What's new

$10.8 bln "bunker-buster" US sells to UAE & Saudia

Look my friend. If Iran can only rely on SAMs, but not offensive capability then it is doomed. Warfare has changed today.

You clearly did not read what I wrote. First, Iran's military is not constructed around offensive capabilities; its assets are orchestrated for having a deterrence capability. Its deterrence lies in its ballistic missile arsenal, naval capabilities, nuclear program, its regional proxies, cyber warfare capabilities, etc. And the notion that warfare has changed is something I already brought up in my previous post.
 
.
Protect its airspace from whom? The United States or Israel? Forget about that. Even if Iran would spend billions on buying Western or Russian air fighters, the US (and to some extent Israel) would have no problem to eliminate Iran's Air Force in case of a confrontation. That would not only be a unnecessary loss of money, but also an extremely shortsighted and dumb military strategy.

This is one of the most dense excuses I have ever heard in my life. What you were suggesting was like giving a knife to a butcher to slaughter the goat easily. If you would have had built a strong Air Force defense, you would at least deterred the Israelis from launching a preemptive strike against your country.

The money excuse is hilarious though! Sounded like you were talking about Chad when Iran is one of the richest countries on the planet. If Iran developed a strong Air Force in the 90s and 00's things would greatly looked different.

You see, unlike KSA, Iran faces threats of the sole world superpower. No amount of money available would give Iran a conventional momentum against the US.

Would that discourage you from protecting your country? The US is surely the strongest of all, but if you see what happened to her in Vietnam you would into this from a different perspective.

That is why Iran shifted away from its conventional military policy towards a more asymmetrical policy. To some extent the Iran-Iraq War, which caused enormous economical and social damages to Iran, has played a role in this change of policy. What the Iran-Iraq War taught Iran was that the West would not only allow Iran to gain a conventional victory in the Middle East, but also that its costs do not outweigh its gains.

The Revolutionary Guards were the ones who supposed to play this kind of role not your navy, land forces, and air forces.


Furthermore, what Iran foresaw and KSA didn't, was that military confrontations, regionally and globally, at the end of the 20st centuries were increasingly having a asymmetrical character. Palestinian resistance, the First Lebanon War, etc. were all signs that conventional power in some cases is not enough to gain military victories.

This isn't quite accurate either. Give me a list of wars fought in an asymmetrical manner, and list out wars being fought conventionally?

Another country in the Middle East, Syria, did not make efforts to change her military character too, and that is one of the reasons why it has difficulties to defeat rebel groups at the moment.

Neither Assad or the pro-Assad's forces or Hezbollah managed to remove the rebels. They are at large controlling %50 of Syria.

Their conventional capabilities have proven to be unable to defeat small, mobile and determined rebel forces. Therefor, it is no surprise that the most capable and successful pro-Assad military organizations have a asymmetrical character, which Hezbollah and the Abu Fadl al Abbas groups are example of

I have to ask the same question I asked you above. Why hadn't these militias crushed all rebels by now? They have been fighting for two years but they couldn't defeat them.

Besides Syria, KSA has failed to build up its own asymmetrical capabilities too

If KSA failed to build her own asymmetrical capabilities, the rebels would have kicked the pocket centuries ago. xD...

They have failed, after two years of supporting rebel groups in Syria, to unite the opposition, and are dependent on foreign military equipment to supply rebels groups

Capturing half of Syria isn't a sign of defeat unless you wish to make yourself feel happy and satisfied. Another thing which gave all these pro-militias advantages against the rebels was the CAS, something no one can deny.

Iran on the other hand has 100% self-sufficiency in producing low-intensity military equipment, and therefor is more independent in order protect its own interests.

While keeping her own economy deteriorates effectively on its people!

This was the biggest tragic mistake Iran has ever taken in this conflict. The presence of Iranian-made equipments approved to the whole world that Iran is getting involved in the mass-murdering of unharmed people, but I'm guess that I'm right to say that Iran is willing.

KSA on the other hand is dependent on countries like Croatia to supply its forces in Syria.

Here I must say that I never thought that Iranians are gullible enough to think of themselves that way. Countries like Saudi Arabia, the US, or Israel won't give their own weapons or at least what they produced to insurgents :lol: For example, Iran never supplied Hezbollah with Iranian-made weapons but they give them Russian's and Chinese in order to divert as much attention as possible.

Besides equipment, Iran has proven to be capable of setting up professional and disciplined pro-Iranian militias too. Hezbollah, who have enjoyed Iranian supplied and produces weapons and Iranian military training, managed to defend itself against Israeli forces in 2006

If you think Hezbollah won the war against Israel then you've got to be delusional! While Hezbollah lost more than 7k, Israel lost ~160 not to mention the destruction of their stronghold.


while the militias that KSA has supported are usual extremely undisciplined, unreliable, unpredictable and ineffective to some extent. If KSA would have invested in these asymmetrical capabilities, I have no doubt that Assad would have been defeated already. But Assad has managed to withstand rebel advancement in the summer of 2012, and even to stage counter offensives.

I told you, if they were awful as you claim then how on earth did they managed to gain a control over half of the country? :lol:


Protect its airspace from whom? The United States or Israel? Forget about that. Even if Iran would spend billions on buying Western or Russian air fighters, the US (and to some extent Israel) would have no problem to eliminate Iran's Air Force in case of a confrontation. That would not only be a unnecessary loss of money, but also an extremely shortsighted and dumb military strategy. You see, unlike KSA, Iran faces threats of the sole world superpower. No amount of money available would give Iran a conventional momentum against the US.

That is why Iran shifted away from its conventional military policy towards a more asymmetrical policy. To some extent the Iran-Iraq War, which caused enormous economical and social damages to Iran, has played a role in this change of policy. What the Iran-Iraq War taught Iran was that the West would not only allow Iran to gain a conventional victory in the Middle East, but also that its costs do not outweigh its gains.

Furthermore, what Iran foresaw and KSA didn't, was that military confrontations, regionally and globally, at the end of the 20st centuries were increasingly having a asymmetrical character. Palestinian resistance, the First Lebanon War, etc. were all signs that conventional power only is not enough to gain military victories. Another country in the Middle East, Syria, did not make efforts to change her military character too, and that is one of the reasons why it has difficulties to defeat rebel groups at the moment. Their conventional capabilities have proven to be unable to defeat small, mobile and determined rebel forces. Therefor, it is no surprise that the most capable and successful pro-Assad military organizations have a asymmetrical character, which Hezbollah and the Abu Fadl al Abbas groups are example of.

Besides Syria, KSA has failed to build up its own asymmetrical capabilities too. They have failed, after two years of supporting rebel groups in Syria, to unite the opposition, and are dependent on foreign military equipment to supply rebels groups. Iran on the other hand has 100% self-sufficiency in producing low-intensity military equipment, and therefor is more independent in order protect its own interests. Iran, like KSA, has no problem to supply pro-Assad forces with indigenous-produced drones, MANPADs, rifles, munition, artillery, ATMs, etc. KSA on the other hand is dependent on countries like Croatia to supply its forces in Syria.

Besides equipment, Iran has proven to be capable of setting up professional and disciplined pro-Iranian militias too. Hezbollah, who has enjoyed Iranian supplied and produced weapons and Iranian military training, managed to defend itself against Israeli forces in 2006, has demonstrated such effectiveness, while the militias that KSA has supported are usual extremely undisciplined, unreliable, unpredictable and ineffective to some extent. If KSA would have invested in these asymmetrical capabilities, I have no doubt that Assad would have been defeated already. But Assad has managed to withstand rebel advancement in the summer of 2012, and even to stage counter offensives.

People overlook the fact that we are in a new military era right now. The days of huge tank battles, air wars and infantry clashes are long gone. It is this insight that Iran has managed to deter outside forces from attacking her assets, and subsequently this misjudgment that has led to the removal of Saddam and Qadaffi. Naturally, if it wasn't for Iran, Assad's name would have been on this list too. Lucky for him Iran, unlike USA, does not betray its friends in times of adversity.
 
.
Well that means they're so weak right then what you waiting for and why you want the west attack them why don't you do the job. if you wana shoot, shoot don't talk.

Why would I want to attack them? :/ I never said we should. It is Iran on Israel's throat and vice versa :lol: ..
 
.
True, but I thought that India wanted 80 something before.
India is buying 126 Rafaels not less than 100.


Qaher is more of an embarrassment than an R&D project. Qahers design has been universally pilloried by designers all over the world and even on this forum there exist 100 page thread about technical unviability of Qaher.

Your airforce is extremely weak compared to that of Saudi's and even UAE's.Most of your jets are third gen (Saequeh is local version of F-5) which would be completely hopeless against 4.5 gen F-15 and F-16 that Saudi's and UAE could field and that too in large numbers (237 saudi and 147 by UAE) against 52 F-14 and 21 Mig29 ( both suffering from spare part problem) + 5 F-1 and 17 F-7 and 20 F-5.

Iran doesn't have 52 operational F-14s, they've only got 24 ....
 
.
This is one of the most dense excuses I have ever heard in my life. What you were suggesting was like giving a knife to a butcher to slaughter the goat easily. If you would have had built a strong Air Force defense, you would at least deterred the Israelis from launching a preemptive strike against your country.

Iran does not have build its military around a Israeli attack, but around an attack conducted by the US. Even if Israel would attack Iran, the US would not hesitate to assist Israeli forces. Israel has never been worried about Iran's air force. And Iran never worried about its air force too. Iran could have bought additional MiG 29s and other air fighters from Russia when they had the option to do so, but they declined from further weapon deals.

The money excuse is hilarious though! Sounded like you were talking about Chad when Iran is one of the richest countries on the planet. If Iran developed a strong Air Force in the 90s and 00's things would greatly looked different.

The money excuse is not far-fetched. Even the Soviet Union could not, economically and military, keep up to the US. Like I said, Iran can never buy enough quality air fighters to gain retain air supremacy against the US.

Would that discourage you from protecting your country? The US is surely the strongest of all, but if you see what happened to her in Vietnam you would into this from a different perspective.

The Vietcong did not fought the US in a classical conventional way, but asymmetrically. That is why the US, in all their frustration, used weapons like Agent Orange and Napalm, against these forces. In the same way, Iran has build its forces around the same asymmetrical doctrine too.

The Revolutionary Guards were the ones who supposed to play this kind of role not your navy, land forces, and air forces.

And that is why the IRGC plays such important role in Iran's military doctrine.

This isn't quite accurate either. Give me a list of wars fought in an asymmetrical manner, and list out wars being fought conventionally?

Look for military conflicts the past 30 years in the Middle East. Non-state actors have increased their military power.

Neither Assad or the pro-Assad's forces or Hezbollah managed to remove the rebels. They are at large controlling %50 of Syria.

I never said they have removed the rebels; I said that they have been able to stop rebel advancements in key areas, and in some cases, even stage counter offensives. Assad was on the bring of defeat in 2012.

I have to ask the same question I asked you above. Why hadn't these militias crushed all rebels by now? They have been fighting for two years but they couldn't defeat them.

Because their intention was never to crush these militias; their objectives were to stop rebel advancement in key areas, and to balance the military equation. Look what several FSA commanders have stated; the most effective organizations against them have been these pro-Assad militias.

If KSA failed to build her own asymmetrical capabilities, the rebels would have kicked the pocket centuries ago. xD...

What?

Capturing half of Syria isn't a sign of defeat unless you wish to make yourself feel happy and satisfied. Another thing which gave all these pro-militias advantages against the rebels was the CAS, something no one can deny.

They captured huge parts of Syria due to SAA ineffectiveness.

While keeping her own economy deteriorates effectively on its people!

This was the biggest tragic mistake Iran has ever taken in this conflict. The presence of Iranian-made equipments approved to the whole world that Iran is getting involved in the mass-murdering of unharmed people, but I'm guess that I'm right to say that Iran is willing.

Iran doesn't really gives a rat *** about how the world thinks of its role in Syria. In fact, Western powers are more and more willing to negotiate with Iran over Syria. But wasn't KSA the one who crushed the Bahrein opposition, supported Yemenite dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh? I'll guess when it comes to your own interests, you don't give a rats about the legitimate demands of these people. At least your country didn't.

Here I must say that I never thought that Iranians are gullible enough to think of themselves that way. Countries like Saudi Arabia, the US, or Israel won't give their own weapons or at least what they produced to insurgents :lol: For example, Iran never supplied Hezbollah with Iranian-made weapons but they give them Russian's and Chinese in order to divert as much attention as possible.

What? Iran supplied Hezbollah with its own missiles and rockets. Hezbollah's most advanced missiles were Iranian-made. Just like Hamas's most advances rocket was Iranian-made. And Iran produces these Russian and Chinese weapons too, unlike KSA.

I
f you think Hezbollah won the war against Israel then you've got to be delusional! While Hezbollah lost more than 7k, Israel lost ~160 not to mention the destruction of their stronghold.

Hezbollah did not lose 7k. Even Israel does not have given such losses for Hezbollah. You should read the Winograd report; Israel failed completely to destroy Hezbollah's military capabilities.
 
.
lol, why don't you oh successful people learn them how to have as shiny glittering great future as yours. We are eager to death to know how.

Sorry, couldn't miss that..:lol:

ill guarantee you that pakistans future is more brighter than saudia, we are a real power unlike you guys.
we without any oil money have better armed forces , we are 10 times more powerful then you.
you seem to be offended by my concern for your countries future, if so dont be i look at saudia as a leader of the muslims , however don't start taking us for granted because you might lose our respect you.
 
.
Than? :what:

You seemed to have some sort of miscomprehension, you utterly were misinformed about what the whole issue, and I confronted you with facts, yet you kept attacking me personally and continuing :lol:.



How can someone be stupid and arrogant at the same time :lol: Isn't that amazing? :D ... And we can't make ice-cream here in Arabia! It's damn hot.


this forum is a real eye opener lol, i always though of saudis as some holy people, but these guys are actually real pieces of work lol.
arrogance is a bliss, keep up this attitude and watch saudia go down.
 
. .
Good move by UAE & Saudi :agree:

They don't need them, nor will they ever use them, but 10 billions ain't much if you want to help secure USA's support (ain't much if you have it, that is)

In this, the Gulf states are playing much smarter than others: they know how to use their oil $ to the best outcome, as far as foreign relations are involved.
 
.
Why would I want to attack them? :/ I never said we should. It is Iran on Israel's throat and vice versa :lol: ..

So you don't believe in the famous conspiracy theory that Iran and Israel are secret lovers and all the fight is just a show to decieve Arabs and 'backstab' them? That's what some of your friends are advocating.
 
.
Welcome to the dark side! :partay:

Soon you shall be branded an infidel "kharji" by the al-Saud camp....... :woot:

this forum is a real eye opener lol, i always though of saudis as some holy people, but these guys are actually real pieces of work lol.
arrogance is a bliss, keep up this attitude and watch saudia go down.
 
.
So you don't believe in the famous conspiracy theory that Iran and Israel are secret lovers and all the fight is just a show to decieve Arabs and 'backstab' them? That's what some of your friends are advocating.

:lol: I'm only responsible for the things that I say not what others say my fellow.
 
.
this forum is a real eye opener lol, i always though of saudis as some holy people, but these guys are actually real pieces of work lol.

I'm glad you find out earlier than what normally takes from other people : lol: You still young man so no harm.

this forum is a real eye opener lol, i always though of saudis as some holy people, but these guys are actually real pieces of work lol.
arrogance is a bliss, keep up this attitude and watch saudia go down.

You are totally broke bro! I'm sorry but you have been reacting the word arrogant for weeks now yet no one acted arrogantly :lol:
 
.
When the UAE locally manufacture it, then they acquired all it's parts tech already. They have reached a good level by doing that.

Not true.

Local manufacturing doesn't mean acquiring the technological capability to use it again in another concept for other means. Theres a lot of different technology and knowledge in these systems, they don't have that knowledge which is what I mean they would get with inventing which you call "re-inventing of the wheel".
 
.
Not true.

Local manufacturing doesn't mean acquiring the technological capability to use it again in another concept for other means. Theres a lot of different technology and knowledge in these systems, they don't have that knowledge which is what I mean they would get with inventing which you call "re-inventing of the wheel".

Let me simplify it for you, let's suppose you want to make hand watches, and your neighbor who is a professional in this field learned you how to make it from scratch, as you can at that point collect the raw material and make from them every single part of the watch. Don't you have the technology here?

Another example, the first car was invented in French, yet, if I follow your logic, it's either car-manufacturing countries reinvented the car or they still don't have it's tech as they didn't invent it first...

Now, someone plz shoot me in the head. :suicide2:
 
.
Back
Top Bottom