponents, such as Soviet/Russia and China, best to recon first and provoke later. With less technologically comparable opponents, pretty much the ME entirely, you can provoke first because usually they need eyeballs on target before they can make decisions, further, because many small countries do not always get along with each other, they need to respond ASAP so for US, provoke first and observe works. Sacrificing a UAV is small cost compare to what we always gains in intel, but he is jeering at US for that loss. Weird. :disagree:
Good so you believe in 2019 when we blow RQ-4 and Spared p-8 they were aware they are being targeted, well they were not aware of it as the RQ-4 defense was not engaged
clearly show who is shortsighted me or you the people who think Iran air defense of 2013 is in the same league with Iran air defense and radar coverage of 2023

It still wouldn't make any sense.

That RQ-4 was shot down, which mean that drone would have been able to transmit whatever or whoever that shot it down, you will literally have to turn on the radar, have it paint the target and then prompt something to shoot it down, again, that's the entire kill chain. The issue here is not whether or not the platform is lost, you can kill a MQ-1 or RQ-4, those are drone, they are expendable and supposed to be used like that, that's why a drone was used instead of a manned platform.

And if a few millions or even hundred million dollars drone can make Iran show their hand and attack it, that's a bargain.
go do your research , your people in p-8 were not aware of what is going on until the drone was destroyed in front of their eyes.
and no technically there are other ways to do it
 
Last edited:
what about RQ-4 and P-8 Poseidon ?


Good so you believe in 2019 when we blow RQ-4 and Spared p-8 they were aware they are being targeted, well they were not aware of it as the RQ-4 defense was not engaged
clearly show who is shortsighted me or you the people who think Iran air defense of 2013 is in the same league with Iran air defense and radar coverage of 2023


go do your research , your people in p-8 were not aware of what is going on until the drone was destroyed in front of their eyes.
and no technically there are other ways to do it
You probably really need to do some research.........

Why would a P-8 know a drone, which is an Air platform, was destroyed? P-8 is a MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT, they are used to detect sub and attack them with the onboard torpedo, their radar is not better than any radar on a Boeing 707 or whatever platform it based on.


You confused P-8 with an AWACS like E-3D or E-8....

And lol, do you think US will fly a P-8 that close to Iranian water? "Spared" lol? You shoot it down over international water, then you are looking at a full-scale US invasion to Iran the next day. Dude, you are not China........and even China don't dare to shoot down the EP-3 and EC-135 flying close to their border, the only thing they can do is to harassed those flight crew.
 
Last edited:
You probably really need to do some research.........

Why would a P-8 know a drone, which is an Air platform, was destroyed? P-8 is a MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT, they are used to detect sub and attack them with the onboard torpedo, their radar is not better than any radar on a Boeing 707 or whatever platform it based on.


You confused P-8 with an AWACS like E-3D or E-8....

And lol, do you think US will fly a P-8 that close to Iranian water? "Spared" lol? You shoot it down over international water, then you are looking at a full-scale US invasion to Iran the next day. Dude, you are not China........and even China don't dare to shoot down the EP-3 and EC-135 flying close to their border, the only thing they can do is to harassed those flight crew.
what does ISR mean to you

or
In U.S. service, the P-8A is complemented by the MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) which provides continuous surveillance.
can drop and monitor sonobuoys, and can operate in conjunction with other assets, including the Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton maritime surveillance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
Australia considered the purchase of a number of Global Hawks for maritime and land surveillance. The Global Hawk was to be assessed against the General Atomics MQ-9 Mariner in trials in 2007.[135] The Global Hawk aircraft would have operated in conjunction with crewed Boeing P-8 Poseidon aircraft, as a replacement of aging Lockheed AP-3C Orion aircraft.
the airplanes were working with each other and they were flying side by side according to USA 12km away from each other
 
what does ISR mean to you
You still need to look at what type of ISR. You don't just load everything on a plane and try to detect everything, P-8 is designed to monitor naval traffic, which uses forward radar and sonar, none of them can detect high altitude target.

It's like saying when a M3 Bradley failed to detect a gunboat or high-flying bomber and then you ask why did that M3 failed to detect them, what did ISR stand for?


And on top of that, that drone and that P-8 were flew by two different branch, the Drone were from CIA/USAF and the P-8 was from the Navy.

or



the airplanes were working with each other and they were flying side by side according to USA 12km away from each other

12 km is not side by side dude.......that's about 30 full length football field put side by side to each other and those two were in either end. that's more than half the distant of 12 nm (about 22km) territorial limit.

Dude, you are clutching the last straw
 
And on top of that, that drone and that P-8 were flew by two different branch, the Drone were from CIA/USAF and the P-8 was from the Navy.
but incidentally just 12km away from each other
P-8 is designed to monitor naval traffic, which uses forward radar and sonar, none of them can detect high altitude target.
it was flying with RQ-4 that was designed to detect air defense and i assure you that 3rd of khordad air defense system was not a high altitude threat at all it was on a freaking ground and launch video Iran post showed it was not even hidden in mountain it was in open field viewing the sea
12 km is not side by side dude.......that's about 30 full length football field put side by side to each other and those two were in either end. that's more than half the distant of 12 nm (about 22km) territorial limit.

Dude, you are clutching the last straw
yeah incidentally 12km from each other for this much
CENTCOM_RQ-4A_Flight_Path_map.jpg

the p-8 was not stalking that RQ-45 at all
 
but incidentally just 12km away from each other

It wouldn't matter if they are 12km away or 6 km away, unless they can see each other physically or there are some joint operations going on, otherwise both may not know each other exist, again, the Navy launch the P-8 and the Air Force or CIA launch the RQ-4. They don't need to talk to each other. Especially so in the case of CIA, they don't talk to no one.

it was flying with RQ-4 that was designed to detect air defense and i assure you that 3rd of khordad air defense system was not a high altitude threat at all it was on a freaking ground and launch video Iran post showed it was not even hidden in mountain it was in open field viewing the sea

You are talking about how the RQ-4 is shot down, I don't know, RQ-4 is not stealth, and they only have basic countermeasure, if they got shot down then they got shot down, I mean that's what drone did, high risk operation.

yeah incidentally 12km from each other for this much
CENTCOM_RQ-4A_Flight_Path_map.jpg

the p-8 was not stalking that RQ-45 at all
Again, you are talking about more than half the international maritime border limit. The RQ-4 may even be within Iranian airspace actually when it got shot down, again, they use RQ-4 instead of RC-135 means this is high risk Ie hugging the border, you are talking about maybe 1 or 2 km different between in and out of the border, not 12 km......

12 km is a lot. And as I explained before, unless the CIA told the Navy, the Navy probably will not know they launched an RQ-4. I used to run TOC for the Army, I don't know what other branch have in the area unless they told me I don't have access to Navy or Air Force asset unless they gave it to me. And again, this is CIA ops, they usually tell no one......
 
You know nothing. You sound like a child using sophisticated words not knowing their meaning.
No. The difference between you and I is that I have relevant experience. I was invited to come here back in '09 and since then, I have debunked many outrageous claims about technical issues, and each debunking has credible technical support. To date, no one managed to challenge my rebuttals. Looks like YOU will be among those 'no one'.
 
You don't know it's final destination.
You assume to know. If it's preprogrammed, it is impossible for you to know.
That is stupid. New York City is a target for Soviet/Russia ICBMs. So we know where an iCBM is going. If there are 10 ICBMs launched, eventually based on radar detection, a trajectory will reveal. So at the high level, you are wrong to start.

Terminal just means the last several seconds of it's flight; it's not a definition of a change in it's behavior. A maneuverable missile can maneuver at any phase of it's flight.
The laugh is on YOU.

The terminal phase is not time limited but when a missile must make a final orientation to the target. That time could be in the last seconds of its flight or the last minute, depends on the design of the missile itself. So at that point in flight, it does have a change in behavior.

Can we make a missile maneuver at ALL phases of its flight? Yes, but it would be stupid, just like you, to do so. In post 396 I mentioned an 'error' signal where the missile deviate from its target. Here are the technical supporting sources...


The guidance algorithm generates maneuver reference, in terms of normal acceleration, that is fed to the flight control system. The algorithm is based on Proportional Navigation (PN) approach, with scheduled navigation gains. The navigation gains are scheduled as a function of Line of Sight (LOS) and desired flight path angles at engagement stage, hence it may be exploited for determining the initial engagement point. For a desired navigation gain value, the LOS is also related to the maximum value of normal acceleration reference, hence it can be used for limiting the maneuver that must be executed by the missile.​


The missile and target motion relative to inertial space can be combined mathematically to obtain the relative motion between the missile and the target. The terminal sensor, typically an RF or IR seeker, measures the angle between an inertial reference and the missile-to-target line-of-sight (LOS) vector,which is called the LOS angle. The state estimator, e.g., a Kalman filter, uses LOS angle measurements to estimate LOS angle rate and perhaps other quantities such as target acceleration. The state estimates feed a guidance law that develops the flight control commands required to intercept the target. The flight control system forces the missile to track the guidance commands, resulting in the achieved missile motion. The achieved missile motion alters the relative geometry, which then is sensed and used to determine the next set of flight control commands, and so on. This loop continues to operate until the missile intercepts the target.

Note the highlighted. During maneuvers, the target is constantly moving across sensor view because the missile is maneuvering. Once the target reached sensor center, that error signal is zero, then as the missile maneuver, that error signal increases, then the flight control system commands the missiles to the opposite direction. And the loop continues. But this loop cannot continue forever. At one point in flight, the missile must stop maneuvering in order to achieve a constant zero error signal simply because distance is approaching zero.


TERMINAL PHASE. — The terminal or final phase is of great importance. The last phase of missile guidance must have a high degree of accuracy, as well as fast response to guidance signals to ensure an intercept. Near the end of the flight, the missile may be required to maneuver to its maximum capability in order to make the sharp turns needed to overtake and hit a fast-moving, evasive target. In some missiles, maneuvers are limited during the early part of the terminal phase. As the missile gets closer to the target, it becomes more responsive to the detected error signals. In this way, it avoids excessive maneuvers during the first part of terminal phase.


Even if the target is fixed ground, the correct word is still 'intercept'. This is because mathematically, ALL components of the targeting system are assumed to be capable of acceleration. This is so that the math can be transported from an ICBM that is against a fixed ground target to an AMRAAM that is against an airborne mobile target. So as we can see from our sources, even the 'terminal phase' has its own sub-stages. And at one point, the missile cannot, or SHOULD NOT maneuver in order to have target lock, even against a fixed ground target.

The terminal phase is where the defender can intercept a missile or a descending warhead. To intercept a missile before terminal, we would have to move closer to launch site, wherever that maybe.

You are on a military oriented forum and I bet that you never thought that you would encounter someone who actually have relevant military experience, so you ended up posting comments on issues you know nothing about. I gave you relevant keywords but apparently you did not use them. Now, in front of all the silent readers out there, your ignorance is plain to see.

 
This thread should be RE-titled to:

"WHY SHOULD IRAN ENTER A WAR ON BEHALF OF SUNNIE AREBS LIKE PALESTINIANS AND HAMAS, WHEREAS THEIR OWN SUNNI AREB AND TURK BROTHRES TURN THEIR HEADS AND LOOK THE OTHER WAY AS IDF WIPES GAZANS OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH?"
 
This thread should be RE-titled to:

"WHY SHOULD IRAN ENTER A WAR ON BEHALF OF SUNNIE AREBS LIKE PALESTINIANS AND HAMAS, WHEREAS THEIR OWN SUNNI AREB AND TURK BROTHRES TURN THEIR HEADS AND LOOK THE OTHER WAY AS IDF WIPES GAZANS OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH?"
It is not about who is sunni or shia but who are allies. HAMAS is an iranian proxy hence if anyone was to join should be iran this is iran's war..

Everytime an Iran proxy attacks like the Hezbollah 2006 sheba farms attack and the 2023 hamas attack were both started by Tehran without thinking clearly and they play blame game until we pressure Israel to ceases hostility because Iran has no leverage over Israel but they love to force their proxies into conflicts where they have no part in it.. This Gaza-Israel will come to conclusion but the world will know who started.. A decision coming from Tehran.. Hamas is under the payroll of Iran literally foot soldier to foot soldier..
 
Last edited:
This thread should be RE-titled to:

"WHY SHOULD IRAN ENTER A WAR ON BEHALF OF SUNNIE AREBS LIKE PALESTINIANS AND HAMAS, WHEREAS THEIR OWN SUNNI AREB AND TURK BROTHRES TURN THEIR HEADS AND LOOK THE OTHER WAY AS IDF WIPES GAZANS OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH?"

You are the one that support stupid Hamas for decades. All Sunni nations have been so long not backing Hamas, we only support Fatah.

So you that should take more responsibility

1700666301415.jpeg
 
It is not about who is sunni or shia but who are allies. HAMAS is an iranian proxy hence if anyone was to join should be iran this is iran's war..

Everytime an Iran proxy attacks like the Hezbollah 2006 sheba farms attack and the 2023 hamas attack were both started by Tehran without thinking clearly and they play blame game until we pressure Israel to ceases hostility because Iran has no leverage over Israel but they love to force their proxies into conflicts where they have no part in it.. This Gaza-Israel will come to conclusion but the world will know who started.. A decision coming from Tehran.. Hamas is under the payroll of Iran literally foot soldier to foot soldier..
Arebs and turks were never your allies, never are, never will be. At best, they're somewhat toothless enemies at the moment. They will not hesitate to turn the table on Iran if opportunity is given to them. These arebs and turks believe in killing your men and taking you women and properties as their own. some kinda ally you got there, Joe! LOL
You are the one that support stupid Hamas for decades. All Sunni nations have been so long not backing Hamas, we only support Fatah.

So you that should take more responsibility

View attachment 1031240
Who do you mean by "you supported Hamas..." I am an outsider who thinks Iran should do things in the interest of its own nation as a whole including all ethnicities(yes azari too), its country, its government, and the hell with all the rest just like other countries.

Do you see any arebs or tuks helping Gazans? Big fat NO. It is not Iran responsibilities specially in times like this with threat of war, sanction and all.

Mohamed Bone Saw is rich as hell, but won't lift a finger to help Gazans, why should Iran.
Iran is being blamed for the suffering in Gaza caused by treachery of their own areb and turk suni brothers. How it that becoming?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom